108 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

Seagloom wrote...

The good thing about this story is that whether or not she goes to jail, the reputation of her attackers is now publicly sullied. No punishment they mete out on her will erase their infamy. It's the least they deserve.

I agree

The Woldan wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Screw their human rights.

Making exceptions is what destroys a working system. 

Seagloom wrote...

That's assuming the system always works in the first place.

Has there ever been one that always works in the first place? Has there been one that has unanimous public support in all its rulings?

[TJPags]

billy the squid wrote...

android654 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

android654 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

I think I facepalmed so hard I just fell off my chair. No, breach of Human Rights Act, Contempt of Court, The fact they were considered juviniles in terms of scentencing.

And this is not slander people, it's libel, slander is spoken word, libel is written.

Since she's not a member of the press, it's not considered libel. Libel must be in print, brodcast or photo journalism. Since she's a random person putting something on twitter, it's merely slander.

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including
pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an
untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her
reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn
or contempt of others.

No it doesn't, it simply equates to written word, distributed which causes damage to a party, whether she is a journalist is neither here nor there it's completely irrelevant. Slander is always spoken word.

legal defintions =/= common defintions. The definition I provided is the legal one.

"In print" doesn't mean written down, it means in the press. The names weren't revealed through a press outlet so it wouldn't be a libel suit, but a case of slander.

And the explaination I'm providing is a legal one. I should know. look up the case of McDonalds v Morris&Steel The libel case was based on the circulation of a pamphlet by two individuals. Neither were journalists. The only stipulation is that it must be written word, how that is conveyed or cirrculated, via print, text or internet is not an issue when determining if the case is one of libel or not.

Press outlets are not a determining factor in libel cases, printed word simply means in writing. However it is written.

Slander is always spoken word. Both are seperate aspects to pursue under defamation laws.

This argument, while an interesting conceptual one, is largely irrelevent.  Libel and Slander are simply sub-categories of Defamation of Character, which is the publishing - whether by speech or writing - of an untrue statement about someone else, which causes the other person harm or ridicule (yes, I've simplified somewhat).

Truth is always (virtually always, I don't believe any exception would apply here) a defense to a Defamation claim.  Thus, IF these men actually sexually assaulted her, she has a valid defense to any defamation claim, whether libel or slander.

[TJPags]

Neo DrKefka wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Neo DrKefka wrote...

Here in IL the heart of the Democratic Party where minorities and women have more rights then a straight white man a couple years back a female accused a group of teenage white boys of gang raping her. 

Needless to say the state went on the wire to convict them everyone was convinced these boys were guilty and wanted to see that they went to jail even the media was going after these boys. 

Everyone plead guilty but one because he knew it was B.S even though everyone was against him and he had a tape proving it. Of course in Illinois it doesn't matter if you have a tape your a man and somehow doctored it like those posters on walls all over Chicago that Bush made everything in Chicago go wrong even people cheating on tests!

Rod Blagojevich the guy who whenever I told people stories about him to people out side of this state they claimed I was crazy and a troll and making up stuff until of course him selling Obama's seat made national headlines. But in this case Blagojevich wanted to quickly make a law so the rape video could not be watched. All the media outlets was condemning the Judge for considering to show this video.

Well the jury got to see the video and go figure the girl one night decided to take on three guys willingly in the tape and must of felt like a **** the next day and reported them. 

http://www.foxnews.c...,186456,00.html

Good thing about the case the kid walked because everyone who saw the video looked at her like she was a liar at that point. The bad part is the guy who plead guilty screwed up and since one guy made the video he was charged with cp though it helped everyone else it seemed.

One of the other guys was a European knowing he was screwed fled to Europe only returning when the juries saw the video and released the two defendants. However when he returned the state wanted to make an example of him and they convicted him of assault, not sexual assault because the DA was pissed and of course jumping bail so he went to jail for five years.

http://articles.chic...ild-pornography

Moral of the story is let these men have justice and don't believe a woman screaming rape many have suffered by vile women who use the word rape when scorned. Let's not forget what happened at Rosewood which is a horrible tale and let's not forget the Duke Case.

Things like this happen often . . . go look up the Duke Lacrosse case, for example.

New outlets do more harm then good sometimes, vilifying the alleged perpetrators while doing no investigation.

No alleged victim should be sanctified, and no alleged perpetrator villified, until the facts come out.

Assuming the story linked in the OP is accurate, this seems to be a clear case - emphasis on seems to be.  The perps tweeted photos of their assault.  Which makes them dumb, as well as *ssholes.

I still would like more information. For all we know they had a Bukkake and humiliated her and she was willing like what happened to the case I was speaking of earlier and then afterwards she felt bad and cried rape. Let the jury convict these people not the public.

These witch hunts are not needed.

Not much more needs to be known, if the article is accurate - it states they pled guilty to first degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism.  If so, it seems they admitted the truth of the allegations she made (I have not looked up the legal definition of first degree sexual abuse under Kentucky law).

[billy the squid]

TJPags wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

android654 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

android654 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...

Are you kidding me? She puts two horrible people on blast and she's going to jail? sexism is alive and well it seems.

I think I facepalmed so hard I just fell off my chair. No, breach of Human Rights Act, Contempt of Court, The fact they were considered juviniles in terms of scentencing.

And this is not slander people, it's libel, slander is spoken word, libel is written.

Since she's not a member of the press, it's not considered libel. Libel must be in print, brodcast or photo journalism. Since she's a random person putting something on twitter, it's merely slander.

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including
pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an
untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her
reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn
or contempt of others.

No it doesn't, it simply equates to written word, distributed which causes damage to a party, whether she is a journalist is neither here nor there it's completely irrelevant. Slander is always spoken word.

legal defintions =/= common defintions. The definition I provided is the legal one.

"In print" doesn't mean written down, it means in the press. The names weren't revealed through a press outlet so it wouldn't be a libel suit, but a case of slander.

And the explaination I'm providing is a legal one. I should know. look up the case of McDonalds v Morris&Steel The libel case was based on the circulation of a pamphlet by two individuals. Neither were journalists. The only stipulation is that it must be written word, how that is conveyed or cirrculated, via print, text or internet is not an issue when determining if the case is one of libel or not.

Press outlets are not a determining factor in libel cases, printed word simply means in writing. However it is written.

Slander is always spoken word. Both are seperate aspects to pursue under defamation laws.

This argument, while an interesting conceptual one, is largely irrelevent.  Libel and Slander are simply sub-categories of Defamation of Character, which is the publishing - whether by speech or writing - of an untrue statement about someone else, which causes the other person harm or ridicule (yes, I've simplified somewhat).

Truth is always (virtually always, I don't believe any exception would apply here) a defense to a Defamation claim.  Thus, IF these men actually sexually assaulted her, she has a valid defense to any defamation claim, whether libel or slander.

I think it also applies if she believes it to be true, even if it is not true. Obviously evidence must be shown as to why that belief is held, which has to be considerable.

[Neo DrKefka]

TJPags wrote...

Neo DrKefka wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Neo DrKefka wrote...

Here in IL the heart of the Democratic Party where minorities and women have more rights then a straight white man a couple years back a female accused a group of teenage white boys of gang raping her. 

Needless to say the state went on the wire to convict them everyone was convinced these boys were guilty and wanted to see that they went to jail even the media was going after these boys. 

Everyone plead guilty but one because he knew it was B.S even though everyone was against him and he had a tape proving it. Of course in Illinois it doesn't matter if you have a tape your a man and somehow doctored it like those posters on walls all over Chicago that Bush made everything in Chicago go wrong even people cheating on tests!

Rod Blagojevich the guy who whenever I told people stories about him to people out side of this state they claimed I was crazy and a troll and making up stuff until of course him selling Obama's seat made national headlines. But in this case Blagojevich wanted to quickly make a law so the rape video could not be watched. All the media outlets was condemning the Judge for considering to show this video.

Well the jury got to see the video and go figure the girl one night decided to take on three guys willingly in the tape and must of felt like a **** the next day and reported them. 

http://www.foxnews.c...,186456,00.html

Good thing about the case the kid walked because everyone who saw the video looked at her like she was a liar at that point. The bad part is the guy who plead guilty screwed up and since one guy made the video he was charged with cp though it helped everyone else it seemed.

One of the other guys was a European knowing he was screwed fled to Europe only returning when the juries saw the video and released the two defendants. However when he returned the state wanted to make an example of him and they convicted him of assault, not sexual assault because the DA was pissed and of course jumping bail so he went to jail for five years.

http://articles.chic...ild-pornography

Moral of the story is let these men have justice and don't believe a woman screaming rape many have suffered by vile women who use the word rape when scorned. Let's not forget what happened at Rosewood which is a horrible tale and let's not forget the Duke Case.

Things like this happen often . . . go look up the Duke Lacrosse case, for example.

New outlets do more harm then good sometimes, vilifying the alleged perpetrators while doing no investigation.

No alleged victim should be sanctified, and no alleged perpetrator villified, until the facts come out.

Assuming the story linked in the OP is accurate, this seems to be a clear case - emphasis on seems to be.  The perps tweeted photos of their assault.  Which makes them dumb, as well as *ssholes.

I still would like more information. For all we know they had a Bukkake and humiliated her and she was willing like what happened to the case I was speaking of earlier and then afterwards she felt bad and cried rape. Let the jury convict these people not the public.

These witch hunts are not needed.

Not much more needs to be known, if the article is accurate - it states they pled guilty to first degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism.  If so, it seems they admitted the truth of the allegations she made (I have not looked up the legal definition of first degree sexual abuse under Kentucky law).

Remember the link I posted earlier one of this guy's plead guilty because he thought he couldn't win or get a good lawyer. If they did it they should be punished but think of what happens if they didn't do it. She is trying to start up a mob and innocent people can get hurt. 

I'm all for punishing those who actually raped someone however, we are starting to see a lot of girls doing a lot of stupid things and then blaming everyone else. I think we should be very, very careful when stirring up a mob. I hate rapists more then anyone else but you also have to play devils advocate and see the other side. 

[TJPags]

Neo DrKefka wrote...

TJPags wrote...

<snipped the quote pyramid>

Remember the link I posted earlier one of this guy's plead guilty because he thought he couldn't win or get a good lawyer. If they did it they should be punished but think of what happens if they didn't do it. She is trying to start up a mob and innocent people can get hurt. 

I'm all for punishing those who actually raped someone however, we are starting to see a lot of girls doing a lot of stupid things and then blaming everyone else. I think we should be very, very careful when stirring up a mob. I hate rapists more then anyone else but you also have to play devils advocate and see the other side. 

Sorry, I can't rationalize someone who pleads guilty because they think they can't win or think they can't get a good lawyer.  Sure, some people may do that, and may be innocent - but by pleading guilty, in my mind, they've given up the option of arguing their innocence for all time.

billy the squid wrote...

TJPags wrote...

<snipped another quote pyramid>

I think it also applies if she believes it to be true, even if it is not true. Obviously evidence must be shown as to why that belief is held, which has to be considerable.

Yes, making a statement that you have a reasonable belief is true - such as repeating something everyone says and believes - is also a defense.  I did say I was simplifying. 

Defamation is not simply about true or not, there are nuances.  Truth, however, is always an absolute defense, since defamation requires a false statement in the first instance.  Here, the alleged perps pled guilty, thus establishing for the purposes of a potential defamtion suit that her claim was true (assuming first degree sexual abuse, as defined in Kentucky, meets a general definition of rape).

[Kathleen321]

She shouldn't have violated confidentiality for her sake, but I hope these pricks spend a lot of time getting raped in prison. And I hope she recovers some day. That's an awful thing to go through.

[Mr.House]

Great to see such a wonderful justice system at work....


PS:The scumbags deserve it.

Modifié par Mr.House, 23 juillet 2012 - 05:40 .

[Ninja Stan]

No political discussions, please.

End of line.