You Do NOT Have The Right To Be Believed

[Anonymous]

A fundamental principle within criminal law is the presumption of innocence; that is, regardless of the accusation, one is considered innocent until proven guilty.

What this tells us is that the burden of proof falls not on the accused, but on the accuser. It is a vital component of fair law and a fair society. If accusations were equal to convictions in lieu of evidence, and the burden of proof fell the opposite way-- well, logic warns us against trying to prove a negative. So, we'd have a lot of innocent people behind bars.

The recent scandal surrounding Harvey Weinstein seems to have started a firestorm that follows a disturbing trend. An accusation of sexual assault/harassment is made to the media. The media prints the story, regardless of evidence, and rarely seeks a counter statement from the accused, beforehand. Within 24 hours, the alleged sexual assault/harassment is deemed factual in the court of public opinion, and the social penal system deals out pseudo justice in the form of ruined careers and public shaming.

Now, I'm not defending sexual offenders; however, in many of the cases, the acts themselves are open to interpretation as to whether or not they qualify as sexual assault/harassment, and the evidence to support them is almost exclusively anecdotal. When we live in a culture that purports to say all victims of sexual crimes have an immediate right to be believed, we're doing away with the fundamental, established principle of presumption of innocence-- and the repercussions to society are harmful.

Human sensitivity is vital to living in a fair and compassionate society, and a right to be believed absolutely extends to an alleged victims family and loved ones-- who have no bearing on proceedings against the accused.

However, as a public, we have to weigh sensitivity against intellectualism. Otherwise, we sink to recklessness and chaos amongst the ranks. If you bring a case of sexual assault against a specific individual to the court of public opinion, then we, the people, as well as the employer, friends and family of the individual in question are entitled to proof-- and, in its absence, entitled to disbelief.

[macix670]

What a great take! Logic and reasoning is what is needed today. Emotional feminists run around saying that we have to believe the accusers no matter what otherwise we're supporting rape culture. I shake my head and this stupidity.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[ThisDudeHere]

Completely and fully agreed. Well said.

[BrileyCat]

ok i get it . in America now you can be elected president of the united states even tho
you have admitted to abusing and assaulting women . and then you can run around the world
kissing the asses of dictators and enemies whilst throwing your own country under the bus .
not only that . any female who accuses you (Trump et al) of abuse or rape has no rights
whatsoever to be believed . who cares if the accuser has no credibility but the accused does?
WhoooHaa!! for Anti Intellectualism Anti Feminism the NRA the Christian-Alt-Right-Wing
supporters of the United States of Trumpocracy = rape . god forgives sins . get elected .

but . however . below is a list of all women based on the principle offered at hand .
they have no rights to be believed . N. O. N. E OF THEM . NOT ONE .

(BILL CLINTON)
Juanita Broaddrick . ‎Gennifer Flowers . ‎Kathleen Willey . ‎Kathy Shelton

(HARVEY WEINSTEIN)
Amber Anderson . Lysette Anthony . Asia Argento . Rosanna Arquette . Vana Barba
Jessica Barth . Kate Beckinsale . Juls Bindi . Zoë Brock . Cynthia Burr . Liza Campbell
Marisa Coughlan . Florence Darel . Emma de Caunes . Cara Delevingne . Sophie Dix
Lacey Dorn . Dawn Dunning . Lina Esco . Alice Evans . Lucia Evans . Angie Everhart
Claire Forlani . Romola Garai . Louisette Geiss . Louise Godbold . Judith Godrèche
Trish Goff . Larissa Gomes . Heather Graham . Eva Green . Ambra Battilana Gutierrez
Daryl Hannah . Mimi Haleyi . Lena Headey . Lauren Holly . Paz de la Huerta
Dominique Huett . Jessica Hynes . Angelina Jolie . Ashley Judd . Katherine Kendall
Heather Kerr . Mia Kirshner . Laura Madden . Natassia Malthe . Brit Marling
Sarah Ann Masse . Ashley Matthau . Rose McGowan . Natalie Mendoza
Katya Mtsitouridze . Emily Nestor . Connie Nielsen . Lupita N’yongo . Gwyneth Paltrow
Samantha Panagrosso . Juliana De Paula . Zelda Perkins . Vu Thu Phuong . Sarah Polley
Giovanna Rei . Tomi-Ann Roberts . Lisa Rose . Erika Rosenbaum . Annabella Sciorra
Melissa Sagemiller . Léa Seydoux . Lauren Sivan . Chelsea Skidmore . Mira Sorvino
Tara Subkoff . Paula Wachowiak . Wende Walsh . Paula Williams . Sean Young

[BrileyCat]

(BILL COSBY)
Cindra Laddc . Carla Ferrigno . Kristina Ruehli . Linda Brown . Joan Tarshis
Linda Joy Traitz . Victoria Valentino . Beverly Johnson . Tamara Green . Judy Huth
P. J. Masten . Helen Hayes . Louisa Moritz . Donna Motsinger . Therese Serignese
Janice Dickinson . Jewel Allison . Heidi Thomas . Barbara Bowman . Lise-Lotte Lublin
Chelan . Helen Gumpel . Beth Ferrier . Andrea Constand . Chloe Goins

(Bill O'Reilly)
Andrea Mackris . Wendy Walsh . Rebecca Gomez Diamond . Juliet Huddy
Andrea Tantaros . Laurie Dhue

(Roger Ailes)
Julia Roginsky . Gretchen Carlson . Megyn Kelly . Kellie Boyle . Rudi Bakhtiar

(Louis C. K.)
Dana Min Goodman . Julia Wolov . Rebecca Corry . Abby Schachner
Unnamed Woman

(Roy Moore)
Leigh Corfman . Wendy Miller . plus 2 more

(Clarence Thomas)
Anita Faye Hill

(Donald Trump)
Ninni Laaksonen . Jessica Drake . Karena Virginia . Cathy Heller
Summer Zervos . ristin

[BrileyCat]

(Donald Trump) . contd
ristin Anderson . Jessica Leeds . Rachel Crooks .
Mindy McGillivray . Natasha Stoynoff . Jennifer Murphy . Cassandra Searles
Temple Taggart McDowell . Jill Harth . . .
the child rape case vanished . Nancy O'Dell . (so courageous) .
who made no denials after Trump admitted assaulting her,
"I moved on her like a bitch", in the Billy Bush video .

[BrileyCat]

*Kristin Anderson

[RolandCuthbert]

Look at all the "men" supporting you.

Haha! Hilarious!

Good old GaG, where so many posters do not understand rational debate and objective facts.

What you are posting is merely deflecting the issue. Employers, contractors, partners, owners, etc. do not have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when it comes to sexual harassment. There is no such thing as having a trial at a company to convict someone of sexual harassment. Companies do not have to wait until a court has made a decision.

Why is this?

Because companies, industries, etc. have their own standards for governing conduct of their employees, contractors, members, etc.

Harvey Weinstein is going to face charges of rape, sexual misconduct, etc. That is totally different than a firm canceling a contract with him citing that he breached personal conduct guidelines within the industry. They can claim he has damaged their brand therefore, they can no longer work with him.

Legislation about the agreement between employee/employer goes even further. As you will note, the woman who gave Trump the finger while riding her bike was fired. Because her company told her that she violated employee conduct guidelines. The same goes for Kevin Spacey. He got fired from certain projects because he violated ethics rules. He will be prosecuted and hopefully jailed. But no one has to wait to decide that. The evidence submitted does not have to meet "beyond a reasonable doubt" for rape, harassment, etc. It merely has to show that Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Ben Affleck, etc. all behaved in a way that the company sees as being unethical.

So I have to say your post is basically anti-intellectual. Because it doesn't seem to understand that while everyone has rights. So do companies, firms and corporations. They have a right to protect their brand. And if an employee's actions damages that brand, they can fire him/her. The same goes for partners of a firm, on a project, contractors, it does not matter. Any business relationship can be terminated because someone acted in an unethical manner.

[Kkaos]

Do you know anything about unfair dismissal? Typically if an accusation comes out, the employer will suspend the employee until the case is sorted. Employers can't just sack someone based on an accusation, or at least where I'm from that's the case. Otherwise I could walk into your employment, shout that you're a rapist and then your employer could sack you for bringing their brand into disrepute.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Kkaos Again, people who are complaining about this are not even attempting to be logical. No one is claiming that a charge can get someone dismissed. The issue again is conduct. A man can be accused of the rape of a minor. And of course those charges may be totally false. But if he invited a young girl to his home for a weekend without her parent's knowledge or consent. A company can fire him because that is an ethical issue.

Try to be rational about this. Separate wild rape allegations from employee conduct.

Was this woman fired because of a rape charge?

www.tolivelugu.com/.../trump01.jpg

[Kkaos]

So what's the problem? Of course a company can let someone go if they do those things because that is an issue. If someone is proven to have brought the company into disrepute, by all means, sack them.

This post isn't about that. This post is about believing a certain narrative before anything is proven. A company can not do that.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Kkaos "An accusation of sexual assault/harassment is made to the media. The media prints the story, regardless of evidence, and rarely seeks a counter statement from the accused, beforehand. Within 24 hours, the alleged sexual assault/harassment is deemed factual in the court of public opinion, and the social penal system deals out pseudo justice in the form of ruined careers and public shaming."

That is what the post is about. And it is absolutely wrong. These claims about Harvey Weinstein were in the public eye for years. This is from 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCNvREKTnQc

And that is wrong. A compan

[Kkaos]

Ah well, I'm not trying to argue. I know nothing of Weinstein. All I'm saying is you can't sack someone unless it's proven. If I'm accused of something and then immediately sacked and then later found not guilty, I can sure my former employer for unfair dismissal.

Where I live at least, if you have any legal issues, you'll be suspended until the case is resolved. But you'll never be sacked before the case has been resolved.

[Kkaos]

Sue*

[myTake Owner]

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I never said companies had to do anything. If a company wants to fire someone over an allegation, that's their right-- however, it's frequently done as a reaction to public opinions.

This take was an appeal to the public and journalistic integrity when it comes to reporting unsubstantiated rape allegations; case in point, my ex boyfriend was a member of the fraternity accused by Jackie Coackley (the Rolling Stone fiasco).

The "right to be believed" is the only anti-intellectual argument, here. Mine is not a critique of the companies ensuring their bottom line by doing away with employees who could damage it-- that's commonsensical.

I'm criticizing the publications that proceed with stories in lieu of evidence, and the notion that it's our duty as a public to believe them.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Kkaos The problem is you keep trying to claim criminal conduct must be proven for someone to lose their job. That simply is not true. Russell Simmons has just been accused of sexual misconduct. The accusation may be totally false. But what is not in dispute is that he had sex with a 17 year old girl. So since that is the truth, other firms, partners, etc. can cancel their agreements/contracts with him or his companies. They can claim him having sex with an underage girl in the past can damage their brand.

[RolandCuthbert]

? Why does it matter if they do it as a "reaction"? Isn't that the whole point, public opinion? If you do something that damages the public reputation of a firm, that firm has grounds to fire you. That's just the way the world works.

As for the "right to be believed", you are using situations that have occurred in public to prove your point. Unfortunately, none of these situations fit your "rush to judgement" argument. A firm does not have to prove criminal conduct. And if you are guilty of something unethical, you can be fired. It does not have to be criminal sexual harassment. You can be fired because you sent an inappropriate email, made an impropriate comment to an employee, etc., etc.

This is all basic common sense. I don't know why any one is trying to dispute this.

[myTake Owner]

I never said that. Not once. It is 100% within a company's rights to dismiss whomever they consider inconsistent with their branding. However, these companies aren't given room to make these decisions, so they end up being a response to public outcry.

The problem is, often times the outcry is only rooted in allegations, not actual evidence. And there isn't much threshold for the media to report allegations.

When we say the victim has a right to be believed without evidence, we're basically giving these companies no choice but to terminate any employee who is accused of misdeeds.

Which is fine if they actually did them-- but who's to distinguish genuine misconduct from character assassination? Certainly not the public... otherwise we're infringing on someone's right to be believed.

[RolandCuthbert]

But the only reason why most companies do anything is because of public outcry. Example; look up "united breaks guitars". A musician was traveling on United Airlines. He had a $3,500 guitar that was damaged in United's custody. For nine months, he tried to get compensation. He finally got fed up and made a youtube video. Within a month, it had five million views and all of a sudden United had seen the light.

But if he did not draw public attention to his cause they would have glossed it over and went on their merry way. Companies are not moral entites that focus on doing the right thing. They only make corrections if they feel it is in their best interest. Public pressure is sometimes, the only way to force them to make those corrections.

Again you are onto the "victims", and again I say the same thing. It has nothing to do with "evidence". Improper conduct cannot be submitted as evidence in a court of law. But at a company, it is sufficient for termination.

[myTake Owner]

You keep saying that as if I ever said someone guilt of improper conduct deserves a pass. I'm saying that anyone can accuse anyone they've had contact with of just about anything-- the reason things work a certain way in court is to protect the innocent, whomever that may be. Society should work the same way.

I'm always on the side of the victim, but I need evidence to discern who that may be in any given situation.

[Kkaos]

You make absolutely no sense.

"The problem is you keep trying to claim criminal conduct must be proven for someone to lose their job. That simply is not true. Russell Simmons has just been accused of sexual misconduct. The accusation may be totally false. But what is not in dispute is that he had sex with a 17 year old girl."

Do you not see how much of a contradiction that is? You've just said he definitely had sex with a 17 year old, which therefore means he's in breach of the law. Therefore he deserves to be sacked. Of course that's true.

I'm simply saying if there if someone claim you've done something and you deny it and there is no evidence to support their claim and you haven't been found guilty, you CANNOT be sacked. That is classed as unfair dismissal.

[RolandCuthbert]

@ thisismynamehoe You wish to frame the debate the way you want. But you don’t get to do that in a society where people are free to have their own opinions. You keep talking about accusations with no basis in fact. Again, leave that to the different institutions and companies to decide. I can think of a lot of reasons why companies have fired people and a lot of them are way less serious than an accusation of sexual harassment.

There is no way that you can force a company to keep an employee that has done something unethical. . simply because it was not criminal. I have given you half a dozen situations. You still repeat the same thing yet you cannot think of one situation where a company fired someone based upon one single false accusation.

It is silly to think that would happen a majority of the time. And if a man propositions women repeatedly in the workplace, that company can fire him, even if he did not physically harass them.

[RolandCuthbert]

@KkaosYou are not very enlightened. Did you know that the age of consent is 16 in some states? I guess you didn’t. So since you did not, why is it constructive to talk with you?

Again, a person can do something perfectly legal yet be fired from their job because from a ethical standpoint, it is absolutely disgusting.

[Kkaos]

Typical. You call say I'm not very 'enlightened' when you still think I'm American. The world doesn't revolve around you, brightspark. Indeed the age of consent varies greatly.

If 2 consenting individuals of legal age have sex, that is private matter and not grounds for sacking. It has nothing to do with the company and someone could easily fight an unfair dismissal if that was the case.

Your argument is pointless.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Kkaos Yes, it is grounds for sacking. And Russell Simmons will be sacked. It will be a joyous occasion.

media1.s-nbcnews.com/.../...nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

www.nbcnews.com/.../hip-hop-mogul-russell-simmons-denies-sexual-assault-allegations-n822311

[Kkaos]

Why the hell have you quoted that? It clearly just says HE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED her.

[myTake Owner]

You keep putting words in my mouth that I've already repeatedly spit out, so there's no point in arguing with you.

[Kkaos]

@thisismynamehow You'd get more sense out of a brick wall. He's continually contradicting himself, going on tangents and then misinterpreting what people are saying and then trying to use it against them.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Kkaos "Why the hell have you quoted that? It clearly just says HE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED her."

Hmmm. . . you sound a bit unhinged. Please try to be rational. The article has her claim and his counter claim. She claims she was assaulted. He claims it was consensual.

Now let us talk about the topic. Can an employer dismiss an employee. . . can a company terminate a contract, can a business partner end an association. . . based on this?

The answer is yes.

Russell Simmons admitted to having sex with a 17 year old girl. It was not against the law to have consensual sex with her. The age of consent is 16 in New York. But Russell is going to outted in the industry because no one wants to do business with an old fart who preys on teenagers.

Again. . . if it was consensual, it was not against the law. But it does not matter when it comes to his business dealings or employment.

He will be sacked.

And it will be splendid.

:D

Glad to clear things up for you!

[RolandCuthbert]

No, I am not putting words in your mouth. You keep repeating the same thing about false accusations. Yet you do not have a single case where a person was terminated based on that. You are complaining about a non-existent problem. Women are coming forward, some men have a bit of decency and are admitting to misdeeds. Others are in full denial. . . but it doesn't matter if it is proven that they acted unethically.

You have nothing factual to enter into the debate. You only posit a hypothetical. "What if a guy was fired for something a woman said?"

[RolandCuthbert]

@Kkaos Contradictions? Dude, I said the same thing since the beginning. If you act unethically in a work environment say goodbye to your job.

It is hysterical that you think a person can keep their job in America if it is proven they are guilty of unethical conduct.

The original poster posts pictures of a gavel and talks about the rule of law in our court system.

No one have to approach that standard for proving guilt in a company.

And you two whining about it won't change a thing. All these freaks who could not act professionally are losing their jobs and being outted.

And I find the whole thing hilarious.

https://m.popkey.co/44dd97/x0lz_f-maxage-0.gif

[Nyx_85]

I do not agree with the media dragging people's names through the mud. However high profile cases are hard to keep quiet and it's idealistic to think that the media would ever respect people's privacy.

In everyday situations it would be nice if it was kept out of the public eye. If the names of the accuser and accused were not released. If a person filing has the right the anonymity then so should the person being accused of the crime.

However sexual assault charges are often not easy to prosecute, even if they something did happen that was non-consensual. Trials take time and money. Without clear cut evidence many times the accused isn't even charged, let alone do they face trial or conviction. It's just not worth the resources, to the courts, to prosecute. This is the unfortunate but true nature the justice system.

The issue when cases come out and face public scrutiny is not so much that the supposed victim should automatically be believed. It's the way they treated by many people that don't believe them. Not just random people on the internet calling them liars... (which they don't know. It's one thing have your doubts but you have no proof they ARE a liar) but people in their community becoming downright abusive and volatile to them. Bullying them. One family had their house burned down after their teenage daughter accused a classmate of rape. Like even if you think she made it up, why would you go burn down her home?

Not believing someone is one thing, but attacking them personally is another.

And the thing is this is really the only sort of situation where people get this riled up. You never hear people calling others names and crap, burning down their homes, for accusing someone of theft. Rape is seen as so horrible that often it's easier for us to NOT believe it happened. And this may be actually mental. Our brain's reaction. We see information we don't like and our cognitive bias sets in.

[Nyx_85]

*often it's easier for us to NOT believe it happened. And because rape is so awful, so are the accusations, and thus we become hostile to the accuser. Even when we don't know either way what really happened. Sometimes we are even hostile when there IS clear evidence.

[Losalt]

Thank you for sharing this.
This is something that has been worrying me a bit too.
Things like rape and sexual assult is kind of tough because both individuals have a need to be believed and can have their lives ruined if they're not, yet its damned near impossible for us as a society to know anything for sure one way or the other.
The best we can do is to try to treat them both as if they're telling the truth as best as we can unless evidence clearly proves that a crime has indeed taken place.
And to try to help both as best we can.
If a man or woman reports that they've been raped then they should recieve mental health support regardless of how the court case ends up going, it should be taken into consideration as well if he or she requests a restraining order even in the case of innocence.
But the media and others should try to refrain from judging till a court of law has actually convicted someone of a crime, keep names and pictures hidden etc.
And even if a verdict does judge him or her posting a picture on TV with full name would still be... problematic...
An appeal might take place.
Or any number of other issues...
Also even if he or she is guilty why should they stay on the right side of the law if everyone still treats them as a criminal after they've served their time?

I don't know, these things are just a mess...

[cgray214]

I don't understand what the purpose of posts like these are. Most of the men in these high-profile cases literally admitted to what they did/were doing. What other evidence do you need? Yes, this is a disturbing trend; it's disturbing that it took so damn long for people to finally start paying attention to just how rampant sexual harassment really is within the entertainment industry. In Weinstein's case, the court of public opinion isn't just looking at one or two random people coming to the forefront here, we're talking about DOZENS of different individuals, all accusing the same man. It's not a question of just believing the victim in any and all circumstances it's using basic, goddamn common sense and drawing the appropriate conclusion from that. Is it really more believable to assume that the majority of these women are all evil liars, hoping to ruin the career of one innocent man? Or does it make more sense that a guy with considerable power and influence, who had ample opportunity to take advantage of the young and vulnerable, and intimidate them into staying silent had a secret pattern of abuse?

[BronzedAdonis]

well said

[Kkaos]

Did they say that we should believe that the people coming out are evil liars? No one said that. We should review the case, review the evidence and the facts, take statements and come to a mature conclusion based on that and charge whoever accordingly.

[lumos]

I agree with being critical but at the same time it seems like it just swings to another extreme; accusing the victim of being a slut, an attention whore, a media whore, just out to make some money/revive their career etc etc etc.
This sort of mentality should go both ways. We shouldn't immediately take the accuser's side but neither should we immediately side with the accused either. Too many times have I seen the accused be defended by people who are absolutely trashing the accuser. And then people wonder why victims of abuse (sexual or otherwise) never step forward, or do it 30 years later.

[lumos]

Perfect example: www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q2733599-why-does-everyone-every-hollywood-celebrity-wait-for-20-30
People jumping to conclusions about the people who have stepped forward with their stories. Claiming they’re hungry for attention or wanting to make a quick buck. That they didn’t step forward because they’re weak/pussies or because they’re lying, or just bandwagoning. If we’re going to treat the accused with respect and dignity, then we should treat the accuser the same. Think what you want of them behind closed doors but without any evidence, none of us are entitled to name-calling or jumping to conclusions.

[myTake Owner]

I entirely agree with this; it's sort of a Schrödinger's cat situation, right? You have to treat both sides fairly until you see evidence leaning one direction or the other.

Calling an accuser a slut tells women that it's not okay to talk about assault. Which I never condone.

[chihuahuacow287]

Finally someone who's said what's on my mind! It seems like you can go accuse anyone of sexual assault and have everyone believe you no matter how many holes are in your story.

[Mexicoman101]

'Psuedo justice' is an important concept here.
I get worried this sexual fearmongering attempts to advance a new form of sexual McCarthyism in workplaces and organizations throughout the United States. I feel like people are too quick to judge but also too quick to lionize celebrities as though they're not like us, giving them so much deference and high praise that we forget they're both vulnerable to attack by wrongful accusation & to the capacity for evil inherent to the life of a sexual abuser. Society needs to develop better standards for belief that depend on weighing multiple types of evidence, not just a supposed witness testimony.

[FatherJack]

Excellent take , you have to admit , regardless of gender , the default view is male = guilty bastard , female = poor innocent victim. This is why more & more men keep their distance from women , I have been encouraged by the fact that 2 female false accusers have finally been jailed , Jemma Beale , a lesbian that is openly misandrist , wrecked the lives of 15 men , she got 10 years , but will likely only serve 5 at the most. Another woman accused a taxi driver of sex assault / rape & thankfully for him , he had a camera in his cab , she got a shorter sentence.

[lumos]

It's not the default at all. I've seen people bully female victims into submission even when they had substantial evidence, calling them rude names, claiming they're only doing it for sympathy and that they shouldn't try to ruin the life or career of the rapist/sexual abuser.

[Onlythisone]

Guy on my team has had 2 filed against him so far. He told them he didn't do anything and the first girl was fired, next time the girls vouched as a group and they said he was under investigation then it just disappeared. Now the thing is, he says "I never did anything" and whines about it but everyone hears it... All the time, all of them do it he's just the least discreet about it. Even though he knows we all have heard he still calls them liars and pretends he has the upper ground. So anytime I hear people preaching "false allegations" I think of him.

[chrisbigman]

This should include other cases like Duke lacrosse team, Bill Cosby, Bill O'Reilly, etc - not just Weinstein - whether they are guilty or not. I'm not saying they're innocent. But saying they are guilty is just as wrong. People need to stop trusting the media as if they 100% factual. Even with their best intentions, the media is not 100% factual. People have and do lie to the media themselves, and that makes the media look bad. I'm not saying the media is completely innocent, because they have blatantly lied about certain things too for their own reasons/agenda. But believing everything the media prints is ignorant. That's why we have a justice system (or we used to) and why we have a court of law - for the truth to come out. Evidence helps bring out the truth.

[sp33d]

Innocent, until proven guilty, as you pointed out. The court of "public opinion" is insignificant. If one believes the media and the "public court", that's their own problem.

On the flipside, these accusations about sexual assault/abuse or what ever you want to call it, can't just hit like lightning from the clear sky. There has to be Some truth to the story. The problem being, it's most likely exagerrated.

The verdict. Hang the court of public opinion. Frankly speaking, it's infested with idiots.

The accusations are verified via infallible evidence. Some girl putting on a little theatre is hardly compelling proof. There have been numerous such cases in the past, most of them ended up being false accusations.. but they don't talk about those in the media now do they? Not intriguing enough, I suppose.

[sp33d]

The funniest and saddest part is when this so called assault is actually consensual and the other is getting ideas.

[Shuey]

Excellent commentary and brave to post it considering the current climate. I have never been a fan of the court of popular opinion. Yes our justice systems are flawed and this is especially clear in the areas of sexual abuse/harassment but we cannot abandon them in favor of mob rule. Very interesting post.

[Intraluminal]

I have to agree fully with this. As a liberal, I naturally wish conservative politicians nothing but heartbreak and ridicule. Nevertheless, this morning I got an email urging me to join them in insisting that a "child-molester" had no place in politics. While I agree that a child molester has no place anywhere, including politics, I disagree that merely the *accusation* is enough to destroy someone's career and life. I immediately emailed them back saying that I felt that they were subverting due process.

[damnwinter]

Now this is my kind of girl! :) Well done for putting logic ahead of aggressive, privillege-hungry, emotional trends. I know it took courage and I am glad you speak up. Nice take!

[Anpu23]

The issue is that behind all of this there seems to be an agenda. It seems that some people want a world that a woman can incarcerate a man at her word alone, this creates an environment of fear and control. We also see this same kind of thing in the "anti-street harassment laws" in the UK. Or even when a woman clearly lied and is caught on video lying about it, she is legally shielded from disclosure.

[coralee]

People do not have the right to be believed but they do have the right for their accusations to be taken seriously. And they also have the right not to be abused for coming foreward. Innocent until proven guilty also applies to the accuser. Both parties can be treated with respect and dignity until the investigation concludes.

[raspberry0416]

Innocent until proven guilty is a LEGAL concept.
The rest of it is mob justice. You can't control what people think one way or another. You can't control what the media does either because they just want to sell papers. Sometimes things work well for the accused, and sometimes they work well for the accusers.

[Bananaman177]

https://i.imgur.com/DairO7p.png

[DamnMan]

I think this sexual harassment claims is getting out of hand.
The thing is before 1990 and 2000, if you got an SH claim, it would be a scandal and then go away.
No loss of job or anything.
Nowadays, it's like a career death sentence.
What's up with that?