Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[bedlin88]

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.

I don't, and didn't dispute or state anything to the contrary. I never said the Justice system is perfect far from it and as long as it is run by people it never will be either, at least in my opinion.

And cops in many jurisdictions do, but I guarantee if you don't report it to them then they won't even have the opportunity to not believe the accusations, 100 percent of the time.

As for the last point that is my point also. All we have is he said, she said, and we let the Court of Public Opinion decide the case. Not exactly a just solution in my book.

So what do you suggest exactly? What other system of Law do you think things like this should be brought to? Are you honestly saying, and I don't and really hope your not saying, that if someone makes a charge they can not prove, it should just be taken as fact? Can you really not foresee any circumstances where a system like that wouldn't be abused by any individual that had a grudge against another individual?

For the Record I don't know if any of these allegations are true or false. And from the looks of it only the people involved ever will.

 

[tsig]

I don't, and didn't dispute or state anything to the contrary. I never said the Justice system is perfect far from it and as long as it is run by people it never will be either, at least in my opinion.

And cops in many jurisdictions do, but I guarantee if you don't report it to them then they won't even have the opportunity to not believe the accusations, 100 percent of the time.

As for the last point that is my point also. All we have is he said, she said, and we let the Court of Public Opinion decide the case. Not exactly a just solution in my book.

So what do you suggest exactly? What other system of Law do you think things like this should be brought to? Are you honestly saying, and I don't and really hope your not, saying that if someone makes a charge they can not prove it should just be taken as fact? Can you really not foresee any circumstances where a system like that wouldn't be abused by any individual that had a grudge against another individual?

For the Record I don't know if any of these allegations are true or false. And from the looks of it only the people involved ever will.

How many women would it take before you'd believe them against one man?

 

[Diogenes]

...
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.

Why is the evidence just "he said/she said"?

No physical evidence from a lack of reporting said rape the next morning is one reason, maybe?

As far as police attitudes I found this report interesting:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232667.pdf

Since we're apparently specifically talking about police ignoring or failing to investigate rape reports.

 

[bedlin88]

How many women would it take before you'd believe them against one man?

How many do you got, we can play this type of game all day.

 

[tsig]

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.

Glad you agree that if no action is filed against PZ then he's right.

 

[Diogenes]

How many women would it take before you'd believe them against one man?

With or without the vested interest in one group of people looking to intentionally find accusations against specific people?

If being brought forward by parties with no overt bias...

...again, though, those are allegations of crimes for criminal investigations rather than FtB "investigations" aren't they?

 

[Diogenes]

Glad you agree that if no action is filed against PZ then he's right.

Do you really not know the difference between criminal and civil proceedings?

 

[bedlin88]

Glad you agree that if no action is filed against PZ then he's right.

Believe what you will, I'm not trying to score points here and don't particularity care about your delusions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't, and didn't dispute or state anything to the contrary. I never said the Justice system is perfect far from it and as long as it is run by people it never will be either, at least in my opinion.

And cops in many jurisdictions do, but I guarantee if you don't report it to them then they won't even have the opportunity to not believe the accusations, 100 percent of the time.

As for the last point that is my point also. All we have is he said, she said, and we let the Court of Public Opinion decide the case. Not exactly a just solution in my book.

So what do you suggest exactly? What other system of Law do you think things like this should be brought to? Are you honestly saying, and I don't and really hope your not, saying that if someone makes a charge they can not prove it should just be taken as fact? Can you really not foresee any circumstances where a system like that wouldn't be abused by any individual that had a grudge against another individual?

For the Record I don't know if any of these allegations are true or false. And from the looks of it only the people involved ever will.

My point is, the legal system is not the place that resolves all issues, even these kinds of issues. You suggested the legal system was the place to take this kind of dispute.

Why shouldn't a person shouldn't speak up? Why is proved-in-a-court-of-law the only standard that applies here? When so many cases that are real do not meet the standard of provable in court, why does that mean the victim has no other options?

Maybe just vindication is enough in the court of social opinion. I can't say, not being the victim, what is gained from speaking out but I don't think getting justice via the courts is the only thing that can be accomplished by speaking up.

I think the evidence is mounting steadily here that Karen S was sexually harassed by Ben R. I'm not convinced it's clear Michael S plots to rape intoxicated women, but I don't rule it out either. As for Mr Strauss, it seems only that, so far, there's some gossip going around about his behavior around women.

Oh, and I still don't think a come-on in an elevator was sexual harassment.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why is the evidence just "he said/she said"?

No physical evidence from a lack of reporting said rape the next morning is one reason, maybe?

As far as police attitudes I found this report interesting:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232667.pdf

Since we're apparently specifically talking about police ignoring or failing to investigate rape reports.

Like I said:

B. False Reports
Police attitudes toward the victims of rape have often been studied (Coombs, 1986; LeDoux & Hazelwood, 1985; Madigan & Gamble, 1991; LaFree, 1989; Adler, 1987) and too often the results of such investigations show that, in fact, the police are distrustful of women. They believe that women who are not of perfect virtue (whatever that might be) may be lying (DuMont, Miller & Myhr, 2003; Jordan, 2001; Temkin, 1997). In fact, from the victim’s standpoint, the extreme pressure and harassment of a police investigator working from this ideological position has been called “the second rape,” (Madigan & Gamble, 1991) with some discussion of whether in fact the first or the second rape is worse (McMullen, 1990).

 

[luchog]

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

Opinions on what constitutes sexual harassment are irrelevant here. There is a legal definition of sexual harassment that can be applied. Whether that legal definition is sufficient is a different issue, and one that can be addressed through the legislative system.

And even that is something of a red herring, since the actions as describe go beyond sexual harassment into sexual assault.

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.

Wrong. US courts have upheld defamation proceedings even when the defaming statements are factually true. This will vary by jurisdiction, but according to the First Cirduit Court, the standard is "actual malice" and "a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement".

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.

Yes it can, if she asserts it as true, with a demonstrated ill will and intent to promulgate said statement as fact. There is plenty of evidence in her blog that demonstrates ill will toward Krauss and others at CFI, and there is no indication that she made any substantial investigation of fact, merely assuming said accusations to be true and presenting them as such. That is adequate grounds under the Federal court standard for a finding of defamation.

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.

Effectively, yes. Our legal system is far from perfect; but that's still no excuse for attempting to try the accused in the court of public opinion instead of following proper legal channels.

On top of that, failure to report does more to perpetuate a "culture" of sexual assault and dismissal than anything else. Sexual assault is more likely to go unreported than any other crime except child abuse. Refusal to report it just perpetuates the vicious cycle.

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

There's a huge difference from stating an opinion about a legal verdict, and outright accusing someone of a crime; as well as a huge difference between stating an opinion that someone is a sleaze, and claiming said person is guilty of sexual harassment/sexual assault. What McCreight did was an accusation, based ostensibly on claims made by third parties, without any investigation as to the truthfulness of the claims. It is absolutely defamatory and legally actionable.

 

[bedlin88]

My point is, the legal system is not the place that resolves all issues, even these kinds of issues. You suggested the legal system was the place to take this kind of dispute.

Why shouldn't a person shouldn't speak up? Why is proved-in-a-court-of-law the only standard that applies here? When so many cases that are real do not meet the standard of provable in court, why does that mean the victim has no other options?

Maybe just vindication is enough in the court of social opinion. I can't say, not being the victim, what is gained from speaking out but I don't think getting justice via the courts is the only thing that can be accomplished by speaking up.

I think the evidence is mounting steadily here that Karen S was sexually harassed by Ben R. I'm not convinced it's clear Michael S plots to rape intoxicated women, but I don't rule it out either. As for Mr Strauss, it seems only that, so far, there's some gossip going around about his behavior around women.

Oh, and I still don't think a come-on in an elevator was sexual harassment.

See and I would have to disagree, for these type of allegations I do believe the justice system is the place to resolve them. By doing it in the court of public opinion you subject the issue to Mob Mentality. Which is heavily influenced by opinions of the head of the herd.

And for the last sentence I totally agree, and sometimes an invitation for coffee, just means, well coffee.

 

[Diogenes]

Like I said:

Nice use of background in framing one of the author's question while ignoring that author's work on that question further in that report! Why should you fear getting banned on FtB, selective reading is a norm there, isn't it?

That report also highlights the failure of reporting...as, of course, police can't investigate rapes that are not reported.

 

[luchog]

How many women would it take before you'd believe them against one man?

Just one if there is sufficient evidence.

 

[kellyb]

Just one if there is sufficient evidence.

What if it boils down to he said/she said in a situation (say, verbal harassment) that left no evidence?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

How many women would it take before you'd believe them against one man?

That question could be turned around. Is that all it takes for you to believe, one anonymous woman? What if somebody told you that an anonymous woman had informed them that they'd been sexually assaulted by PZ Myers?

Absent any evidence, I'd believe the person I trusted more, and I don't trust PZ as far as I can throw him. It's actually far worse than trusting PZ vs. trusting Shermer, though. It's trusting PZ's anonymous source, who could be anybody. Sorry, I'm not gonna convict Shermer based upon the testimony of an unknown individual, without proof. It would be the same if the sexes were reversed. What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[luchog]

My point is, the legal system is not the place that resolves all issues, even these kinds of issues. You suggested the legal system was the place to take this kind of dispute.

The legal system is always the place that accusations of a crime should be taken. It doesn't work perfectly to dispense justice; but there's a far greater likelihood to get justice by going through the legal system than by not doing so.

Why shouldn't a person shouldn't speak up? Why is proved-in-a-court-of-law the only standard that applies here? When so many cases that are real do not meet the standard of provable in court, why does that mean the victim has no other options?

There are other options. Some of them are good, and some are bad, and some are so prone to abuse that

Maybe just vindication is enough in the court of social opinion. I can't say, not being the victim, what is gained from speaking out but I don't think getting justice via the courts is the only thing that can be accomplished by speaking up.

The court of public opinion is fickle, not evidence-based, and far too prone to abuse. Too many people have had their lives destroyed by false allegations of all sorts, simply because the accusers were more sympathetic, charismatic, or just plain louder than the accused. Look up Tawana Brawley for a particularly high-profile example.

I think the evidence is mounting steadily here that Karen S was sexually harassed by Ben R. I'm not convinced it's clear Michael S plots to rape intoxicated women, but I don't rule it out either. As for Mr Strauss, it seems only that, so far, there's some gossip going around about his behavior around women.

The accusations are piling up, but evidence is still sketchy, and still hearsay. I'd definitely withhold opinion either way without a formal investigation demonstrating at least a patter, and establishing credibility of the accusers. So far, prominent supporters of the accusers certainly have profound and obvious agendas against the accused.

 

[luchog]

That question could be turned around. Is that all it takes for you to believe, one anonymous woman? What if somebody told you that an anonymous woman had informed them that they'd been sexually assaulted by PZ Myers?

Interestingly, that exact scenario was brought up in the comments on PZ's post; to which the overwhelming response was that anyone who accused PZ of sexual assault could be safely dismissed as a MRA who was trying to defame him because of his support for the accusations against Schermer.

In other words, anyone accusing Schermer should be believed, because they're obviously telling the truth; and anyone accusing PZ Myers should be shouted down, because they're obviously just vindictive liars.

 

[qwints]

Opinions on what constitutes sexual harassment are irrelevant here. There is a legal definition of sexual harassment that can be applied.

The statement "x sexually harassed me" is not equivalent to "a court has found x liable for sexual harassment" or "x's behavior fulfills all the elements to prove a sexual harassment claim."

Wrong. US courts have upheld defamation proceedings even when the defaming statements are factually true.

Do you have a citation for that? If you're talking about Noonan v. Staples, 556 F.3d 20 (2009), the defendant failed to bring a 1st amendment challenge against the Massachusetts statute that permitted a libel claim even if the defamatory statement were true.See "FIRST CIRCUIT APPLIES LIBEL LAW THAT DOES NOT ALLOW TRUTH AS A DEFENSE IN CASES OF “ACTUAL MALICE.".

That is adequate grounds under the Federal court standard for a finding of defamation.

There is no "Federal court standard" for defamation, it's a state law cause of action that is restricted by federal case law based on the 1st amendment.

 

[luchog]

What if it boils down to he said/she said in a situation (say, verbal harassment) that left no evidence?

And how many times can the hair be split?

If there's no evidence, there is no way to form a conclusion. But there are rarely ever situations without evidence, just situations where no one has compiled and evaluated the evidence sufficiently. Sexual harassment is rarely an isolated incident, most harassers follow a pattern that can be documented.