Comment by andrewzah
4 years ago
Someone should coin a law for this phenomenon: Every single time a ~~woman~~ victim makes a public statement like this, in the comment sections a man must be discussing false accusations or the court of public opinion. I don't think I've ever not seen this.
People who are abused are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
edit: removed specific gender
edit2: I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. This is a phenomenon that I've noticed over the years.
And people who are accused are damned, period. I can see why mob justice can sometimes be the only options for victims, but the abuse potential is massive.
By the way, I see no reason a woman or a trans person could not make this statement.
"but the abuse potential is massive."
I think people grossly exaggerate this. We have libel and slander laws. Individual companies aside, entire communities of people aren't that stupid. In my opinion, this is a really pessimistic view of people and also not based in reality in my experience.
At the end of the day, we need to be able to listen to victims. The amount of fake accusers compared to real victims is microscopic.
"And people who are accused are damned, period."
Not really. There are literally countless examples of accusations/allegations and nothing happening to people for whatever reason, usually influence/popularity.
> I think people grossly exaggerate this. We have libel and slander laws.
Yeah, but think about how those work. (IANAL).
If I can convince enough people that you are an awful person, I can ruin your reputation. As a recourse, you can sue me for defamation. But once you do that, we’ve switched sides—now I am the defendant and you are the accuser. Unlike a criminal defendant, the defendant in the court of public opinion never enjoys a presumption of innocence. Instead, he has to carry that burden of proof through a civil lawsuit just to clear his name.
> Individual companies aside, entire communities of people aren't that stupid.
If that’s true, why bother with courts of law in the first case? If the mob is capable of adjudicating questions of guilt or innocence, we’re wasting a lot of money on lawyers as a society.
I should note that my brother thought exactly the way you did, before this happened to him. Just an FYI.
He didn't move to Portland randomly. He's the most liberal of the liberal. Just remember that you almost never hear media coverage of accusations that turn out to be false. You just hear about the accusations when they are first made. Do you think the coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case was equally high after the accusations were proven to be fabricated?
>"I think people grossly exaggerate this. We have libel and slander laws."
I don't understand what those laws have to do with this? As if they somehow protect a potentially innocent party from incorrect accusations? At what point would an accusation such as the one in the blog post even constitute as libel/slander?
We need to be able to listen to accusers. We also need to be able to evaluate the accusations honestly. If it's taboo to express doubt or skepticism of accusations of sexual impropriety, then that isn't functional either.
I think you've got the phenomenon backwards: when people are skeptical of a murder accusation or an alleged robbery, it's accepted as part of normal discourse. But showing skepticism of allegations of sexual impropriety is not.
Right. I think it's reasonable to be doubtful if there is only one accuser, and the accused can provide hard evidence refuting at least some of the accuser's claims.
But when several people stand up to make accusations, and there's a bunch of corroboration, it's hard to wonder if skeptics are skeptical out of bad faith, even subconsciously. I'm not sure we've passed this threshold with Pretty, but two accusations, as well as some others corroborating parts of the stories, is starting to look pretty compelling.
I'm curious to know what Pretty's response will be, but I think he already has a steep uphill climb.
There's also the possibility that you believe the testimony of the accusers, but what they allege is not sexual assault. What exactly is Pretty being accused of? The two women's statements talk a lot about how their relationship with Pretty left them feeling used and objectified. But they're pretty sparse when it comes to detailing an actual instance of sexual assault. This is where Vic describes her relationship with Pretty:
> What followed was an on-and-off long-distance relationship in late 2015-2017. He visited me on his terms when it was convenient for his nomadic lifestyle. I quickly grew to feel isolated and objectified by him. As a non-native English speaker, I often felt manipulated, but I found it hard to articulate why. He wanted to constantly monitor my activities. He habitually criticized my lifestyle choices and diminished my self-esteem.
Pretty only wanted casual sex at his convenience, and his relationship with Vic left her feeling criticized. A bad boyfriend? Sure. A sex crime? Not even remotely. Yifan's allegation that Pretty had sex with her when she was drunk comes closer, but she's still vague about it.
I don't think Pretty really has much of a hill to climb. I believe the allegations, but at the same time I believe Pretty is innocent of any crime. He probably seeks out inexperienced women, and presents greater commitment than he really harbors. Scummy? Yeah. Criminal? No. Worthy of ostracism? Maybe, but I'd want to hear his side of the story first.
It's also a completely false argument since there's libel and slander laws. If the accused was innocent, they would simply sue the false accuser. That they don't says everything.
The barrier and punishment for coming forward as a victim of sexual abuse, rape or harassment is great indeed. Questioning every case is ignorance of existing laws setup to handle any false accusations.
Not trying to sue someone for slander doesn't actually say anything.
There's a lot of factors. How much will it cost? How much publicity will it generate and is that worse than just letting it go? What is the standard of proof that must be met and are they confident they can prove that it's a false statement? What are the consequences if they somehow fail to meet that burden? Etc.
Also, how did the left become the party of "if he's in the courtroom he must be guilty of something"?
So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word?
If someone wants to clear their name, go to court and sue for slander. If it's two people's word against each other, I'll believe the victim every time since there's such a high cost of coming forward and slander laws exist.
EDIT Since I'm now throttled...
I'm saying that coming forward either means:
1. Something really happened to you.
2. You're breaking the law and can be punished.
High stakes, no? Which is one of the many reasons false accusations are exceedingly rare if not non-existent.
I will always believe the victim unless the perpetrator wins a libel case. It's the legal mechanism for fighting back.
2 replies →
So in your judgement, a person who is accused is guilty if they don't retaliate with a slander/libel lawsuit? Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, lawyers and filing lawsuits might be expensive, prohibitively so?
The "existing laws setup to handle any false allegations" exist only for accusations made in the court system.
It's amazing to me how little thought people like you have behind your beliefs. You basically just regurgitate what you heard from your college electives with zero mindfulness or introspection.
> The "existing laws setup to handle any false allegations" exist only for accusations made in the court system.
This is wrong though.
> Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, lawyers and filing lawsuits might be expensive, prohibitively so?
Indeed, and reporting a crime, and ensuring it is handled appropriately by a police force is also exceedingly costly, though perhaps not financially.
Significant portions of your post violate the HN guidelines.
That's not how libel and slander works. You not only have to prove that the statements were false, but that the accuser knew they were false and was deliberately malicious in spreading the falsehoods
I'm aware of how libel and slander works. What you say is exactly what I meant. It's the legal avenue available to those who have been falsely accused.
If it's hard to demonstrably prove actual cases of sexual assault, doesn't it follow that it would be as hard, if not harder, to prove the negative?