Internet asks to #FreeKesha After Judge Rules She Must Continue to Work with Alleged Rapist

Singer, songwriter and rapper Kesha broke down in tears in a courthouse today after a judge ruled that she would not be let of her 6 contract record deal with Sony.

Kesha had asked to be let out of her contract because of claims that her, and one of Sony’s top earning music producers, Dr Luke (Luke Gottwald) had drugged and raped her at age 18. And that his emotional abuse continued long after.

Kesha claims that she fears for her safety and has asked to nullify her contract with the record company. Sony Records claims that they will allow her to work with another producer but Kesha is afraid the record company won’t promote her music because Gottwald is one of their top earners and is more valuable to the company than the singer.

Six albums is a lot of work and technically can span the entire life of an artist. If the allegations are true that means this woman has just received a life sentence along side her abuser.

My advice? Take a note from John Cage’s famous 4’33 and ride that contract out in one long track. Meanwhile the rest of us should rage against the system that values the dollar over women’s rights and safety.

Here are some comments from twitter:

Amy Roth

Amy Davis Roth (aka Surly Amy) is a multimedia, science-loving artist who resides in Los Angeles, California. She makes Surly-Ramics and is currently in love with pottery. Daily maker of art and leader of Mad Art Lab. Support her on Patreon. Tip Jar is here.

Related Articles


  1. With bastards like that, you have to ask, how many other victims?
    Then you have to ask, what am I going to do about it?
    How about #boycottsony for a start?

  2. Sleazy attitude from Sony. Even if her next songs were all protest songs about Sony I would bet Sony could prevent them from seeing the light of day.

  3. Skeptic — One who questions everything, except the rape claim of a woman seeking to get out of a contract.

    1. Internet MRAs or dude bro – one who only questions women’s claims and then makes assumptions about them. Also known for basement dwelling, being overly emotional and the uncontrollable desire to communicate with said women online.

    2. Skeptic — One who questions everything

      Wait, I thought that was a postmodernist??? I get so confused with the difference between “questioning everything” (postmodernism) and “questioning everything” (skepticism).

    3. Okay, let’s do the skeptical thing. We have two competing hypotheses:
      1) Kesha lied about being raped to get out of her contract.
      2) Kesha tried to get out of her contract because she was raped.

      Let’s look at a few points:
      1) Getting a conviction for rape on the testimony of the victim alone is next to impossible.
      2) Women who report rape are routinely called liars and sluts.
      3) Publicly accusing your producer of rape is likely to end your career, regardless of outcome. (It’s a common problem in all sexual harassment cases; who’s going to hire you if you accused your previous boss?)
      4) A priori, an accusation of rape is much more likely to be true than false.

      These facts alone suggest that hypothesis 1 is highly unlikely. At best, it assumes that Kesha is a complete idiot, advised by idiots. The chances of this situation favoring her are frankly hopeless. She would be risking everything she has now and even if she wins the case, she’s still likely to end up with no career.

      Hypothesis 2 is more favorable. Her actions can be explained as a desperate attempt to get away from her abuser. She’s wiling to risk her career because the alternative is horrifying. If she wins the case, she’s safe. If she loses, she’s really no worse off.

      Barring special knowledge that none of us have, the situation seems to favor her accusation being correct. We can consider some further circumstantial points, like the power differential between a young star and an established producer, or the history of abuse in the entertainment industry. None of these points favor hypothesis 1.

      I put it to you that you’ve only really evaluated the evidence for your preferred hypothesis, not for the competing one. That, as we good skeptics know, is a recipe for confirmation bias.

      1. You are arguing with a brick wall.

        Boomer is an uberskeptic who only shows up here to question the questions when those questions interfere with his worldview.

        Funny that in Boomer’s case his worldview only seems to get upset when someone suggests that misogyny, sexual assault, or rape actually happens.

        Internet dudebro indeed.

          1. Oh well worth the explanation, I wasn’t trying to suggest that it wasn’t. Sorry if it came out that way.

            I was just pointing out that Boomer is know for this.

      2. Yep, the simple fact is, when you accuse someone of rape, you’re the one on trial, with a presumption of guilt.

        (Personally the inherent power imbalance of a sexual relationship between a boss and an employee always raises huge red flags for me, though.)

      3. >I put it to you that you’ve only really evaluated the evidence for your preferred hypothesis, not for the competing one. That, as we good skeptics know, is a recipe for confirmation bias.

        You’re wrong. I haven’t evaluated anything because I don’t know anything other than what lawyers for both sides have made public. No one besides Kesha and Luke Gottwald will ever know for sure what happened, and anyone claiming otherwise has an agenda.

        1. @Boomer
          No one has claimed to know with absolute certainty, nor do we need to. We can evaluate the available evidence and reach a tentative conclusion. That’s hardly a controversial point and I have to wonder how a supposed skeptic could be unaware of it.

          There is in fact evidence available to us and, as I’ve outlined, it points quite clearly in a particular direction. If you disagree, then explain why. Otherwise, when you explicitly refuse to evaluate the evidence at all, don’t expect anyone to take your opinions seriously.

  4. I’m not sure I understand, if she changes producers within Sony, does she still have to work with this guy?

    1. He is one of their top earning producers. Her fear is that they won’t promote her properly if she switches producers, and regardless, she is afraid that the accusation alone has damaged her career with the label.

      1. Sony is a corporation, and for good or bad, you can always count on a corporation to do what’s profitable.

  5. Just a heads-up: the court only rejected her request for a preliminary injunction. The case is going to move forward. It’s not that she can’t be released from her contract (she may very well be eventually) or that the judge is ordering her to immediately honor it. The trial will determine whether the contract is still valid. There’s no question of her working with Dr. Luke again; either the court will void or alter the contract, or she’ll break it and pay the penalties.

    Also, her contract is with Dr. Luke’s company, Kemosabe, and RCA, both of which are, in turn, contracted with and owned by Sony.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button