Not that he hasn’t been acting all along, but when he died on a Peloton bike in the latest remake of Sex in the City, actor Chris Noth, “Big” on the show, went viral. That lasted for days, about a week, and then it happened.
Triggered by the recent ‘Sex and the City’ reboot, the women allege two incidents of misconduct they say took place more than a decade apart.
The two accusers alleged that they were raped by Noth, one in 2004 and the other in 2015. They appear, as has become the fashionable framing, to be credible accusations. In response, Noth “categorically denied” any misconduct.
The accusations against me made by individuals I met years, even decades, ago are categorically false. These stories could’ve been from 30 years ago or 30 days ago — no always means no — that is a line I did not cross. The encounters were consensual. It’s difficult not to question the timing of these stories coming out. I don’t know for certain why they are surfacing now, but I do know this: I did not assault these women.
A new Peloton commercial playing off “Big’s” death on the show disappeared immediately. Then came another accuser, whom Noth denied knowing.
One day later, a third woman came forward and claimed she was forcibly groped and digitally penetrated when she was working at a New York City restaurant in 2010.
It took a few more days for the rest of Noth’s career to crash.
The actor Chris Noth, 67, facing allegations that he sexually assaulted two women, has been dropped from “The Equalizer” and will no longer film any new episodes of the television series, Universal Television and CBS said in a joint statement on Monday.
As for his fellow Sex and the City actors who worked with him over the course of the series, the response was pro forma.
Sarah Jessica Parker is responding to allegations that her And Just Like That costar Chris Noth sexually assaulted multiple women. She released a joint statement with costars Kristin Davis and Cynthia Nixon on Monday, December 20.
“We are deeply saddened to hear the allegations against Chris Noth,” a message shared to all three of the Sex and the City stars’ Instagram Stories reads. “We support the women who have come forward and shared their painful experiences. We know it much be a very difficult thing to do and we commend them for it.”
One might expect Noth’s former co-stars to have some inkling, have heard some rumors of Noth’s behavior toward women, having worked with him for all those years, but there is no suggestion that they had any clue about Noth engaging in sexual misconduct.
Did he do it? In the past, the delay in making the allegations would have counted heavily against the accusers, but it’s since been subsumed by the narrative of being too afraid and humiliated to come forward. When #MeToo first arose, and women emerged with old accusations against “powerful” Hollywood men, it might have come out, but it didn’t. Nor did his role on The Equalizer trigger the accusers. But here they are now.
It may well be that he did “it,” or something close to “it,” or something they felt was sufficiently wrong in retrospect that they believe the accusations are true. Or not. I don’t know. Neither do you. There’s nothing known at present to preclude these allegations from being true, and so people will believe them because believing women is the current state of affairs.
At the same time, Noth categorically denied that he engaged in any sexual improprieties. Like his accusers, he, too, could be telling the truth, or at least his understanding of the truth. In the meantime, he’s lost his career, his television roles, his agent and his reputation.
This is where the litany of rationalizations begins, that Noth isn’t entitled to be publicly adored, to be a TV star, to a career that relies on the public perception of his being a sufficiently decent man to not be canceled. And, the perpetual lie that false accusations almost never happen imbues the accusations with the glow of legitimacy, sufficient to allow people to feel comfortable shrugging off the detail that everyone’s story sounds great until they are subject to cross-examination.
But there will be no cross here. There were no criminal accusations made against Noth. There is no civil suit. There is no trial where Chris Noth can defend himself from these accusations. He could sue the accusers for defamation, but that would put Noth in the untenable situation of having to prove the negative, that these things didn’t happen. Noth is left with nothing but naked accusations and no means with which to defend himself against them. In the interim, his career is in ruins.
Many won’t care. Whether it’s that women’s claims of sexual assault were ignored for so long that who cares if a few men’s lives are wrongfully ruined in the process of finally taking women seriously. Others will just believe, because they believe, that the accusations must be true. Maybe it’s because there are two (or three, or maybe another 50 women will suddenly appear) of them. Maybe it’s because they appear corroborated, even if it’s dubious, and none of it has been tested by trial.
Chris Noth could very well have done what he’s accused of doing. Unless there turns out to be some evidence that conclusively proves it an impossibility, which is extremely rare, the accusations are “credible” and could certainly be true. And they could also be false, or misconstrued, or just an effort to go after an actor who was flying high for a piece of his pie.
Except he’s already been tried in the court of social media and convicted, stripped of his career and reputation and sentenced to be a public pariah. Where can Chris Noth go to defend himself? Nowhere. There’s no place to go.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When he was on the screen,
He dreamed of being a king,
Having all that bling, undaunted,
But now he has to go,
MeToo shut down his whole show,
He’s still the king of Nothing.
I suppose he can always make an appearance on Law and Order SVU as a suspect now.
Touché
“Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”
“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”
After portraying an actor on SATC with the name “Big”, it appears that size does matter. But digital penetration?
::Eyeroll::
Where could Noth’s victims have gone for a fair trial? Ask women if the police & the courts were fair and impartial to sexual assault claims in 2004? Most were not.
Putting aside the accuracy of this now-trendy narrative, this is the system our society has established for people who claim to have been the victims of sexual assault. Had they gone to the police and it went nowhere, your argument might have legs. They didn’t. It doesn’t.
Regardless, we have certain foundational principles, such as innocent until proven guilty and due process. They’re not just legal rules, but principles. That victims of sexual assault were poorly treated years ago is not an excuse for abandoning all principles.
Are you saying this narrative is inaccurate? There are stats proving it. In addition to the countless ignored rape kits, even in cases of stranger attacks.
What part of “putting aside” flew over your head?
You knew he was one of the idiot children when you let his first comment post. Did you expect anything other than this dive down his ideological rabbit hole?
I try to be kind to the intellectually impaired.
You were still implying you believe it to be innacurate, why I am not sure. Maybe Noth’s victims knew based on the odds that reporting or suing him would be useless . https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-legal-loophole-allowed-my-rapist-to-be-acquitted-four-times_b_58b747d2e4b023018c6ccde1
While links are against the rules here, I’m going to leave yours in lest anybody not realize you have shit for brains. Now get lost.
The narrative is not only inaccurate, it’s legally wrong. Victims don’t get a fair trial; defendants do. But that only happens if there is a trial. Trials only happen if charges are brought. That seems unlikely to lawyers reviewing this stuff.
Do you understand what you don’t know?
You end with a rhetorical question, right?
You keep saying how “innocent until proven guilty and due process” are “not just legal rules, but principles.” What do you mean by that? That people who have not been proved and judged “guilty” in a court of law are entitled to be presumed innocent by society in all realms of life?
The general public sometimes figures that even though somebody has never been judged legally guilty in court (because of lack of evidence, suppressed evidence, statute of limitations, etc.) may still be guilty of something and treat them accordingly. And that usually means things like moral condemnation, denunciation, opprobrium, shunning, rejection, etc. Society does not require a court’s ratification to inflict those punishments. Are you saying it should?
This has been discussed at length here a few times in the past, so feel free to read if you want. But frankly, if you can’t grasp why these are principles, then it’s unlikely to help.
Durasim–please read. If only one person per day tries to capture logical thought as opposed to bare conclusion, this tilting-at-windmills place will have done its job.
I am a woman and I agree with you 100%. I am tired of people’s lives being ruined because everyone is now guilty until proven innocent. I don’t think this is fair. Why aren’t these women pressing charges? What bothers me, too, is where are his defenders? If my friend was accused, I would hope that I would stand up and say, “I can’t imagine him doing that.” 🙁 This business is sad.
Damn…another death sentence written in…
And now the tabloids are already reporting that Chris Noth’s marriage is “hanging by a thread” because of these recent developments. Maybe that’s all scurrilous rumor and she’ll stand by her man (but probably not if he stays unemployed).
But if your own spouse is ready to buy the allegations against you and discard you accordingly, why should the general public be any more restrained or circumspect?
This is the sort of “information” and “analysis” you find sufficiently meaningful to include in a comment at a law blog?
Sorry if that’s not as sufficient meaningful as the John Mellencamp and Aimee Mann songs and the bad poetry.
When public figures go through this process today of being condemned in a forum in which they cannot litigate a defense, their spouses jump ship too, despite there being some old principle that spouses should stay “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer.” That marital principle may be older than the presumption of innocence principle. Of course, it’s pretty worthless today, and lawyers played no small part in making it that way. So why should lawyers complain when another old principle, the presumption of innocence, starts losing its luster?
Some people contribute here by bringing humor or entertainment. Some by making illuminating points. But people who make things stupider are unwelcome. You make people stupider.
Making people stupider provides your profession with a greater reserve of clients.
Great idea. Go hang with our potential clients at reddit. Have fun!
On Reddit, they’re too busy crowing about Josh Duggar being convicted and disparaging his lawyers’ performances.
There ya go! Perfect for you.
Even if tabloids were accidentally correct, a spouse might believe there was no assault, but was consensual sexual behaviour with others during the marriage/relationship (= adultery), and be upset for that reason.