In light of the Weinstein bombshell I have a horrible but sincere question. Do victims who keep quite for fear of reprisal or especially those who settle for money to keep quiet bear any "responsibility" for subsequent victims? Now the horrible part of this is like, dude they're a victim. They're in a position where coming forward could result in loss of livelihood. I think in cases where people who are NOT victims themselves know something but don't speak out it is probably a little worse, but allow me to make an argument that it is not significantly worse. In the Gerry Sandusky case both underlings and superiors knew what was going on. The underlings were certainly in the same position as the victims in the Weinstein case in the sense that their entire livelihood was on the line. Sure they don't have to endure the victim shaming that often comes with the publicity, but its not like they had nothing to lose and just chose to keep quiet. This pondering is driven by a couple things that have happened. Other actors have come out and said Weinstein harassed or assaulted me too. And secondly, for example Terry Crews came out and said a hollywood exec groped his genitals at a gala or something similar. But in this case he's not citing Weinstein but he's also not naming the perpetrator. So this person who may be doing more harm is in some sense being protected by a victim. I sincerely apologize if anyone finds this distasteful. I don't know what I would do if I were ever in this situation, but just intellectually, it seems like we really need to stop being hush hush about powerful people being shits. Final cynical question... how long before Harvey Weinstein is making movies with Mel Gibson?