Surprise, surprise! "Mattress Girl" was (very likely) not raped after all.

[Tom Sawyer]

They knew exactly why she was doing it and supported her in this endeavour. That makes them liable for the damages resulting from this defamation.

I think you conflate "support" with "failure to completely stifle her free expression". And, of course, there is the question of whether this is really defamation.

It's not a case of their "failing to stifle her free expression", it's a case of their actively supporting a criminal endeavour by rewarding her with course credit for engaging in the crime. If a professor approves a project to shed light on the dangers faced by sex workers by having a student follow someone around and publically accuse him of murdering a prostitute, then that guy has a case for damages against the university because their act of rewarding the student for committing the crime by giving her grades for it no differently than he'd have a case against someone who paid a person cash to follow him around and make those accusations against him due to a personal vendetta.

This has nothing to do with free expression beyond that free expression is limited by not allowing one to use it to defame people.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you conflate "support" with "failure to completely stifle her free expression". And, of course, there is the question of whether this is really defamation.

It's not a case of their "failing to stifle her free expression", it's a case of their actively supporting a criminal endeavour by rewarding her with course credit for engaging in the crime.

That assumes 1) there is defamation, and 2) this form of defamation would not have occurred without the course credit. Neither assumption has been validated.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's not a case of their "failing to stifle her free expression", it's a case of their actively supporting a criminal endeavour by rewarding her with course credit for engaging in the crime.

That assumes 1) there is defamation, and 2) this form of defamation would not have occurred without the course credit. Neither assumption has been validated.

Well, #1 is a good assumption, given all the investigations which have occurred and how all of her statements were at direct odds with the facts. Even if not, it's an irrelevant assumption because if you try and get someone arrested for theft but there's not enough evidence so no charges are filed and then you keep going around publically telling everyone that he's a thief, he can sue you for defamation of character even though it hasn't been proven that he didn't steal anything. Similarly, you can't just go around publically calling someone a rapist if you can't demonstrate rape, nor can you actively support someone who's doing so without becoming liable yourself.

#2 is just factually incorrect. If some crazy person decided to follow you around and publically accuse you of murdering prostitutes and I thought that this was nice because I don't like you, so I gave her cash to help encourage the behaviour, you would have a case against me even though she would have continued to do it without my support. If some kids get a kick out of vandalizing an apartment building and some developers see them doing this and pay them to keep it up in order to speed up getting the residents to move out so they can covert the place to condos, the residents have a case against the developers even though the kids were going to be doing it anyways. If you support and reward someone in the commission of a crime, the fact that they would have committed the crime absent your support doesn't negate your liability.

 

[laughing dog]

#2 is just factually incorrect. If some crazy person decided to follow you around and publically accuse you of murdering prostitutes and I thought that this was nice because I don't like you, so I gave her cash to help encourage the behaviour, you would have a case against me even though she would have continued to do it without my support.

Why? The alleged defamation would have occurred without it. It makes no sense to claim X is liable for the actions of Y when Y's behavior is unaffected by X and not supported or helped by X.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

#2 is just factually incorrect. If some crazy person decided to follow you around and publically accuse you of murdering prostitutes and I thought that this was nice because I don't like you, so I gave her cash to help encourage the behaviour, you would have a case against me even though she would have continued to do it without my support.

Why? The alleged defamation would have occurred without it. It makes no sense to claim X is liable for the actions of Y when Y's behavior is unaffected by X and not supported or helped by X.

I assume you mean other than because that's a basic premise of how liability works. You don't need proof of a causal connection between the abetting of the crime and the commission of the crime, just the fact of the support. For instance, if you know someone is about to rob a house and you hand him a rock to break the window to get in, you are liable for abetting the crime. The fact that he was going to rob the house anyways and would have just picked up one of the large rocks outside of the window to break it in the absence of your support doesn't make you somehow less liable for abetting the crime.

 

[Trausti]

Why? The alleged defamation would have occurred without it. It makes no sense to claim X is liable for the actions of Y when Y's behavior is unaffected by X and not supported or helped by X.

I assume you mean other than because that's a basic premise of how liability works. You don't need proof of a causal connection between the abetting of the crime and the commission of the crime, just the fact of the support. For instance, if you know someone is about to rob a house and you hand him a rock to break the window to get in, you are liable for abetting the crime. The fact that he was going to rob the house anyways and would have just picked up one of the large rocks outside of the window to break it in the absence of your support doesn't make you somehow less liable for abetting the crime.

Eh, there seems to be confusion here. Criminal culpability is different from civil liability. Civil liability requires a showing proximate causation, unless the law provides for an exception. Rape as defamation per se would be one of those exceptions. Defamation is civil tort, not a criminal act. One does not abet a tort without proof of proximate cause. By suing the university, and in particular the professor who approved of the "art" project, he is saying that the university acquiesced to promotion of the falsity with reckless disregard for the truth.

 

[laughing dog]

Why? The alleged defamation would have occurred without it. It makes no sense to claim X is liable for the actions of Y when Y's behavior is unaffected by X and not supported or helped by X.

I assume you mean other than because that's a basic premise of how liability works. You don't need proof of a causal connection between the abetting of the crime and the commission of the crime, just the fact of the support.

That is just one of the many reasons why the law is screwed up.

For instance, if you know someone is about to rob a house and you hand him a rock to break the window to get in, you are liable for abetting the crime. The fact that he was going to rob the house anyways and would have just picked up one of the large rocks outside of the window to break it in the absence of your support doesn't make you somehow less liable for abetting the crime.

If he was going to pick up the rock anyway, it should.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I assume you mean other than because that's a basic premise of how liability works. You don't need proof of a causal connection between the abetting of the crime and the commission of the crime, just the fact of the support. For instance, if you know someone is about to rob a house and you hand him a rock to break the window to get in, you are liable for abetting the crime. The fact that he was going to rob the house anyways and would have just picked up one of the large rocks outside of the window to break it in the absence of your support doesn't make you somehow less liable for abetting the crime.

Eh, there seems to be confusion here. Criminal culpability is different from civil liability. Civil liability requires a showing proximate causation, unless the law provides for an exception. Rape as defamation per se would be one of those exceptions. Defamation is civil tort, not a criminal act. One does not abet a tort without proof of proximate cause. By suing the university, and in particular the professor who approved of the "art" project, he is saying that the university acquiesced to promotion of the falsity with reckless disregard for the truth.

Interesting. I learned something today. Thanks for that.

Now, I would say that the liability still holds up in this case. She had been very public in what she was doing and why she was doing it and to whom the action was directed at, including numerous officials at the university on numerous occasions. I would find it unreasonable to assume that the professor in question would have been unaware of the details of the case which she presented to him or that the professor was the one person over the past couple of years whom she had decided to be vague about the details with when presenting the idea for the thesis.

If the professor had even a basic knowledge of the details of the case and approved giving her grades and credit for doing it, then that should meet the standard of saying that the university acquiesced to promotion of the falsity with reckless disregard for the truth.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For instance, if you know someone is about to rob a house and you hand him a rock to break the window to get in, you are liable for abetting the crime. The fact that he was going to rob the house anyways and would have just picked up one of the large rocks outside of the window to break it in the absence of your support doesn't make you somehow less liable for abetting the crime.

If he was going to pick up the rock anyway, it should.

Really?

Say you're a DA who's watching a video of a crime. Person A is walking down the street and runs into Person B and asks what he's up to. Person B responds "I'm about to throw a rock through the window of that house and rob it". Person A says "Oh. How about you use this rock here?" and hands Person B a rock. Person B then walks past a number of identical rocks and breaks the window with the rock that Person A handed him and then proceeds to rob the house.

You are saying that (we'll say in an ideal legal system and not the current one) the fact that Person B walked past a number of identical rocks, which he would have picked up if he hadn't met Person A, means that Person A did nothing criminally wrong at all?

It sounds to me that this is what you're saying. Would that be an accurate understanding of your position?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm curious Derec, in all of your thorough research on rape on Campus, how many cases of actual rape were there and how many do you think went unreported due to the zealousness of some who seem to target accusers nearly immediately with doubt (at best). Certainly women that lie devestate the cause as well, but I was just curious how much under-reporting you think there is because of the shame and doubt and finger pointing that'll come from those who seem to default to the "she is lying" camp.

They would need to know that she was defaming someone though.

Did she receive credit for merely hauling a mattress or was more effort involved. I've got to think it was notably more than hauling a mattress.

Well, given that the premise of her thesis was "I will carry the mattress with me to all of my classes, every campus building, for as long as my rapist stays on the same campus with me. " and she had publically identified the guy as the rapist in question on numerous occasions, it's reasonable to assume that the professor could have parsed out the subtext that there was perhaps more involved in it than simply hauling a mattress around and it was in reference to the alleged actions of a particular person.

Thesis?

They knew exactly why she was doing it and supported her in this endeavour. That makes them liable for the damages resulting from this defamation.

If it can be established it was defamation, probably. I can see your point.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, given that the premise of her thesis was "I will carry the mattress with me to all of my classes, every campus building, for as long as my rapist stays on the same campus with me. " and she had publically identified the guy as the rapist in question on numerous occasions, it's reasonable to assume that the professor could have parsed out the subtext that there was perhaps more involved in it than simply hauling a mattress around and it was in reference to the alleged actions of a particular person.

Thesis?

They knew exactly why she was doing it and supported her in this endeavour. That makes them liable for the damages resulting from this defamation.

If it can be established it was defamation, probably. I can see your point.

Yes. It was a thesis. I'm guessing that "thesis" for an art degree has a very different meaning from "thesis" for a science degree. One thing that probably isn't different is that your professor knows exactly what it is that your thesis is about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thesis?

They knew exactly why she was doing it and supported her in this endeavour. That makes them liable for the damages resulting from this defamation.

If it can be established it was defamation, probably. I can see your point.

Yes. It was a thesis. I'm guessing that "thesis" for an art degree has a very different meaning from "thesis" for a science degree. One thing that probably isn't different is that your professor knows exactly what it is that your thesis is about.

You are going to have to forgive me, because I typically don't delve too deeply in these situations due to someone's overzealousness on overreporting them.

So this was an actual thesis. I presume there was a written portion as well? Something that would indicate a deep study on the psychology and politics regarding rape claims on campus, a campus reaction to her attempt to gain attention to the matter... and not just hauling a mattress. This is Columbia after all. Right? Right?!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Thesis?

They knew exactly why she was doing it and supported her in this endeavour. That makes them liable for the damages resulting from this defamation.

If it can be established it was defamation, probably. I can see your point.

Yes. It was a thesis. I'm guessing that "thesis" for an art degree has a very different meaning from "thesis" for a science degree. One thing that probably isn't different is that your professor knows exactly what it is that your thesis is about.

You are going to have to forgive me, because I typically don't delve too deeply in these situations due to someone's overzealousness on overreporting them.

So this was an actual thesis. I presume there was a written portion as well? Something that would indicate a deep study on the psychology and politics regarding rape claims on campus, a campus reaction to her attempt to gain attention to the matter... and not just hauling a mattress. This is Columbia after all. Right? Right?!

I have no clue what is involved in a thesis for an art degree, but it does kind of sound like the act of carrying the mattress and stating the reason behind it was the totality. If you go down to Burger King and catch her on one of her breaks, I'm sure that she could fill you in. You could try asking her parents who paid $100,000 for her to get that degree, but they're probably too busy crying to be able to give a coherent response.

 

[fromderinside]

... they're probably too busy crying to be able to give a coherent response.

Not a chance. When she asked for support they told her "go suck a dick or two".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

... they're probably too busy crying to be able to give a coherent response.

Not a chance. When she asked for support they told her "go suck a dick or two".

Ya, but it sounds like she's clingy and a talker. Not really things one looks for in a prostitute, so they're still stuck with a large tuition bill.

 

[arkirk]

Well, fuck me sideways!

Shit the bed!

Fuck all!

I hope no one is taking me literally.

Aw! Come on, zippy! Derec gets his stuff from that well respected right wing rag...."Reason Magazine." If you are lucky, Derec won't take you seriously!

 

[RavenSky]

Expel her.

If they expel men who are accused of rape it would only be fair to expel false accusers also.

- - - Updated - - -

We know the chances of her having been raped are infinetesimal. And we know all that will not deter many on here from defending her regardless.

"We" know no such thing.

I will repeat, being unable to prove that she was raped is not the same thing as her lying about being raped.

But lying about a bunch of the relevant facts makes it likely the rape claim itself is also a lie.

Derec has failed to show that she lied about a "bunch of relevant facts", much less that she lied about the rape. Are you suggesting that you are willing to lower the burden of proof all of the sudden?

 

[thebeave]

They would need to know that she was defaming someone though.

Did she receive credit for merely hauling a mattress or was more effort involved. I've got to think it was notably more than hauling a mattress.

Well, given that the premise of her thesis was "I will carry the mattress with me to all of my classes, every campus building, for as long as my rapist stays on the same campus with me. " and she had publically identified the guy as the rapist in question on numerous occasions, it's reasonable to assume that the professor could have parsed out the subtext that there was perhaps more involved in it than simply hauling a mattress around and it was in reference to the alleged actions of a particular person.

They knew exactly why she was doing it and supported her in this endeavour. That makes them liable for the damages resulting from this defamation.

Perhaps there's still time to change her thesis. Something along the lines of, "I will carry the mattress with me to all of my classes, every campus building, for as long as my rapist stays on the same campus with me women lie about rape". That way its not defamation, she gets her degree, plus she got to go to the State of the Union address and see the President. Win-win for everyone (except for her parents' bank account).

 

[laughing dog]

If he was going to pick up the rock anyway, it should.

Really?

Say you're a DA who's watching a video of a crime. Person A is walking down the street and runs into Person B and asks what he's up to. Person B responds "I'm about to throw a rock through the window of that house and rob it". Person A says "Oh. How about you use this rock here?" and hands Person B a rock. Person B then walks past a number of identical rocks and breaks the window with the rock that Person A handed him and then proceeds to rob the house.

You are saying that (we'll say in an ideal legal system and not the current one) the fact that Person B walked past a number of identical rocks, which he would have picked up if he hadn't met Person A, means that Person A did nothing criminally wrong at all?

Yeah, I am saying that. I am also saying that example has absolutely nothing to do with the situation under discussion.

Now, from what I can tell, if this woman had just referred to "the alleged rapist" or "the accused rapist" then there would have been no defamation (since those are factual statements).

Finally, it sounds to me like this man is getting bad advice. My guess is most everyone had forgotten the entire incident and now he is publicizing again that he is an accused rapist.

 

[Trausti]

Finally, it sounds to me like this man is getting bad advice. My guess is most everyone had forgotten the entire incident and now he is publicizing again that he is an accused rapist.

I would differ on that. In the age of Google nothing is forgotten. Any potential employer, friend, or love interest can plop in his name and out comes the rape accusation. Who knows how many opportunities he might lose because of this; and he remains a pariah regardless. You know that guy you started dating? Well, you should see this . . . I'd say that he'll suffer a substantial loss of future earnings.