|
Thanks for the clarification; I shall not squawk about being corrected. This does make Nungesser's characterization of the performance as a harassment campaign somewhat more persuasive. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out (most likely with an undisclosed settlement and NDAs all around, I would guess).
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:You're slightly mischaracterizing my statements. I said his social and academic life as he knew them were destroyed. I don't think that's an exaggeration. Who knows? It's totally subjective. My point is that using that guy's case to whip up a panic about presumption of innocence being abandoned is very odd, since in his case the only penalties he faced were social. The presumption of innocence was upheld for him in the legal sense and by the school administration, and there is not and never was and never will be any such thing as social presumption of innocence, nor should there be, nor can there be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Who knows? It's totally subjective. It's odd until you put the delusions of rape minimizers in context, that their paranoia and sense of grievance is the same as that of reactionaries everywhere. Every time populations they thought were theirs to control gain a voice, they experience fear because they believe this is the beginning of the end. All of their crimes will come to light and the low will become the high.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Who knows? It's totally subjective. I'm going to go ahead and say I imagine being accused of serial rape did nothing good for his life in any objective way. The jury in the civil suit or the team from Columbia that quietly negotiates a settlement could probably give you an informed opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Yes, just like the Duke lacrosse players who are now suffering in silence. They can barely carry out their jobs at hedge funds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm going to go ahead and say I imagine being accused of serial rape did nothing good for his life in any objective way. And nobody is claiming otherwise. But extreme rhetoric like 'destroyed' seems exactly like the sort of 'moral panic' thing that we're trying to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And nobody is claiming otherwise. But extreme rhetoric like 'destroyed' seems exactly like the sort of 'moral panic' thing that we're trying to avoid. It doesn't have real meaning anyway, so why quibble about it? The dude's life got pretty drat bad for awhile based on a false allegation and then a campaign of false allegations on top of it, that turned out to be connected to the crazy woman who first accused him and is basically again accusing him with her new project. He will probaby never entirely get out from under what has been a coordinated campaign of harassment and character destruction. That's not ok.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's odd until you put the delusions of rape minimizers in context, that their paranoia and sense of grievance is the same as that of reactionaries everywhere. Every time populations they thought were theirs to control gain a voice, they experience fear because they believe this is the beginning of the end. All of their crimes will come to light and the low will become the high. I am troubled by a university participating in the trial of a student in the court of public opinion for the stated purpose of making him a pariah and driving him out of the university community. Clearly the only logical explanation for this is that I have a personal history of crimes against women and I'm worried that a similar fate will befall me. I get the part about social presumption of innocence not being a thing, but dammit it should be. Thermos H Christ fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It doesn't have real meaning anyway, so why quibble about it? You don't know if it's a false allegation or not. The weight of it being false is high, but concluding that it is false is stupid. And of course if it's a false accusation it's 'not ok'. Nobody has claimed that false accusations are 'ok'. So why pretend anyone is? The question is what can you do about false accusations without shutting down real accusations, especially against a backdrop of how extremely difficult it is to prove that rape occurred when it is just he-said/she-said. Thermos H Christ posted:I am troubled by a university participating in the trial of a student in the court of public opinion for the stated purpose of making him a pariah and driving him out of the university community. Clearly the only logical explanation for this is that I have a personal history of crimes against women and I'm worried that a similar fate will befall me. You don't actually think this, do you? If someone you know as a friend tells you that they were raped, would you actually presume the person they said raped them was innocent? If you told a friend of yours that a landlord had ripped you off, would you expect your friend to react by presuming the landlord was innocent? Did you presume that Tsarnaev was innocent of the Boston bombings, or that Bernie Maddoff was innocent of running a Ponzi scheme?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You don't actually think this, do you? Having a firsthand account from someone I personally knew to be trustworthy and reliable would be evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption. quote:Did you presume that Tsarnaev was innocent of the Boston bombings, or that Bernie Maddoff was innocent of running a Ponzi scheme? Yes. Did you presume that guy Reddit identified as the Boston bomber was guilty? Thermos H Christ fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You don't know if it's a false allegation or not. The weight of it being false is high, but concluding that it is false is stupid. Thorough investigation through a process that favors the accuser found the allegations baseless. That's good enough for me and, with the caveat that of course they might somehow turn out to have been true despite all that, there's no reason IMO to treat them as true or cling to that presumption. Obdicut posted:And of course if it's a false accusation it's 'not ok'. Nobody has claimed that false accusations are 'ok'. So why pretend anyone is? The question is what can you do about false accusations without shutting down real accusations, especially against a backdrop of how extremely difficult it is to prove that rape occurred when it is just he-said/she-said. The solution being, obviously, to allow an accuser to drag their alleged rapist's name through the mud, divorce them from their social circles, hamper their future employment prospects, and brand a scarlet R on their digital foreheads by continuing to trumpet an accusation in public and with a university's sanction that has been investigated by bodies sympathetic to the accuser and found not to be substantiated. IMO you could probably put the kybosh on that and people with legitimate accusations could continue to, for instance, go to the police.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Having a firsthand account from someone I personally knew to be trustworthy and reliable would be evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption. Ah, so you believe in presumption of innocence with exceptions. But if you go to a meeting about landlords ripping people off, to attempt to politically organize as a group to do something about systemic abuses, you would presume that everyone else's landlord there didn't actually rip them off? How could you ever make any progress on something like the unconstitutional abuses of stop-and-frisk, when no individual officer has ever been prosecuted and found guilty of it? How can you be concerned about rape as a problem when a miniscule number of alleged rapists are found guilty--aren't you assuming that all those not prosecuted, not found guilty, are innocent, and so there isn't a problem? quote:Did you presume that guy Reddit identified as the Boston bomber was guilty? No. And I didn't mean 'did you presume Tsarneve was guilty the moment he was indicted', but after seeing the evidence in the media. Same with Madoff, same with the rest of the people I'm asking about. quote:Yes. Really? So you'd have had no hesitation in doing business with Madoff after he was arrested, because after all, you're presuming that he was innocent? You wouldn't have a problem with, prior to his conviction, getting into business or socializing with John Gotti? If Robert Blake wanted to date a friend of yours, you wouldn't have a problem with that? James Herrin? OJ Simpson? You presume that the United Fruit Company had any culpability for funding paramilitaries in South America, that no senior executive at Pfizer was responsible for Pfizer's bribing of doctors to prescribe off-label? You presume that Don Blankenship is innocent of violating federal safety standards at Massey energy? To be clear, are you talking about legal or factual guilt? You know that the legal system is not about establishing factual guilt, right? wateroverfire posted:Thorough investigation through a process that favors the accuser found the allegations baseless. That's good enough for me and, with the caveat that of course they might somehow turn out to have been true despite all that, there's no reason IMO to treat them as true or cling to that presumption. They found them 'baseless', or they found there wasn't evidence to substantiate it? If a guy and a girl go back to his room, and later she says that the sex was nonconsensual, and he says it was consensual, and there is no other evidence, won't any fair system always say that there isn't enough evidence to say that it wasn't consensual? quote:
How would you put the kybosh on that, exactly? Be specific and clear. And again: given the he-said-she-said nature of many rape cases, how will going to the police help? Are you just completely ignorant of the difficulty in prosecuting rape, or what? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You don't actually think this, do you? Depends on the person, if I know they are inclined to honesty and don't stand to gain through their accusation, I would likely believe them enough to offer practical support/avoid that landlord. Whether they are correct or not doesn't really affect whether or not they stand to benefit from assistance if I can render it. I would, however, require proof of guilt before expecting action to be taken against the person in question, legal or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
It's almost like regarding presumption of innocence, the state or any other reasonable fact finding body will not put friends of the victim or accused on the jury. If my wife said someone criminally wronged her, I'd believe her, but who loving cares if I believe her from a law perspective because I should never in a million years be allowed to serve as a juror on the case. Legal presumption of innocence isn't a hard concept. Also Jon Ronson's latest book about public shaming and the power of social media is super relevant to the world right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It's almost like regarding presumption of innocence, the state or any other reasonable fact finding body will not put friends of the victim or accused on the jury. If my wife said someone criminally wronged her, I'd believe her, but who loving cares if I believe her from a law perspective because I should never in a million years be allowed to serve as a juror on the case. Legal presumption of innocence is about the legal system assuming you are innocent, which is really necessary for a legal system to function. It is not necessary in any way for ordinary people to presume innocence if they are not part of the legal system, and in many cases--like dealing with systemic abuses--it is absolutely necessary to not presume innocence. It is also completely sensible to make your own mind up about whether or not someone did what they were accused of, based on the evidence that you know. In fact, wateroverfire is abandoning the presumption of innocence and assuming that the woman at Columbia is guilty of making a false accusation: in many cases you cannot logically presume both parties innocent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Oh, so the argument is about the correct or reasonable personal judgment presumptions? In that case I'll be over here not touching this argument with a ten foot pole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends on the person, if I know they are inclined to honesty and don't stand to gain through their accusation, I would likely believe them enough to offer practical support/avoid that landlord. Whether they are correct or not doesn't really affect whether or not they stand to benefit from assistance if I can render it. I would, however, require proof of guilt before expecting action to be taken against the person in question, legal or otherwise. In the meantime, would it be inappropriate for the victims of a scam to discuss their ordeal in public? Or is keeping quiet just something for rape victims to do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:In the meantime, would it be inappropriate for the victims of a scam to discuss their ordeal in public? Or is keeping quiet just something for rape victims to do? Depends. If you start a campaign about the scam without any proof or ability to prove it I would expect the object of your ire to rather appropriately take legal action against you. American libel and slander is different from UK libel and slander though, over here, the slanderer needs to prove what they are saying is correct, rather than the slanderee having to prove it isn't. Which leads to the interesting case occasionally where something is both libellous and completely true, but I still rather prefer that system on the whole. I do expect people to substantiate their public claims however, yes. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Ah, so you believe in presumption of innocence with exceptions. That's not an exception to the application of a presumption, it's the presumption being overcome. A presumption is what you believe in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary. A firsthand account by someone I knew to be honest and trustworthy (and I have called people friends who did not meet these criteria) would be enough evidence to overcome my presumption. quote:But if you go to a meeting about landlords ripping people off, to attempt to politically organize as a group to do something about systemic abuses, you would presume that everyone else's landlord there didn't actually rip them off? Practically speaking, yes. I can't imagine how you could be a landlord for more than a few people and not occasionally have someone claim you ripped them off. Would you seriously assume that everyone there had actually been ripped off? I would figure that some of the complaints were legit, but I would need to see some convincing evidence before I believed any specific accusation against any specific landlord was true. quote:How could you ever make any progress on something like the unconstitutional abuses of stop-and-frisk, when no individual officer has ever been prosecuted and found guilty of it? Well this is getting away from individuals and in to institutions, but I would still need to see convincing evidence that there was a systemic problem of this kind before I would support the imposition of legal or social penalties justified by the need to correct said problem. quote:You presume that the United Fruit Company had any culpability for funding paramilitaries in South America, that no senior executive at Pfizer was responsible for Pfizer's bribing of doctors to prescribe off-label? You presume that Don Blankenship is innocent of violating federal safety standards at Massey energy? I have only the most passing familiarity with the United Fruit Company thing, but it had been my impression that their actions in South America were pretty much a matter of historical record. I have no knowledge one way or another about those other two issues, so yes, for the time being I will decline to assume that Pfizer or Don Blankenship are culpable. quote:To be clear, are you talking about legal or factual guilt? You know that the legal system is not about establishing factual guilt, right? I'm talking about factual, although I disagree that the criminal justice system is not about establishing factual guilt. Legal guilt or innocence rests on an evidence-based determination of fact, it's just that the accused gets the benefit of the doubt when facts remain unclear. In the social context I don't expect people to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'd sure like to see at least some agnosticism and a willingness to wait for both sides of the story before deciding which is more believable. The whole internet zerg rush of righteous indignation is an ugly new permutation of a long-existing problem in human society. Thermos H Christ fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends. If you start a campaign about the scam without any proof or ability to prove it I would expect the object of your ire to rather appropriately take legal action against you. Would you follow the case, or take an interest in any way?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Would you follow the case, or take an interest in any way? In what context? Like, how does the case relate to me? Chances are I wouldn't know it existed much less follow it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Oh, so the argument is about the correct or reasonable personal judgment presumptions? There really isn't any argument. Everyone uses their own personal judgement to judge others, whether it's a matter that's actually a 'crime' or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In what context? Yes, exactly. So isn't it troubling to you that these tortuous discussions of presumption of innocence in the public sphere only seem to come up when women allege rape?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, exactly. So isn't it troubling to you that these tortuous discussions of presumption of innocence in the public sphere only seem to come up when women allege rape? I would be surprised if part of the motivation isn't simply sexism. However at the same time, as has been pointed out, rape is somewhat uniquely difficult to prove or disprove, because sex is rarely public, or even disclosed, even the commission of the act is not proof either way, because the distinction between sex and rape is one of intent, which may also change after the fact. Sex regretted will look for all the world like rape, may even cause much of the pain that rape does, but it isn't rape because you can't withdraw consent retroactively. There remains little material difference, however. You are dealing with a uniquely difficult topic to be empirical about, so it is to be expected that it would create more controversy, because claims of rape and innocence are often unfalsifiable. The entire subject may hinge on implicit and misinterpreted language, which is impossible to determine after the fact, and the subject is also highly emotionally charged, which gives people motivation to be very vocal about it one way or another. Which is why, especially in this case, reserving of judgement is critical, because you really can not know one way or another. All you have in many instances is the word of one person against another. Whether you are friends with one of them does not change the veracity of their claim. Whether one side may have a media narrative supporting or opposing them does not make them correct or incorrect. You can not know. So, withhold your judgement. Accept that you don't have enough information, offer what help you can to those in distress, oppose the witchunt mentality which tries to deal with emotional turmoil by calling for blood, and teach your kids about the importance of explicit consent, and to be careful who they sleep with, because regret is painful why ever you feel it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:That's not an exception to the application of a presumption, it's the presumption being overcome. A presumption is what you believe in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary. A firsthand account by someone I knew to be honest and trustworthy (and I have called people friends who did not meet these criteria) would be enough evidence to overcome my presumption. Okay. So your 'presumption' thing is just 'don't believe someone absent any evidence', and is not similar to the legal presumption of innocence. quote:Practically speaking, yes. I can't imagine how you could be a landlord for more than a few people and not occasionally have someone claim you ripped them off. Would you seriously assume that everyone there had actually been ripped off? I would figure that some of the complaints were legit, but I would need to see some convincing evidence before I believed any specific accusation against any specific landlord was true. Why would you assume that some were legitimate, if you presume innocence? You'd require actually seeing the evidence in order to make such a judgement, right? quote:Well this is getting away from individuals and in to institutions, but I would still need to see convincing evidence that there was a systemic problem of this kind before I would support the imposition of legal or social penalties justified by the need to correct said problem. Please stop talking about legal penalties when I've made it absolutely clear we are not talking about the legal system. It just confuses the issue. In addition, I'm not sure why you're focusing on penalties. Organizing to get a law passed, for example, that would fund a tenant's advocate is not a 'legal or social' penalty. quote:I have only the most passing familiarity with the United Fruit Company thing, but it had been my impression that their actions in South America were pretty much a matter of historical record. I have no knowledge one way or another about those other two issues, so yes, for the time being I will decline to assume that Pfizer or Don Blankenship are culpable. So what you're saying is that your presumption of innocence is exactly the same as anyone else's: you make up your mind after you look at the evidence. You realize this is the case for everyone, right? The problem is when people make the assumption on evidence as slim as "He was black" or "He's a frat boy". quote:I'm talking about factual, although I disagree that the criminal justice system is not about establishing factual guilt. It doesn't matter if you disagree, it is just true that the legal system just adjudicates if there is enough evidence to convict you criminally. That's all it does. It does not make a determination that you are factually innocent. You may be factually guilty, but legally innocent. quote:Legal guilt or innocence rests on an evidence-based determination of fact, it's just that the accused gets the benefit of the doubt when facts remain unclear. In the social context I don't expect people to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'd sure like to see at least some agnosticism and a willingness to wait for both sides of the story before deciding which is more believable. The whole internet zerg rush of righteous indignation is an ugly new permutation of a long-existing problem in human society. Again, this is generally what people do, except often one party will not give their story, or their story is unavailable for other reasons. People do tend to apply knowledge about generalizations to specific cases: Knowing that the police in NYC often stop and frisk people unconstitutionally, I believed the people in my class at school when they said that they'd been stopped and frisked and knew other people that had. There is no possible evidence available for that, nor would there be for the vast majority of stop-and-frisks. So, given that making a rape accusation opens up the woman to a huge amount of attack and calumny, social ostracization, and physical threats, knowing how extremely hard it is to prove or prosecute rape, people often do believe a woman saying that she was raped. Now, you can split a hair here and say that you can believe that the person has been raped without believing the accusation against the specific person, but that's a very fine hair to split. To jump from that to any sort of social action--harassing or otherwise taking action is completely different from simply putting credence in that person's claim. Do you understand? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, exactly. So isn't it troubling to you that these tortuous discussions of presumption of innocence in the public sphere only seem to come up when women allege rape? To the extent that this is the case, I do find it troubling. Not because I wish it would happen less in rape cases, but because I wish it would happen more in all the other cases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They found them 'baseless', or they found there wasn't evidence to substantiate it? Dude you can split this hair forever but ultimately what is your point? That we can't knooooooooow and so because we can't have absolute certainty he didn't do it we should ignore attempts to tear his life apart by a woman who literally orchestrated a campaign of false allegations against him and tried to run him off campus with, apparanty, the full blessing of Columbia University? Who filed a police report against him without any intent to cooperate with an investigation just to get his name into the record as accused of rape? Obdicut posted:If a guy and a girl go back to his room, and later she says that the sex was nonconsensual, and he says it was consensual, and there is no other evidence, won't any fair system always say that there isn't enough evidence to say that it wasn't consensual? You'd think so but, remarkably, the extra judicial systems set up by colleges do not appear to operate that way. Obdicut posted:How would you put the kybosh on that, exactly? Be specific and clear. If you pubicly accuse someone of wrong doing and you can't substantiate that claim you go to jail or expose yourself to civil liability. It's the slander standard used in many places in the world. In this particular case the woman should have been kicked out of school and the professors who encouraged her sent right out the door with her. Obdicut posted:And again: given the he-said-she-said nature of many rape cases, how will going to the police help? Are you just completely ignorant of the difficulty in prosecuting rape, or what? Being as clear as possible - if an accusation can't be substantiated it has no businesss being leveled in the first place. The factors that make rape hard to prosecute are the very same things that make it a hilariousy bad idea to allow public accusations of rape without proof.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:D So you want any woman who publically talks about being raped to go to jail or be sued for it, even though you know that frequently in rape cases there isn't any possibility of the prosecution of it because the evidence is he-said, she-said. Women who are raped and can't offer concrete evidence should just shut up about it. That is your real position, you're not parodying yourself?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So you want any woman who publically talks about being raped to go to jail or be sued for it, even though you know that frequently in rape cases there isn't any possibility of the prosecution of it because the evidence is he-said, she-said. Women who are raped and can't offer concrete evidence should just shut up about it. To phrase it equally distastefully in the opposite way, you can't prove your legal case so it's OK to go vigilante and try to discredit and damage the person you think should pay, and they should not have any legal recourse against you whatsoever. Slander is fine because you might be a rapist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To phrase it equally distastefully in the opposite way, you can't prove your legal case so it's OK to go vigilante and try to discredit and damage the person you think should pay, and they should not have any legal recourse against you whatsoever. Slander is fine because you might be a rapist. You understand it isn't slander if it actually happened, right? Irrespective of whether the person was convicted?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You understand it isn't slander if it actually happened, right? Again not actually true under UK law. But that's the thing, you can't prove it happened, so why do you get protected status? The person you're accusing might be a rapist so it's not slander? Presumption of innocence certainly applies in a legal context regardless of whether you think it should apply in a social context. Accusation of rape does not make the claim automatically true, that's insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So you want any woman who publically talks about being raped to go to jail or be sued for it, even though you know that frequently in rape cases there isn't any possibility of the prosecution of it because the evidence is he-said, she-said. Women who are raped and can't offer concrete evidence should just shut up about it. I think that he is saying that if you accuse someone of a crime, have the option to and pursue them in various available avenues, all of which side strongly with the accused, it might be improper to launch a smear campaign against them with the express and stated intent of causing them professional, personal, and social damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Again not actually true under UK law. I'm talking about the US. I know the laws on slander and libel are a lot more restrictive in the UK. quote:But that's the thing, you can't prove it happened, so why do you get protected status? What do you mean by 'protected status'? quote:The person you're accusing might be a rapist so it's not slander? I'm talking about the case of a woman who has actually been raped but cannot prove it in a court of law, as is incredibly common in rape cases--more common than not. quote:Presumption of innocence certainly applies in a legal context regardless of whether you think it should apply in a social context. Nothing I've said goes against this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I think that he is saying that if you accuse someone of a crime, have the option to and pursue them in various available avenues, all of which side strongly with the accused, it might be improper to launch a smear campaign against them with the express and stated intent of causing them professional, personal, and social damage. Again, I'm talking about the case of a woman who has actually been raped. It isn't a smear campaign to talk about something someone actually did, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What do you mean by 'protected status'? I mean why should you not be sued for slander? I mean obviously it is rather difficult to win the case under US law because US law seems more designed to protect the free press than private citizens, even when the free press is used against private citizens, but certainly over here I would expect you to be. If not for slander then for harassment. Obdicut posted:I'm talking about the case of a woman who has actually been raped but cannot prove it in a court of law, as is incredibly common in rape cases--more common than not. If you can't prove it in court then you can't legally act upon it. If we had a magic spell to simply discern the truth of any given situation then it would be different, but as it stands we require empirical, material proof of guilt before we waive people's rights. And people do have a right not to be harassed and discredited without legal basis. It is unfortunate that rape is a crime that cannot often be proven in court but that does not make it acceptable to waive the legal consequences for vigilante justice by anyone who feels they have a right to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean why should you not be sued for slander? I mean obviously it is rather difficult to win the case under US law because US law seems more designed to protect the free press than private citizens, even when the free press is used against private citizens, but certainly over here I would expect you to be. If not for slander then for harassment. Why should someone who was raped not be sued for saying they were raped? I guess because they were raped, is the easy answer. quote:If you can't prove it in court then you can't legally act upon it. If we had a magic spell to simply discern the truth of any given situation then it would be different, but as it stands we require empirical, material proof of guilt before we waive people's rights. And people do have a right not to be harassed and discredited without legal basis. But, again, we're not talking about legally acting on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So you want any woman who publically talks about being raped to go to jail or be sued for it, even though you know that frequently in rape cases there isn't any possibility of the prosecution of it because the evidence is he-said, she-said. Women who are raped and can't offer concrete evidence should just shut up about it. If she says "I was raped by THIS PERSON" and can't substantiate that claim, then yes she should be jailed or open to civil liability. In many parts of the world she is. Because pretty much this.. OwlFancier posted:To phrase it equally distastefully in the opposite way, you can't prove your legal case so it's OK to go vigilante and try to discredit and damage the person you think should pay, and they should not have any legal recourse against you whatsoever. Slander is fine because you might be a rapist. And this. LeJackal posted:I think that he is saying that if you accuse someone of a crime, have the option to and pursue them in various available avenues, all of which side strongly with the accused, it might be improper to launch a smear campaign against them with the express and stated intent of causing them professional, personal, and social damage. Obdicut posted:Again, I'm talking about the case of a woman who has actually been raped. It isn't a smear campaign to talk about something someone actually did, right? In what way do you have certainty that she was actually raped? Are you the rapist and corroberating her account? Because otherwise neither you nor anyone else knows what happened and there is only an accusation that needs to be substantiated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why should someone who was raped not be sued for saying they were raped? You raped me. I claim this. It is now appropriate for me to devote all my time and effort to branding you a rapist to everyone you know. You can't prove you didn't, so we assume it's true, and you have no legal recourse to object to this. Do you see why this has problems? Obdicut posted:But, again, we're not talking about legally acting on it. We are talking about legality because you're suggesting people should not be liable for legal action if they claim the object of their harassment raped them. Because that can't be proven false, so we assume it's true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If she says "I was raped by THIS PERSON" and can't substantiate that claim, then yes she should be jailed or open to civil liability. In many parts of the world she is. Because pretty much this.. So you really think that it would be a good thing for women who have been raped to be jailed for talking about that rape, as long as their isn't evidence for it. So if your sister, mother, daughter, whatever, were raped by someone in the usual date-rape circumstance, without violence, and without evidence, just her word against his, she should be imprisoned if she talks about it publically. quote:In what way do you have certainty that she was actually raped? Are you the rapist and corroberating her account? Because otherwise neither you nor anyone else knows what happened and there is only an accusation that needs to be substantiated. Why are you talking about me and my certainty? I'm talking about her. She knows she was raped.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why should someone who was raped not be sued for saying they were raped? No one should be sued for saying "I was raped", because that statement is not an accusation. Saying "This person raped me" is literally a different story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:54
|
|