[News] Patrick Kane being investigated for rape. UPD: DA announces no charges

[codynw]

Probably not a good idea to post what is, at least right now, basically a rumour. Could get the board in trouble.

[codynw]

Even when I'm not trying to post news I get sureLoss'd. Damn.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Saw this on Reddit, tough read. (Note, this is not the same person that accused Patrick Kane this summer)

I don't want this to be a "nobody believes the victim" thing, but this reads almost exactly like those stories you see on Facebook all the time about the girl who was texting while driving with the "you'll never believe what happened next" caption above the link.

[Weitz]

Yah posting something like that, so long after his incident, screams suspicious if you ask me.

[Locke]

Theres not much really to say about that.

These are very serious allegations based on pretty much nothing but hearsay.

[sureLoss]

It is pretty much defamation unless there is evidence to back it up and no evidence is provided.

Site rules on defamation:

This also includes defamation (slander and libel). Defamation is defined an intentional communication that is false and that harms a person's reputation. More applicable to public figures such as reporters and athletes. Defamatory posts put yourself and Calgarypuck at legal risk and won't be tolerated.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

It is pretty much defamation unless there is evidence to back it up and no evidence is provided.

Site rules on defamation:

Obviously up to the owners, but he's posting a link he saw on Reddit to another big website in imgur that is a screenshot from yet another website.

He's not actually posting any information on here, except that social media is a buzz about another alleged incident, which is factually correct. The discussion itself could lead to defamation, but I highly doubt anyone would argue that post does.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Obviously up to the owners, but he's posting a link he saw on Reddit to another big website in imgur that is a screenshot from yet another website.

He's not actually posting any information on here, except that social media is a buzz about another alleged incident, which is factually correct. The discussion itself could lead to defamation, but I highly doubt anyone would argue that post does.

didn't stop Brian Burke from suing a poster on this site who posted a rumor about him from another website

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

didn't stop Brian Burke from suing a poster on this site who posted a rumor about him from another website

Because they posted it as fact. If he would have linked to another website of the post, while not commenting on the topic himself, he wouldn't have been named in the lawsuit.

Again, perfectly fine if the owners would like to avoid the fine line, it's there website afterall, but the post is quite a bit different than that other one.

[Patek23]

I don't understand the cherry picking on this. I posted something about Hudler and got flamed for it. Someone posts a huge tirade on how they heard that Druin has had huge attitude problems since junior. Tons of allegations that could never be proved, no one bats an eye. Now this guy posts a link to an outside site where someone there is making allegations and people are free to read and form their own opinion and everyone's got the pitchforks. I realize the Kane allegations are the heaviest but it's a link to another site about the allegations. Not even the guy making them himself.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

didn't stop Brian Burke from suing a poster on this site who posted a rumor about him from another website

Whatever happened with that? Don't you have to prove loss of income/opportunity to sue for defamation?

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

I don't understand the cherry picking on this. I posted something about Hudler and got flamed for it. Someone posts a huge tirade on how they heard that Druin has had huge attitude problems since junior. Tons of allegations that could never be proved, no one bats an eye. Now this guy posts a link to an outside site where someone there is making allegations and people are free to read and form their own opinion and everyone's got the pitchforks. I realize the Kane allegations are the heaviest but it's a link to another site about the allegations. Not even the guy making them himself.

Saying Drouin has attitude problems is so much different than accusing someone of sexual assault without proof.

If a real news source reports this then it's different. But just posting a screenshot from Reddit is probably a bad idea.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by codynw

Saying Drouin has attitude problems is so much different than accusing someone of sexual assault without proof.

Don't know if you skimmed my post but I touched on that. In the Druin thread the guy outright makes those allegations himself. In this thread although the accusation is more severe it is not made by the poster it is a link to a link kind of thing. And regardless on severity both could be classified under defamation. Yet one flys by and the other raises the alarm.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Because they posted it as fact. If he would have linked to another website of the post, while not commenting on the topic himself, he wouldn't have been named in the lawsuit.

Again, perfectly fine if the owners would like to avoid the fine line, it's there website afterall, but the post is quite a bit different than that other one.

My recollection is loob posted a direct link to the website that posted the rumor along with the quote.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by codynw

Saying Drouin has attitude problems is so much different than accusing someone of sexual assault without proof.

If a real news source reports this then it's different. But just posting a screenshot from Reddit is probably a bad idea.

The original poster didn't accuse Kane of sexual assault. The person who wrote the initial post levelled an allegation. Her statement can neither be presumed to true or untrue. It is not inherently unreliable because there is no "proof".

I hope most of us are wise enough to suspend judgment on something like this.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

The original poster didn't accuse Kane of sexual assault. The person who wrote the initial post levelled an allegation. Her statement can neither be presumed to true or untrue. It is not inherently unreliable because there is no "proof".

I hope most of us are wise enough to suspend judgment on something like this.

Is the burden of proof not on the person making the allegation? Otherwise its just an unsubstantiated accusation?

Anyone can do that.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

The original poster didn't accuse Kane of sexual assault. The person who wrote the initial post levelled an allegation. Her statement can neither be presumed to true or untrue. It is not inherently unreliable because there is no "proof".

I hope most of us are wise enough to suspend judgment on something like this.

No but it links directly to somewhere that has accusations, and that's still not good.

And I'm not saying whether I think it's true or not. Just pointing out that it might not be a good idea to discuss on here yet.

[codynw]

Mods deleted the original post, so obviously they agree.

[Oling_Roachinen]

With regards to the alleged incident, a couple people have checked the flight reports while using Toews and other team members twitter accounts and what appears to be the general consensus was the Hawks would have left LA before the alleged incident.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by codynw

Mods deleted the original post, so obviously they agree.

Yeah, I wouldnt leave that up either.