Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lorentz said:
How will they prove a negative? Is the burden of proof on Shermer?

And if they can prove to a reasonable standard of evidence that it did not happen, would PZ genuinely believing that it did happen, not be a valid defense for him?
Click to expand...

They'll prove a negative through testimony and documents, and use discovery to identify what incident Myers is referring to.

In most civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the elements of their claim by a preponderance of the evidence (>50% likelihood).

If actual malice is required because of Shermer's public status, then Shemer would have to prove PZ was knowingly or recklessly making false statements. If Shermer is a private figure, he would just have to prove PZ was negligent in making a false statement.
 
qwints said:
Broadly yes, but I don't think that not listening to someone or telling others not to listen to them is the same as silencing.
Click to expand...

BlockBot is an attempt to silence people by having Twitter ban their accounts.

Have you mentioned your objection to this on the A+ forums?
 
tsig said:
So all you got is troll accusations?
Click to expand...

Aside from the obvious that Graculus already pointed-out I've suggested a theory of mind, as it were, that would pretty much perfectly explain your posting behavior within a clear, though connotatively defined, value set. If you're posting genuinely then your behavior would appear bizarre to the ubiquitous "rational person". If you're posting as a troll, however, your behavior would be characterized as normal for the role you've chosen to take.

This does a disservice to the basic position you seem to be "defending." For a rational person that would be likely unreasonable conduct, maybe in the "whirlwind of passion" some crazy strawmanning might slip out, for example, but it would seem to be unlikely to be a continuous behavior. For someone posting, apparently, purely to amuse themselves it is perfectly reasonable and, indeed, expected.

So...are you trying to posit rational arguments when posting absurd strawmen, red herrings and the like?
 
qwints said:
It's my understanding that the automated reporting was removed.
Click to expand...

Did you read what the reported reason for that removal was?

http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=2

while the aim was to suspend these nasty accounts it didn’t work. Blocking a new test account for spam with all the blockbot users had no effect. Also this is likely in theory against Twitters TOS so since more people are reporting the bot to Twitter there is no need to give them ammunition when the feature doesn’t do anything anyway. Instead TBBV2.1 will tweet differently when #spam or #abuse is added to encourage blockbot users to report an account for abuse.
Click to expand...

Removed because it didn't work and represented a "likely" ToS violation, not because it wasn't a desired feature.
 
qwints said:
It's my understanding that the automated reporting was removed.
Click to expand...

Because it didn't work, and because it was causing people to report the Bot itself to Twitter, rather than because there is any moral objection to trying to silence those who disagree with you.

[...] it has now been removed, while the aim was to suspend these nasty accounts it didn’t work. Blocking a new test account for spam with all the blockbot users had no effect. Also this is likely in theory against Twitters TOS so since more people are reporting the bot to Twitter there is no need to give them ammunition when the feature doesn’t do anything anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Diogenes said:
Aside from the obvious that Graculus already pointed-out I've suggested a theory of mind, as it were, that would pretty much perfectly explain your posting behavior within a clear, though connotatively defined, value set. If you're posting genuinely then your behavior would appear bizarre to the ubiquitous "rational person". If you're posting as a troll, however, your behavior would be characterized as normal for the role you've chosen to take.
Click to expand...

Just put tsig on ignore, like I did. Troll or not, they're not adding anything to the conversation.
 
qwints said:
First, a minor point: one is guilty of a crime, one is liable for a civil cause of action. Shermer's demand letter seems valid on its face, falsely accusing someone of the things listed in PZ's posts would have a negative effect on its reputation. The question I had was directed at Myriad's hypothetical scenario where Shermer and a drunk woman had sex that she was upset by, but that it didn't meet California's legal definition of rape. [Aside: I don't know California law enough to know if that scenario is even possible]
Click to expand...


As I explained: I'm using the grown-ups' and lawyers' definition of rape, not the wishful fantasy definition preferred by some Internet activists.

And my scenario, you might have forgotten (and in any case omitted), includes that the sex was "consensual." That means that the woman was not so drunk as to make consent impossible (that is, not unconscious, semiconscious, or incoherent). Just regular drunk.

So if you don't think that scenario is possible -- that is, that is is not possible for consensual sex engaged in by a drunk person that is regretted afterward to not be rape -- then see above re real versus wishful fantasy definitions.

While I cannot predict what results a given court case would have (practically no one can, or else there would be far fewer cases brought to court in the first place), I would not be surprised if a court were to rule as follows:

- That a reasonable person, reading the statements in PZ's post, would read it as a positive assertion that Shermer had committed rape.

- That (given the scenario we're working in) rape did not occur.

- Therefore, the assertion that Shermer committed rape is defamatory.

If "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" really means "bought be drinks which I voluntarily consumed, until in my intoxicated state I agreed to something I regretted later," then the case for defamation is good. And as I've already said, I don't think "well, it was rape by my personal preferred definition" will or should be an effective defense, as a reasonable person reading the post would generally not be aware, and the post does not explain, that an in-group-specific alternate meaning of "I was raped" was in effect.

Of course, that's just one scenario. If in fact Shermer did any of the following:

- Spiked her drinks with alcohol or other drugs without her knowledge
- Coerced her by physical force, threats, or similar means
- Had sex with her while she was in an incoherent or unconscious state

...then the account would be true, and therefore far less likely to be defamatory. (I'm a bit unclear on the "defamatory even if true" legal scenarios, if they actually exist, so I won't comment on that.)

A bit less than three hours until 2:00 PM PST. Does Myers listen to advice from you? What advice would you give him, if you had his own well-being (as opposed to advancing some other cause at his expense) in mind?


By the way, the "authority" I have to post propositions is that I am a member of this forum under no current disciplinary restrictions and thus am able to post what I wish within the constraints I agreed to in the Membership Agreement. Is there someone else whose permission is required?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Folks just a head up: as you know there has been some legal stuff going on in regards to all these allegations, accusations and speculations and the mod team will have to be mindful of this. As I'm sure everyone is aware even getting caught up on the fringes of legal action can be expensive and constraining for an organisation so the the last thing anyone would want would be for the JREF or the Forum to be embroiled in some expensive legal action as a result of something posted here. (Even with the clear disclaimer ""Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.")

This is not saying that discussion, commenting and speculation is off-limit or has to stop just letting people know the reality of the current situation, the internet is still constrained by many of society's laws.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Myriad said:
By the way, the "authority" I have to post propositions is that I am a member of this forum under no current disciplinary restrictions and thus am able to post what I wish within the constraints I agreed to in the Membership Agreement. Is there someone else whose permission is required?
Click to expand...

Authority, in the legal context, means statutory or case law supporting a claim about what the law is. I'm asking whether your claims are based on what the law is or if you're just guessing. Specifically, I don't know whether someone accusing another person of "rape" is liable for defamation if they call an action "rape" that doesn't fit all the elements of the relevant state's statute. I suspect that California law speaks to this issue, and I doubt that one is liable for using legal terms incorrectly. For example, if I call someone a robber (robbery requires force) when they are in fact only a thief (theft doesn't require the use of force), I don't think I've engaged in defamation.

The following law student note is a relevant survey of the subject:

"Defamation and False Rape Claims"
 
Last edited:
qwints said:
Authority, in the legal context, means statutory or case law supporting a claim about what the law is. I'm asking whether your claims are based on what the law is or if you're just guessing. Specifically, I don't know whether someone accusing another person of "rape" is liable for defamation if they call an action "rape" that doesn't fit all the elements of the relevant state's statute....
Click to expand...

Here's a look at California's Defamation law:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-defamation-law

Here's the California Penal Code link for rape:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269

qwints said:
...For example, if I call someone a robber (robbery requires force) when they are in fact only a thief (theft doesn't require the use of force), I don't think I've engaged in defamation.
Click to expand...

Both of which are crimes, right?
 
What it comes down to under Myriad's hypothetical, is the meaning of the word "false." The Digital Media Law Project's summary of California Law mentions "substantial truth" as a defense. Posters, including Myriad, have asserted that calling a sexual encounter "rape" is defamatory unless it conforms to the statutory definition of rape. Even if the encounter didn't meet the statutory definition, I don't see how a woman truthfully reporting that Shermer and she had sex in a way that made her feel violated could ever be defamation, but I don't know this area of law at all. I don't think anyone asserting otherwise does either.

Shermer, in the demand letter, has taken the position that this didn't happen at all, in which case it's clearly defamation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom