Question for someone who knows more: why would a public figure experiencing a severe fall from grace engage in a defamation suit to clear their name, should they be not-guilty?
Question for someone who knows more: why would a public figure experiencing a severe fall from grace engage in a defamation suit to clear their name, should they be not-guilty?
Do you mean why wouldn't they do that to clear their name?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
People in Canada coming forward with these sorts of accusations need to be more careful than their US counterparts. Our defamation laws are much stronger than those in the US. If you allege something in Canada, you'd better be able to prove it on a balance of probabilities.
Also, I'm with Corsi on the use of the term survivor. Broadening that term reduces its meaning, which is particularly annoying in the context of other overly broad terms like sexual assault.
If I hear someone is a survivor of sexual assault, am I to assume she was the victim of a violent rape who escaped by the skin of her teeth, or that a cougar pinched his bum once at a dive bar?
The Following User Says Thank You to flylock shox For This Useful Post:
People in Canada coming forward with these sorts of accusations need to be more careful than their US counterparts. Our defamation laws are much stronger than those in the US. If you allege something in Canada, you'd better be able to prove it on a balance of probabilities.
Also, I'm with Corsi on the use of the term survivor. Broadening that term reduces its meaning, which is particularly annoying in the context of other overly broad terms like sexual assault.
If I hear someone is a survivor of sexual assault, am I to assume she was the victim of a violent rape who escaped by the skin of her teeth, or that a cougar pinched his bum once at a dive bar?
You’re not to assume anything. Survivor, victim, whatever.
There’s literally a show where people chill on an island and play games to be called “the ultimate survivor.”
Often, words have different meanings depending on context. It never hurts to consult a dictionary to see if a usage fits a word. In his case, survivor is perfect.
Quote:
Definition of survive
survived; surviving
intransitive verb
1 : to remain alive or in existence : live on
2 : to continue to function or prosper
transitive verb
1 : to remain alive after the death of he is survived by his wife
2 : to continue to exist or live after survived the earthquake
3 : to continue to function or prosper despite : withstand they survived many hardships
Criminal defence lawyer Michael Spratt argues that due process is a concern for the courts — when someone is charged with an offence — but should not be what sets the bar outside of the legal system.
The arguments presented by Spratt are chilling. I honestly have to wonder if these people know anything about human history.
"These men who have all been accused, let's face it, are powerful white men / bourgeoisie parasites / reactionary enemies of the people / Jew agitators / godless apostates / commie subversives."
If all it takes to destroy a politician's career is to make allegations of sexual misconduct, those sorts of allegations will be weaponized by opponents and the malicious. And they won't just be used against powerful white men.
The reckless folly involved in undermining these checks is astonishing. It's like watching the gasoline fight in Zoolander.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 02-01-2018 at 02:33 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
The arguments presented by Spratt are chilling. I honestly have to wonder if these people know anything about human history.
"These men who have all been accused, let's face it, are powerful white men / bourgeoisie parasites / reactionary enemies of the people / Jew agitators / godless apostates / commie subversives."
If all it takes to destroy a politician's career is to make allegations of sexual misconduct, those sorts of allegations will be weaponized by opponents and the malicious. And they won't just be used against powerful white men.
The reckless folly involved in undermining these checks is astonishing. It's like watching the gasoline fight in Zoolander.
So Cliff, if your daughter or wife comes to you and says she was assaulted is your response going to be "Now, now, I'd love to believe you, but I really need to wait for due process to play out before I can?"
So Cliff, if your daughter comes to you and says she was assaulted is your response going to be "Now, now, I'd love to believe you, but I really need to wait for due process to play out before I can?"
The question isn't whether someone's loved ones believe her. The question is whether the public at large and people in authority should believe her and what sanctions should be imposed.
If an employee of yours said she heard another employee enthusiastically expressing support for jihadi terrorism, would you instantly fire him and denounce him publicly?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
So Cliff, if your daughter or wife comes to you and says she was assaulted is your response going to be "Now, now, I'd love to believe you, but I really need to wait for due process to play out before I can?"
... Seriously? This is sort of like asking the parent of a murdered child if they think the accused should be treated fairly or summarily executed.
... I was trying to start that at 2:03. Anyone know how to embed a youtube video and have it start at a particular time? Is there bbcode for this?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The question isn't whether someone's loved ones believe her. The question is whether the public at large and people in authority should believe her and what sanctions should be imposed.
If an employee of yours said she heard another employee enthusiastically expressing support for jihadi terrorism, would you instantly fire him and denounce him publicly?
No but I would believe them enough to initiate an investigation. I think that's what people generally mean when they say it's important to believe the victim (at least that's what I mean). They should be offered support and the assurance that what they're saying is going to be taken seriously and investigated.
The question isn't whether someone's loved ones believe her. The question is whether the public at large and people in authority should believe her and what sanctions should be imposed.
If an employee of yours said she heard another employee enthusiastically expressing support for jihadi terrorism, would you instantly fire him and denounce him publicly?
These things aren’t happening in that sort of bubble. In almost all of these there has been some outside knowledge, along with a lack of denial before any sanctions come down.
People act like a word is muttered and the chips fall. How’s Aziz Ansari doing? TJ Miller?
The fact is, denials still mean something. The public still considers context, and it still takes more than an isolated recounting of an event to crumble an idol.
The public should believe these people and, thus far, the “public” if it were an entity, has been good at maintaining some sort of fairness and consideration of context.
No but I would believe them enough to initiate an investigation. I think that's what people generally mean when they say it's important to believe the victim (at least that's what I mean).
Eh, I think that's a motte and bailey. Or at least, I don't think that's what a lot of people mean by it - in a lot of cases, the sentiment seems to be that if someone alleges that they were victim of an assault and the accused perpetrator denies it, you start off by believing the alleging victim and disbelieving the accused perpetrator. But fine, if that's what you mean; I doubt anyone would disagree with that.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
These things aren’t happening in that sort of bubble. In almost all of these there has been some outside knowledge, along with a lack of denial before any sanctions come down.
People act like a word is muttered and the chips fall. How’s Aziz Ansari doing? TJ Miller?
The fact is, denials still mean something. The public still considers context, and it still takes more than an isolated recounting of an event to crumble an idol.
The public should believe these public and, thus far, the “public” if it were an entity, has been good at maintaining some sort of fairness and consideration of context.
Yeah most of the people who've been tarred and feathered have either not denied the allegations or have multiple accusers.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
No but I would believe them enough to initiate an investigation. I think that's what people generally mean when they say it's important to believe the victim (at least that's what I mean). They should be offered support and the assurance that what they're saying is going to be taken seriously and investigated.
That isn't what Spratt is saying, though.
Nobody is saying that we should ignore allegations and not investigate them. Some people are warning that when allegations themselves are enough to destroy a career, we're kicking aside some fundamental principles in our civil society.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Eh, I think that's a motte and bailey. Or at least, I don't think that's what a lot of people mean by it - in a lot of cases, the sentiment seems to be that if someone alleges that they were victim of an assault and the accused perpetrator denies it, you start off by believing the alleging victim and disbelieving the accused perpetrator. But fine, if that's what you mean; I doubt anyone would disagree with that.
Yeah the waters get a bit murky for me when the accused is found not guilty or not enough evidence to indict, but I think that's where the public kind of has to go with the balance of probabilities approach indicated in the article.
Nobody is saying that we should ignore allegations and not investigate them. Some people are warning that when allegations themselves are enough to destroy a career, we're kicking aside some fundamental principles in our civil society.
Yeah, I'm torn on that. If we have good reason to believe someone did what they're accused of but not enough to evidence to convict them, then what is the desired outcome? If someone like Graham James wasn't convicted, should he still have been allowed to work with young boys until they finally had enough on him to put him away?
Yeah most of the people who've been tarred and feathered have either not denied the allegations or have multiple accusers.
I think that these guys are damned either way though. Patrick Brown gave an emphatic denial and everyone said that was a terrible idea. Kent Hehr hasn't gone the same route and people say that's an admission of guilt. Honestly, if I were in that position I wouldn't know what to do. I would know that it was a false accusation, but how could you convince the public at large?
I think that these guys are damned either way though. Patrick Brown gave an emphatic denial and everyone said that was a terrible idea. Kent Hehr hasn't gone the same route and people say that's an admission of guilt. Honestly, if I were in that position I wouldn't know what to do.
It's actually pretty easy. What you do is you get a large set of scales and a duck...
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
