Beta Key Giveaway Week 3: Winners have been selected!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullettime View Post
    If you have a legitimate case, it's very easy to sue and win. The slander/libel laws in the US are pretty strict already. Some of the higher ups, like celebrities, the wealthy, politicians, etc don't fight it because 1) they're guilty and 2) discovery phase means more skeletons in the closet can be brought out and lead to formal charges.
    Well public figures also have the additional burden of proving malice, but that is not something everyday individuals have to worry about. The malice qualification is to protect entities like newspapers who publish things that they believe is truthful while employing usual ethical journalistic standards + protocol and it turns out to not be the case. In my opinion it is a necessary addition for public figures, as we have seen how controlled the press is in other Western countries that do not have the freedoms our press has.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    We have libel and slander laws in most developed countries that protect people from false allegations. If you are innocent then you should sue, if you can't afford to sue then you should approach legal aid offices for assistance or ask attorneys if they will take the case pro bono.

    Yes it really is that simple. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

    Also: if you really are innocent then you should DEFINITELY sue because it will discourage others from false allegations.
    You sue, you win because you were innocent all along..........and no one sees it. Name how many times a retraction gets the media coverage that the original report does.
    Me thinks Chromie has a whole lot of splaining to do!

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullettime View Post
    If you have a legitimate case, it's very easy to sue and win. The slander/libel laws in the US are pretty strict already. Some of the higher ups, like celebrities, the wealthy, politicians, etc don't fight it because 1) they're guilty and 2) discovery phase means more skeletons in the closet can be brought out and lead to formal charges.

    In Porter's case, he was already investigated by the FBI and they found enough evidence to deny him a clearance.
    I think you have the purpose of their investigation wrong, its too see if hes liable to be blackmailed for anything

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by The Penguin View Post
    How should we deal with it? Stiff and draconian punishment for those who it is proven have lied. A gag order on social media if the matter has not been proven in a court setting that decided the situation. That would be a excellent first step. Your Ex calls you a Cheater or slanders you at your workplace as a rapist? All it should take is the opposing party saying "This is false and has not been proven." to force the Social Media or any medium to remove it from their site and ban that person, regardless of the reasons; and to warn the offending poster that further reputation attacks in that vein will be turned over to law enforcement.

    Now if the thing can be proven? Your right to dispute it should be nullified, since the truth does set one free. But otherwise if it would be deemed slanderous / libelous and is as of yet unproven? It should be subject to removal since it could influence a court proceeding. Too often all it takes is one person who lies and abuses their position to turn the truth into what they want it to be with a legion of loyal followers. Those people should be considered liable and such materials should be immediately subject to removal. Freedom of Speech should not equate with Freedom to Post. The medium is too broad. I am not adverse to holding social media groups that do not acquiesce to the above liable. The Internet has gotten out of hand and is dire need of being squelched in a very heavy handed fashion.

    This does not excuse what is alleged against Rob Porter, but I'll wait for the facts to come out in a court room. A pack of armchair crusaders and self serving politicians however should be estopped from actually using this sort of information to win political points, or damage a individual who is last I checked "innocent till proven guilty".

    Make it criminal. Slap fines on the people engaged in that behavior. Make significant examples. #metoo liars and social predators will vanish, while the actual cases of wrongdoing will continue to come to light. After all, why would anyone have a problem telling the truth? If the truth is a absolute defense, as is the case in Tort Law; then there is nothing wrong with speaking it one should think.

    ..Unless the truth is a distorted and self-serving statement of events designed to spin a narrative counter to the actual facts.
    Thanks that was a very pleasant post to read

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiffums View Post
    You sue, you win because you were innocent all along..........and no one sees it. Name how many times a retraction gets the media coverage that the original report does.
    News outlets issue retractions all of the time. If you sue and win big and/or win on issues that people care about like the one discussed in the OP then I'm sure it will get coverage by even the mainstream outlets.

  5. #25
    Moderator Crissi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    29,787
    I'm of 2 minds. It sucks when actual innocents suffer (see: Duke Lacrosse), however accusations should always be able to be made in public because coverips happen and releasing the info is the only way to get traction (see: Stuberville, Baylor, Nasser)

  6. #26
    The issue here is mostly due to this he was never going to get a security clearance. So now you have a guy who has access to the some of the most secret information in the country vulnerable to blackmail. Also note both of the women claiming he abused them did it under oath to federal officers under penalty of criminal charges if they lied. If you like the guy find him another position that does not require security clearances but he is not someone who should have been in the position he was in.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •