Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speak, don't silence....

Yes, speak to the police. PZ is not the police. Well, outside of his FtB jurisdiction, at least.

If we're going with the "police won't investigate"...is there a specific reason in this case where that might be the case?
 
One line struck my funny bone:


You're all libertarians? I'm shocked how well most of you have been able to hide this from me up to this point!

We're also all men according to their "sausagefest" reference. I admit to being personally surprised by that as well as learning my political leanings.

Off to contact my doctor now. We have to talk.
 
We're also all men according to their "sausagefest" reference. I admit to being personally surprised by that as well as learning my political leanings.

Off to contact my doctor now. We have to talk.

Oh oh, congrats! You won't believe how much fun it is to write your name in the snow!

Now at last, the world is your urinal. ;)
 
Speak, don't silence. A defamation suit is not the proper response to someone who may be honestly mistaken or have a difference of opinion. It is only the proper response to someone who is maliciously lying about you and thereby materially damaging your reputation. Threatening to sue somebody is often used to shut that person up without regard to whether a statement actually comes close to defamation.

Wow, you seriously managed to say that with a straight face?

Accusations of rape/sexual harassment are not a "difference of opinion" in any world even remotely resembling the real one. And making such accusations based on second- and third-hand hearsay is not an "honest mistake", and is just about the definition of defamation.

Instituting a defamation lawsuit in this case is not "silencing critics", it's a very appropriate response to a potentially damaging unsupported accusation.
 
Oh oh, congrats! You won't believe how much fun it is to write your name in the snow!

Now at last, the world is your urinal. ;)

On the other hand, you're going to have to be a lot more careful about tight pants and low-altitude moving objects.
 
Does this mean we live in a bicycle theft culture?

It means we live in cultures that tolerate some types of property crime. If calling that a "bicycle theft culture" is useful shorthand, then sure.

How can he speak out against unidentified accusers? It's going to carry absolutely no weight.

The unfairness of an accusation doesn't justify using the legal system to silence one's accusers. Again, if Krauss believes McCreight is purposefully lying, then legal action is appropriate. If he simply doesn't like what she has to say, but doesn't believe she's lying, then legal threats are inappropriate.
 
The unfairness of an accusation doesn't justify using the legal system to silence one's accusers.

Why not? Sounds perfectly acceptable to me.
An unfair accusation silenced by legal means. What's wrong with that?

Again, if Krauss believes McCreight is purposefully lying, then legal action is appropriate. If he simply doesn't like what she has to say, but doesn't believe she's lying, then legal threats are inappropriate.

Given the vagueness of the accusations, I doubt he even knows exactly what she's accusing him of.
What would you have him do? Ask her to be more specific, so that he could address it directly?
No doubt he'd be accused of harassing his victims.

She even claimed that he made vague threats of legal action, rather than actually saying that he'd sue.
Seems like more innuendo, to me.

If he's done something wrong, then take it to the courts or take it public properly.
Trying to rumour-monger somebody into oblivion seems rather underhand.
Claiming that it's unfair when they resort to the law is inappropriate in this case.
 
Accusations of rape/sexual harassment are not a "difference of opinion" in any world even remotely resembling the real one.

Given the conversations I've had online and offline, I am confident that people have different opinions of what constitutes sexual harassment.

And making such accusations based on second- and third-hand hearsay is not an "honest mistake", and is just about the definition of defamation.

No, defamation means communicating false and damaging information about someone to one or more third parties. In the US, defamation can only consist of false factual statements (express or implied) made at least negligently.

I don't care to research the relevant jurisdiction here, but I strongly doubt that McCreight saying she believes two people who claimed Krauss harassed them could be defamation in the US if McCreight actually knows two people who've said such things regardless of whether the underlying accusations are true.
 
It means we live in cultures that tolerate some types of property crime. If calling that a "bicycle theft culture" is useful shorthand, then sure.

No, it is not a useful shorthand to call something "anything culture" it is exaggeration used to appeal to emotion.

The unfairness of an accusation doesn't justify using the legal system to silence one's accusers. Again, if Krauss believes McCreight is purposefully lying, then legal action is appropriate. If he simply doesn't like what she has to say, but doesn't believe she's lying, then legal threats are inappropriate.

Sorry, but what was done is not just unfairness it is defamation and legal action is the correct response. Bloggers need to understand that they have responsibilities for their actions and words and that they are not immune to prosecution.
 
It means we live in cultures that tolerate some types of property crime. If calling that a "bicycle theft culture" is useful shorthand, then sure.

Bicycle theft is not tolerated. Somebody caught stealing bicycles will be punished for it. Somebody caught in possession of multiple stolen bicycles or bicycles of a particular value will face the consequences for that. And stealing bicycles is far more tolerated than rape and sexual assault.

Sexual assault is considered to be a very serious crime with severe punishments including incarceration and stigmatising via Sex Offender registries. Most people find the crime to be morally and ethically repugnant.

For a comparison police spend considerably longer investigating allegations of sexual assault than they do investigating allegations of bicycle theft yet nobody talks about bicycle theft culture. And if somebody is accused of bicycle theft defends himself vigourously in court it is correctly viewed as him exercising his legal rights in a free society. Nobody talks about the bicycle thief "revictimising" the victim.

There is no other crime in which a mere accusation is so stigmatising as rape and yet still you talk about "rape-culture" like it's a thing.

The unfairness of an accusation doesn't justify using the legal system to silence one's accusers. Again, if Krauss believes McCreight is purposefully lying, then legal action is appropriate. If he simply doesn't like what she has to say, but doesn't believe she's lying, then legal threats are inappropriate.

She is making statements without basis that could be reasonably expected to harm his career. Threatening legal action is absolutely the right course of action.
 
No, it is not a useful shorthand to call something "anything culture" it is exaggeration used to appeal to emotion.



Sorry, but what was done is not just unfairness it is defamation and legal action is the correct response. Bloggers need to understand that they have responsibilities for their actions and words and that they are not immune to prosecution.

I see, so to apply the rule I'm seeing here that 'if the women didn't file official police reports nothing happened' unless the men accused file some sort of police action PZ is right.
 
I see, so to apply the rule I'm seeing here that 'if the women didn't file official police reports nothing happened' unless the men accused file some sort of police action PZ is right.

To be blunt, yes. If you are a victim of a crime and you choose not to report it for whatever reason. You abrogate your right to play the victim. Nothing has been proven against the accused because by not reporting it they have never been the accused. Making accusations like these outside of the legal system is not a smart thing to do because it does open you up to both Slander and Libel.
 
To be blunt, yes. If you are a victim of a crime and you choose not to report it for whatever reason. You abrogate your right to play the victim. Nothing has been proven against the accused because by not reporting it they have never been the accused. Making accusations like these outside of the legal system is not a smart thing to do because it does open you up to both Slander and Libel.

And, by not reporting to police help to perpetuate the ___-culture or even creating it. Not by intent, of course, but by inaction.
 
Making accusations like these outside of the legal system is not a smart thing to do because it does open you up to both Slander and Libel.

Do you think that someone who publicly disagrees with a high profile verdict is liable for defamation?
 
Do you think that someone who publicly disagrees with a high profile verdict is liable for defamation?

Well, defamation is something else entirely and it would depend on the circumstance, Disagreeing with a verdict in and of itself doesn't open you up to anything, I guess it would depend on how you disagreed and what you were saying and how you were saying it. However in this instance it's apples and oranges. There is no High Profile Verdict in these cases. Because if you think what's been happening in these threads and on these blogs constitutes a trial. Then your saying PZ is the judge and public opinion is the Jury. So is PZ qualified to be a Judge? Is public opinion anything other then a very poor and unjust jury?

and now for some definitions....*

"slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

Defamation - Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander."

The Three are very different things.

* All from the Legal Online Dictionary
 
Last edited:
To be blunt, yes. If you are a victim of a crime and you choose not to report it for whatever reason. You abrogate your right to play the victim. Nothing has been proven against the accused because by not reporting it they have never been the accused. Making accusations like these outside of the legal system is not a smart thing to do because it does open you up to both Slander and Libel.
That's a lot of blind faith in a legal system which is not quite the fantasy system of justice you seem to believe in.
 
Do you think that someone who publicly disagrees with a high profile verdict is liable for defamation?

I certainly do think so, if worded imprudently, in the wrong place. In my understanding, the bar for defamation is higher for a public figure but outright saying in a public blog "the verdict is wrong, [the defendants name] is not innocent, they're a serial rapist." could, and should, open you up to charges of slander/libel.

I'm guessing that talking with a friend, and arguing that [defendant's name] is "totally guilty!" would (or at least should IMO) be a harder case to make.
 
That's a lot of blind faith in a legal system which is not quite the fantasy system of justice you seem to believe in.

Are you making a claim here?

Like maybe one with numbers? Those are generally nice.

Specific facts in the case being discussed would be even better, but I don't expect we'll have those.
 
Not quite sure where your pulling a lot of bind faith, fantasy system of justice from....
Come on, look at the Innocence Project, all those falsely convicted rapists mean the real ones went free; OJ got off, we all saw the evidence; it took a public outcry for the police to charge the Steubenville rapists; there many many very serious cases where justice was not done.

Cops in many jurisdictions have little empathy for date rape charges, there is a good chance they won't believe the accusation. This is well documented.

Now take the cases we are talking about here where the only evidence is mostly he said/she said. Prosecutors are highly unlikely to even take those cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom