#NotMe hashtag kicks off backlash to rash of sexual harassment claims

a reply to: Devino


As someone who thinks "the media" is entirely dishonest and out of control, I'm not a very good person to ask this question to...

Do you consider it a violation of the first amendment to penalize those shouting fire in a crowded theater?
How about making a threat against someone?

So in what way should false allegations be different? Those proven to have published knowingly false information should be subject to criminal sanction. Those publishing information that turns out to be false (but not knowingly) should be subject to civil liability at several times the damage incurred (in terms of reputation, income loss, etc).

So to answer your question: sort of.

a reply to: JBurns

I know you aren't looking for this, but I am truly sorry to hear what happened to you as a child.

Thank you, J. It means a lot.
I hope you understand I didn’t say what I said to elicit an emotional guilt trip of your position, or for sympathy, but instead to highlight the topic with an example.

I apologize to you personally if my reply appears insensitive. I assure you that isn't my intention.

Not at all.
I know that, mate.

I think you make a very good point actually.

I can think of two reasons for such timing...
Either the allegations are false, which I personally believe if true should be dealt with in the same manner the accused would have been. With a similar jail sentence. If proven.

The second reason, could be that the victim is being honest, and maybe while still hesitant to come forward decides it’s the perfect time to do so, not only to save future victims, but to deny the deviant of a position of power BAMN...
& I can’t say I find that morally wrong if they are indeed telling the truth.


I will say that due to my experiences, I have a slight bias towards the accuser in all cases...
But I will also be the first to call for a harsh punishment if they’re found to be lying, because I think there is nothing worse than being labelled “that” when truly innocent.

I hope it isn't imposing when I ask what your recommendation would be? How can these be handled while affording the accused (in public opinion 'court', not criminal court) some semblance of due process while also preserving the dignity and respect of the accusers?

Truly, and sadly, I haven’t the slightest clue.
I really wish I, or anyone for that matter, did... I think it is probably one of the most important issues in the world, given the trauma it can cause.

With legal accusations, I’ve always believed both parties should remain anonymous to the public, until a verdict is given.

With public accusations, I’m not sure there is anything that anyone could do really...
Whether true or false, both parties will likely be on the receiving end of endless support and vile hatred simultaneously, from the population at large.




Cheers, J.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Hazardous1408


You are right that it is a generalization. I know you aren't looking for this, but I am truly sorry to hear what happened to you as a child. It is wrong, and kudos to you for having the attitude you do. I sincerely mean that, Hazardous.

The difference is that coming forward with the accusations now (even 25 years later) is different than coming forward with the accusations while the accused is running a tight political race. Why would someone wait until that time? I realize there is no way to say precisely when the right time is, but I can say for sure that doing so during a heated political race would be the wrong time.

Nice heart felt reply there JBurns. I like seeing that people do care, especially here on ATS.

I only have antipathy for false accusations and I do not condone nor excuse this type of action. But is that what is happening here?

I have to say that if I had been sexually assaulted 20+ years ago and saw the person who committed that crime running in a political race it might bring up some old, terrible memories that could cause me to want to speak out about it especially if there were other accusers coming out.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Devino


As someone who thinks "the media" is entirely dishonest and out of control, I'm not a very good person to ask this question to...

Do you consider it a violation of the first amendment to penalize those shouting fire in a crowded theater?
How about making a threat against someone?

So in what way should false allegations be different? Those proven to have published knowingly false information should be subject to criminal sanction. Those publishing information that turns out to be false (but not knowingly) should be subject to civil liability at several times the damage incurred (in terms of reputation, income loss, etc).

So to answer your question: sort of.

Apparently I have more faith in the media than you, I do spent a lot of time vetting their sources and it can be exhausting.

I understand that there are limitations on the 1st yet I am for free speech and do not think the media should be censored. We do have libel laws and although it is difficult to prove it sure beats censorship.

I think the problem is that far too many are lazy or lack the time to vet sources. Too many seem to want to be told what their opinions are.

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Hazardous1408


I have to say that if I had been sexually assaulted 20+ years ago and saw the person who committed that crime running in a political race it might bring up some old, terrible memories that could cause me to want to speak out about it especially if there were other accusers coming out.

I get that sentiment, but if you failed to come out due to potential backlash or people not believing you, wouldn't that be the worst possible time?

You're referring to something impulsive. Legal processes are lengthy and any lawyer worth a damn should prepare you for what you will be facing. They should have evidence for a high probability of winning the case. Impulse has no place in the courtroom except for the possible conviction from you acting on impulse in a improper manner as people often do.

a reply to: Hazardous1408


I appreciate that as well, and I know that was not your intent either

The second reason, could be that the victim is being honest, and maybe while still hesitant to come forward decides it’s the perfect time to do so, not only to save future victims, but to deny the deviant of a position of power BAMN...
& I can’t say I find that morally wrong if they are indeed telling the truth.

Now that is a very good point, Admittedly I had never quite considered that particular angle. I suppose that seeing such an individual running a high profile campaign would absolutely bring up certain feelings and frankly rage that had been dormant or otherwise manageable. I should be a bit less judgmental of accusations that appear "poorly timed" since the timing might be intentional and the accusations entirely legitimate

But I will also be the first to call for a harsh punishment if they’re found to be lying, because I think there is nothing worse than being labelled “that” when truly innocent.

Same here, I just don't want to give anyone the wrong idea that I am looking to attack the accusers which could not be further from the truth. The ones who have been guilty of the accusations (even when the conduct doesn't technically constitute a crime) deserve every last bit of embarrassment and loss of reputation/income and will find no sympathy or support from me

Truly, and sadly, I haven’t the slightest clue.
I really wish I, or anyone for that matter, did... I think it is probably one of the most important issues in the world, given the trauma it can cause.

With legal accusations, I’ve always believed both parties should remain anonymous to the public, until a verdict is given.

With public accusations, I’m not sure there is anything that anyone could do really...

That makes two of us

I agree it is a very important issue, as I do not doubt the fact that these events are extremely underreported or under prosecuted (due to the difficulty in obtaining evidence, misplaced guilt, public attention, etc). I fear that any practical solution may involve taking a page out of LE's book, and somehow incorporating body worn cameras or audio into this somehow. It is a shame those people can't simply act properly in the first place, and respect the rights and boundaries of others. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior, as even "simple" harassment can be damaging when done over a period of time

Whether true or false, both parties will likely be on the receiving end of endless support and vile hatred simultaneously, from the population at large

Well, for what it is worth, my personal outlook has been expanded. I will no longer assume that "timing" is the be all/end all of credibility. I suppose a lot of my personal biases come from political biases, which are virtually weaponized these days

Cheers Hazardous

a reply to: JBurns

Well, for what it is worth, my personal outlook has been expanded.

I’m glad I could help with that expansion...
It’s not often I do that here, as most of my post history is either sarcy responses or me trying to bring humour to a situation...

It feels good to add knowledge to a thread for once, lol.

I suppose a lot of my personal biases come from political biases, which are virtually weaponized these days.

Well I don’t think there is anyone on this site who could hold that against you, sir...
Eventually we all do that at some point or another...

You can hold your head high around here J, because even when you do hold those biases it comes from a good place, with no malice.

I fear that any practical solution may involve taking a page out of LE's book, and somehow incorporating body worn cameras or audio into this somehow.

I actually think monitoring politicians in this manner is a wonderful idea...
Now all we need is for them to vote that law in for us...

I’m sure they’ll get round to it after they legislate term limits & a pay decrease.

a reply to: Devino


I appreciate that Dev, and I agree with your point made here as well:

I have to say that if I had been sexually assaulted 20+ years ago and saw the person who committed that crime running in a political race it might bring up some old, terrible memories that could cause me to want to speak out about it especially if there were other accusers coming out.

I certainly need to take a closer look at these, without assuming that timing is everything. I can see how seeing a person running for office would create that sense of "urgency" to right a wrong of the past. If I take one thing away from this, it is this

a reply to: Devino


That is true, and I respect your faith in the media. I had almost exclusive faith in our three big networks for decades, and it wasn't until the past year that I really started doubting them. It seems there are so many reporters these days that are only interested in making a name for themselves and not reporting the truth. That is admittedly just my opinion

I agree also that censorship would be extreme, and do far more harm than good (as most BOR infringements do)

I think the problem is that far too many are lazy or lack the time to vet sources. Too many seem to want to be told what their opinions are.

Without a doubt. I am usually one that vets sources very thoroughly, but I think the sheer volume of information we get these days makes concerted validation a challenging task. No doubt worth it though!

a reply to: JBurns

A) I don’t think you kill yourself due to fake allegations..

Especially not in the earliest stages and after “beating” any criminal case and after seeing others in the gop ignore them and be successful.

So if anything I consider the suicide evidence against, not a get out of jail free card.


B) I agree with you completely about the allegations, but as even more concerned with lumping unauthorized touching in with sexual assault..

If someone did rape/molest some one 20 years ago, I want to know...

If some one grabbed your tushy 20 years ago, I do not want to know..

No one would pass that particular political litmus test.. no one.. even those who would never dream of assaulting someone, not taking no for an answer or retaliation after a refusal..

a reply to: JBurns

But where do you land when it is just a 20 year old account vs. a denial, With no other evidence?!?!

a reply to: JBurns

...but I think the sheer volume of information we get these days makes concerted validation a challenging task.

Exactly.

& I believe this to have been done by design...

The birth of “Fake News” was only done after they’d cornered the alternative media market...
So when a person called out Fox or CNN for their obvious spin, they’d be guided to an alternative site that would pretty much confirm people’s biases...

Maybe Breitbart or Snopes, for example...
& all we would get for such due diligence was an even more extreme and partisan spin for us to fact check.

I’ve reached a point where I don’t even bother anymore...
I prefer apathy to mental exhaustion.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don’t think you kill yourself due to fake allegations...

You’d be surprised...

But it’s moot because he blamed PTSD in his note, not the accusation.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

"Beta Males" ?

"everyone except sexual deviants" ?



Jr, your mom just told me to tell you to go back to the kids table.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

That is the true question, I suppose. I wish I had an answer, as outright dismissal will let a certain number of people get away with it, while outright acceptance will result in a certain number of people being wrongfully accused (and discredited, etc).

There really is no right answer. I think the only thing we can do is move forward, and focus on some solution that provides accountability. Much in the same way I believe it is prudent for CCW/CHL people to wear a camera or audio recorder, there may be certain similar solutions one can use to mitigate the risk (both ways)

I am happy to see as many other people are concerned by this prospect (both ways), and that we share in the belief the status quo isn't going to cut it

As was said previously. False accusations are against the law. We should be talking about making those laws harsher penalties.

But in all honesty, most of these women coming out are telling the truth. They don't come out sooner for a variety of reasons, mainly lack of support and fear of repercussions and fear of having their good names dragged through the mud.

In essence the Not me number sign is not about giving men a fair shake but in discounted women coming forward. It's a bad number sign. Just like those "mens rights activists and websites" don't really champion mens rights they become a place to rant about women because they're special snowflakes.

Oh...I forget, I suppose I meant hashtag instead of number sign. Some of you snowflakes will get confused and angry about it and think me dumb. I don't apologize. LOL

a reply to: FHomerK

Jr, your mom just told me to tell you to go back to the kids table.

“Kids table”?

& mum jokes?


You probably don’t even see the irony in all of that, do you?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Doesn't really matter. Not in the slightest.

Particularly when folks have drank the kool-aid and think it's cool to participate in the burnings.

Enjoy.

a reply to: JBurns


This is going to blow your mind, but ALL reputable news organizations vett these types of allegations in an extremely serious way. That's why we hear stories about attempted false accusations and scams. The liability is simply too high.


Now, the real problem with media -- speaking as an insider and an editor -- is that I have to fill X column inches and no more, or X minutes and no more, so I must decide which stories to cover and what angles to explore in their coverage using news judgement and news values.


I can still be wrong, and its my entire career if I am REALLY wrong, so I have to be careful.


Often, that need to be careful means that I don't run something I can't source three or four separate ways. Or worse -- my inherent bias blinds me to the news values of a particular story and I blow it off because it doesn't matter to me, even though it might be crucial to single moms, coal miners or college athletes.

Side bar: TV news is a hybrid of journalism and entertainment. To point at CNN or Fox and say, "journalism" sucks is completely missing the point. If you want real news, you are going to have to seek and support real journalists doing real investigative / data journalism. Start with those who have a strong commitment to the SPJ code of ethics, for example.

Alternative media can produce good results, but it is by no means guaranteed. In fact, most alternative media outlets require no standard of truth or evidence in their sourcing at all. It can literally be, "people are saying." Hearsay is not journalism.

I've personally witnessed an event where a false accusation was made, destroyed an innocent mans life and the accuser got away with it. I was five feet away and what was claimed did not happen or even anything remotely like it happened. That was probably thirty years ago, but I learned then that a person with no ethics can destroy someone by simply lying and there are a lot of people out there with no moral compass.

Now we've all been watching this crazy witch hunt and for the most part, none of us know what is true and what is not. Sadly some will claim to know when they could not possibly know and do it without shame. They just know, so light the fires.



It's always been that way and likely will always be that way.

IMO the old saying that it's better 100 guilty people get off than a single innocent person be punished is very true. But the moment you inject politics, people who say they agree will flip in a heartbeat. Very sad but it's how it is.