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

[laughing dog]

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.

This lawsuit does not change the reality about Google one bit. And this lawsuit makes him look dumber. Assuming he is not a rapist, he is going after the deeper pockets not the real culprit.

 

[Trausti]

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.

This lawsuit does not change the reality about Google one bit. And this lawsuit makes him look dumber. Assuming he is not a rapist, he is going after the deeper pockets not the real culprit.

It's about damages. It's the reason people sue. It may not change Google, but he ought to be compensated for the long-term injury inflicted by the university's recklessness.

ETA: Juries sometimes award high dollar for defamatory accusations of sexual misconduct: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/jury-awards-138m-defamation-judgment-plaintiffs-anonymous-commenter-

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When you are ostracized by a social group there's no point in going to it.

How is that relevant to Columbia's culpability?

I'm not a fishmonger, I don't want red herrings.


It has nothing to do with Columbia's culpability, it has to do with the damages.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Getting credit for engaging in her protest certainly sounds like support to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Toward Mattressgirl? I don't think so.

Towards women in general. You proceed from the premise that every claim of rape is false, then crow loudly the few times you are validated in this view. Never mentioned are all the legitimate claims. No, women are all liars because a few of them made a false claim.

By the way, (again) is there a subscription link where you get this stuff? He Man Woman Haters Club sends out a "daily false rape claim" update or what?

While I certainly will agree he goes overboard all too many on here are going overboard in the opposite direction--figuring she must be telling the truth even when it's pretty clear she isn't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Yup. Also, a substantial court victory (not merely a nuisance value settlement) actually helps reduce the harm--when you win big in court it goes a long way towards showing the original allegations were false.

 

[zorq]

Frankly there is no clarity. There is no evidence the rape is a lie. There is no evidence it isn't a lie.

 

[laughing dog]

This lawsuit does not change the reality about Google one bit. And this lawsuit makes him look dumber. Assuming he is not a rapist, he is going after the deeper pockets not the real culprit.

It's about damages. It's the reason people sue. It may not change Google, but he ought to be compensated for the long-term injury inflicted by the university's recklessness.

Since the university was not reckless, I fail to see your point.

 

[laughing dog]

How is that relevant to Columbia's culpability?

I'm not a fishmonger, I don't want red herrings.

Then stop posting them.

It has nothing to do with Columbia's culpability, it has to do with the damages.

If Columbia is not culpable, then there are no damages.

Getting credit for engaging in her protest certainly sounds like support to me.

Try thinking about it instead. If the protest was going on anyway, it is not support.

 

[Trausti]

It's about damages. It's the reason people sue. It may not change Google, but he ought to be compensated for the long-term injury inflicted by the university's recklessness.

Since the university was not reckless, I fail to see your point.

What matters is reckless disregard for the truth. It's the mirror to actual malice. A person need not have initiated the defamation, but if that person (or entity) allows promotion of the falsity without concern for the probity of the accusation, that could impose liability. The university here knew that that accused had been exonerated, and willing ignored and contributed to the breach of its own confidentiality policy. The university highlighted the "art" project on its website and even paid for her protest. The president of the university penned a piece in support of the "art" project in The New Republic. This is all in the complaint, by the way.

 

[thebeave]

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.

Yep. Reminds me of this segment from 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago, on what the coach for the Duke LaCrosse team, Mike Pressler, went through. The rape lie pretty much turned his life upside down for the next few years. If not for his perseverance and finding someone willing to take a chance on him, he might be well have ended up living in the streets or dead:

Mike Pressler: Google up one of the boys' names, my name, and then, you know, on the computer you saw the word "rape," "sexual assault" next to your name. That, to me, that just was-- even today, I get emotional about it. Because it just-- everything you built, everything-- all-- everything you stood for. And to have two of those type of phrases or words associated with your name just-- even right now, as I speak to you, Armen, I'm getting angry over that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-duke-lacrosse-coach-on-rape-scandal-60-minutes/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nothing like quotes without context.

 

[laughing dog]

Yep. Reminds me of this segment from 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago, on what the coach for the Duke LaCrosse team, Mike Pressler, went through. The rape lie pretty much turned his life upside down for the next few years. If not for his perseverance and finding someone willing to take a chance on him, he might be well have ended up living in the streets or dead

Are you serious?

 

[RavenSky]

Frankly there is no clarity. There is no evidence the rape is a lie. There is no evidence it isn't a lie.

Bingo. And if Derec had started this thread on that basis, the discussion of whether the university should have allowed her specific targeted activist activity, and/or accepted it as part of her thesis project could have been an interesting one.

Regardless whether he is guilty of rape or not, regardless whether she is telling the truth or not - I see this situation as the flip side to the question of how it affects a victim to allow a rapist to continue to attend the same university. There is the case wherein the male was determined to be a rapist but his "expulsion" was not to take affect until after his graduation, for instance. There have been many studies on the re-victimization and hostile environment created by that type of approach.

So let's assume, hypothetically, that the woman in this case is lying about the entire thing. Isn't allowing her to "rapist-shame" him just as bad as the "slut-shaming" that happens to rape victims?

Or, let's assume hypothetically that she was raped, that he did rape her, that she is telling the truth. Does that now make her activist activity ok? Where is the free speech line? Is it defamation to name one's rapist? Is it ok to name him only if the courts convict him? What about the fact that the police/court system is notorious for failing to prosecute rapists? Is it right that a rape victim's right to free speech in naming her rapist should be limited to the ability of the justice system to successfully prosecute these cases? What other form of speech is similarly limited?

But in the absence of a conviction, how do we balance a victim's right to name her rapist with or without said conviction against a man's right to not be "rapist-shamed" by a lying woman. And how do we do that in a society wherein certain types of people will AlWAYS assume she is lying no matter what (often even with the man being convicted) How do we protect an innocent man against such reputation ruining accusations while preventing the silencing of the overwhelming number of real rape victims?

And where was the line in this case? What part of her actions was the line too far for Derec and company? Was it the mattress she carried? What if she had carried a sign instead? What if she simply told everyone who would listen than he had raped her? What if she had done nothing more than name him in the original complaint? At what point would Derec and company like to silence this particular woman, and how should that line be applied in general?

And how should the university have responded? Let's assume hypothetically that the man's guilt was undeniable, and he had been convicted and was in prison. Would it have then been ok for her to carry her mattress as part of her thesis about victims of rape? With or without his presence on campus, carrying her mattress was a powerful symbol of the slut-shaming that happens to rape victims everywhere. Would that type of performance piece been acceptable to Derec and company if the man had been found guilty in a court of law? Is it only unacceptable because of the ambiguous nature of this case?

Or what if the man was not a fellow student; rather someone who lived off campus? Or what if her thesis project itself didn't name her rapist at all (& I'm not sure that it did). The information would be part of public record when she named him in the original police report. Is she now forbidden from ever becoming an activist, or ever using the subject of rape in her art, because people (including the accused) can assume from public record that she's referring to him? If her entire project never named her accused rapist, would that have made her project ok? Even if public record reveals who she accused?

Or is she to be forever silenced in every way because the system did not find him guilty? As Zorg noted:

There is no evidence the rape is a lie. There is no evidence it isn't a lie.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We know she lied about not having suggested anal sex to the guy. 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. You lot have defended Jackie Coakley for a long time too.

So she is a bit ashamed of her sexual interests. So? This is just slut-shaming. Trying to make her out as a person who would do anything with anyone only because she´s fun in bed.

Since Columbia U. cleared him of the accusations, I find his claims rather puzzling. Short of executing his accuser, just how was Columbia supposed to shut her up?

I think the sticking point is giving her course credit for her mattress stunt and him being excluded from certain campus activities because of her (very dubious) accusations. But I think she personally should have been sued as well.

Proving and disproving rape is very hard. The fact that he was cleared doesn´t prove he didn´t do it. Also doesn´t prove he did either. Our modern western legal system is ill equipped to try rape. That´s just a sad fact.

 

[Rhea]

And where was the line in this case? What part of her actions was the line too far for Derec and company? [...] At what point would Derec and company like to silence this particular woman, and how should that line be applied in general?

[...]

Or what if her thesis project itself didn't name her rapist at all (& I'm not sure that it did). The information would be part of public record when she named him in the original police report. Is she now forbidden from ever becoming an activist, or ever using the subject of rape in her art, because people (including the accused) can assume from public record that she's referring to him? If her entire project never named her accused rapist, would that have made her project ok? Even if public record reveals who she accused?

Or is she to be forever silenced in every way because the system did not find him guilty? As Zorg noted:

There is no evidence the rape is a lie. There is no evidence it isn't a lie.

Excellent post, I snipped for brevity but all of it is productive and interesting point for discussion.


Are people advocating a gag-order such that rape victims may not accuse anyone publicly? A gag order with financial penalties? Incarceration?
Do they also advocate that this be applied to slut-shamers? Does that include people who post on a message board that the victim is a liar?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Are people advocating a gag-order such that rape victims may not accuse anyone publicly? A gag order with financial penalties? Incarceration?
Do they also advocate that this be applied to slut-shamers? Does that include people who post on a message board that the victim is a liar?

Well, to what point is it OK to call someone a criminal without evidence?

Say that you're sitting at home one evening and the police knock on your door and tell you that your friend Bob is dead and his brother has accused you of being his murderer. They investigate the matter and can't find any evidence that you killed Bob, so they stop their investigation of you. Bob's brother, however, feels that they are wrong and is convinced that you're the murderer. He goes to all of your neighbours and tells them how you killed his brother. He goes to your office and talks to all your coworkers about how they're working with a killer and then manages to convince the CEO to send an email to all the executives to be keep an eye on you because you're an accused murderer.

You can't go anywhere or do anything without Bob's brother showing up and telling everyone about how you're a killer. When is it that you feel you have a legal recourse against him to stop him from accusing you of a crime which the police can't find any evidence that you committed?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And where was the line in this case? What part of her actions was the line too far for Derec and company? [...] At what point would Derec and company like to silence this particular woman, and how should that line be applied in general?

[...]

Or what if her thesis project itself didn't name her rapist at all (& I'm not sure that it did). The information would be part of public record when she named him in the original police report. Is she now forbidden from ever becoming an activist, or ever using the subject of rape in her art, because people (including the accused) can assume from public record that she's referring to him? If her entire project never named her accused rapist, would that have made her project ok? Even if public record reveals who she accused?

Or is she to be forever silenced in every way because the system did not find him guilty? As Zorg noted:

Excellent post, I snipped for brevity but all of it is productive and interesting point for discussion.

Are people advocating a gag-order such that rape victims may not accuse anyone publicly? A gag order with financial penalties? Incarceration?
Do they also advocate that this be applied to slut-shamers? Does that include people who post on a message board that the victim is a liar?

Here is the question. This person wronged her terribly. She doesn't report it to the Police?

Is her Major the proper venue to deal with a crime? This ignores the mind numbing realization this counted as "art". This is where Columbia could be culpable. They allowed her to create a venue for a rather public calling out (we don't even allow calling out at this web board) regarding a serious crime, that seems to be big enough to warrant hauling a mattress around for months (?) but not going to the police? Shouldn't the school have encouraged another tact here?

 

[Rhea]

Are people advocating a gag-order such that rape victims may not accuse anyone publicly? A gag order with financial penalties? Incarceration?
Do they also advocate that this be applied to slut-shamers? Does that include people who post on a message board that the victim is a liar?

Well, to what point is it OK to call someone a criminal without evidence?

Say that you're sitting at home one evening and the police knock on your door and tell you that your friend Bob is dead and his brother has accused you of being his murderer. They investigate the matter and can't find any evidence that you killed Bob, so they stop their investigation of you. Bob's brother, however, feels that they are wrong and is convinced that you're the murderer. He goes to all of your neighbours and tells them how you killed his brother. He goes to your office and talks to all your coworkers about how they're working with a killer and then manages to convince the CEO to send an email to all the executives to be keep an eye on you because you're an accused murderer.

You can't go anywhere or do anything without Bob's brother showing up and telling everyone about how you're a killer. When is it that you feel you have a legal recourse against him to stop him from accusing you of a crime which the police can't find any evidence that you committed?

This plays out constantly in the real world. We have several cases of it right here in my small town. It's not unique to this man or this university.

A woman is accused of taking her parents' assets. It is rumored that it was not legally done. They did not take her to court, but the talk starts and goes on. and on. and on. For decades.

A man is arrested for domestic violence. Evidence comes to light that causes all charges to be dropped. The accusations go on and on and on and on, publicly, constantly, even from the domestic partner who dropped the charges.

A town worker is accused of sleeping on the job. No charges are brought, but the accusations go on and on and on.

 

[Rhea]

Excellent post, I snipped for brevity but all of it is productive and interesting point for discussion.

Are people advocating a gag-order such that rape victims may not accuse anyone publicly? A gag order with financial penalties? Incarceration?
Do they also advocate that this be applied to slut-shamers? Does that include people who post on a message board that the victim is a liar?

Here is the question. This person wronged her terribly. She doesn't report it to the Police?

Given the way rape victims are treated this does not surprise me even a little. It provides no evidence or proof one way or the other. Rape victims who have gone to police have been cruelly treated, some turning to suicide. There are, what's the current number, FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND untested rape kits int eh USA? And people still wonder why some rape victims do not go to police? I know for certain that many rape victims will wait to see if they are pregnant, hoping to avoid the detestable re-victimization that they feel they are likely to face unless it is necessary.

Is her Major the proper venue to deal with a crime? This ignores the mind numbing realization this counted as "art". This is where Columbia could be culpable. They allowed her to create a venue for a rather public calling out (we don't even allow calling out at this web board) regarding a serious crime, that seems to be big enough to warrant hauling a mattress around for months (?) but not going to the police? Shouldn't the school have encouraged another tact here?

What if her art were "calling out" a crime from her childhood? If she created a performance art about her own childhood abuse to shine a light on the subject? Should that be shut down as well?

 

[thebeave]

Are people advocating a gag-order such that rape victims may not accuse anyone publicly? A gag order with financial penalties? Incarceration?
Do they also advocate that this be applied to slut-shamers? Does that include people who post on a message board that the victim is a liar?

Well, to what point is it OK to call someone a criminal without evidence?

Say that you're sitting at home one evening and the police knock on your door and tell you that your friend Bob is dead and his brother has accused you of being his murderer. They investigate the matter and can't find any evidence that you killed Bob, so they stop their investigation of you. Bob's brother, however, feels that they are wrong and is convinced that you're the murderer. He goes to all of your neighbours and tells them how you killed his brother. He goes to your office and talks to all your coworkers about how they're working with a killer and then manages to convince the CEO to send an email to all the executives to be keep an eye on you because you're an accused murderer.

You can't go anywhere or do anything without Bob's brother showing up and telling everyone about how you're a killer. When is it that you feel you have a legal recourse against him to stop him from accusing you of a crime which the police can't find any evidence that you committed?

One only need to look at the case of Richard Jewell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, to what point is it OK to call someone a criminal without evidence?

Say that you're sitting at home one evening and the police knock on your door and tell you that your friend Bob is dead and his brother has accused you of being his murderer. They investigate the matter and can't find any evidence that you killed Bob, so they stop their investigation of you. Bob's brother, however, feels that they are wrong and is convinced that you're the murderer. He goes to all of your neighbours and tells them how you killed his brother. He goes to your office and talks to all your coworkers about how they're working with a killer and then manages to convince the CEO to send an email to all the executives to be keep an eye on you because you're an accused murderer.

You can't go anywhere or do anything without Bob's brother showing up and telling everyone about how you're a killer. When is it that you feel you have a legal recourse against him to stop him from accusing you of a crime which the police can't find any evidence that you committed?

This plays out constantly in the real world. We have several cases of it right here in my small town. It's not unique to this man or this university.

A woman is accused of taking her parents' assets. It is rumored that it was not legally done. They did not take her to court, but the talk starts and goes on. and on. and on. For decades.

A man is arrested for domestic violence. Evidence comes to light that causes all charges to be dropped. The accusations go on and on and on and on, publicly, constantly, even from the domestic partner who dropped the charges.

A town worker is accused of sleeping on the job. No charges are brought, but the accusations go on and on and on.

Yes, this is my question. At what point do you feel it become too much? Snide looks, chit-chat at parties, following you around, posting your face on posters around town, cornering your coworkers to tell them what you've done, yelling into a megaphone outside your house about how you're a criminal, etc. Is there a point at which you feel a line is crossed and they've gone too far?