America - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

No need for middle ground there. If you falsely accuse someone you should be held accountable for your actions and the damages caused. But i personally dont care if there are some false accusations if thats the trade off for more abused feeling empowered to come forward.

Guilty until proven innocent. A new direction in American justice!

 

[TexRex]

Guilty until proven innocent. A new direction in American justice!

There's legal recourse for calumny, and engaging in the act can't be swept under the rug like sexual assault can.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There's legal recourse for calumny, and engaging in the act can't be swept under the rug like sexual assault can.

Yes, that's what I said, guilty until proven innocent.

 

[TexRex]

Yes, that's what I said, guilty until proven innocent.

Found guilty by whom?

 

[Northstar]

Yes, that's what I said, guilty until proven innocent.

And when that finally happens good luck trying to get anyone to care.

Found guilty by whom?

The “Honorable” Court of Public Opinion.

No evidence is required and all rulings are final.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Found guilty by whom?

Having to go to a legal court to prove your innocence when you've already been convicted in the court of public opinion and your career and life are in tatters is to me not an ideal alternative. Do you also believe, like @Rallywagon, that there is no need for a middle ground between lives and careers being destroyed by unsubstantiated allegations on social media and completely ignoring the accusers and their concerns? Are you also willing to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater?

 

[TexRex]

The “Honorable” Court of Public Opinion.

No evidence is required and all rulings are final.

For which vindication is impossible should allegations be revealed as false? Free speech isn't absolute, and libel laws are in place to defend those who have been misrepresented, and for which damages can be sought.

 

[McLaren]

That’s Johnny’s point; it doesn’t matter. If you’re compensated for damages, the public has already branded you. And the people who lie get off without any scrutiny by the public for lying.

 

[TexRex]

Having to go to a legal court to prove your innocence when you've already been convicted in the court of public opinion and your career and life are in tatters is to me not an ideal alternative.

I agree.

Do you also believe, like @Rallywagon, that there is no need for a middle ground between lives and careers being destroyed by unsubstantiated allegations on social media and completely ignoring the accusers and their concerns.

No, but as I have stated elsewhere and referenced here, I don't know what that middle ground would be.

What about an ability to find justice when an abuser has the means to--for many years, it would seem, in some instances--hide and deny behavior and actions through use of their fame, status or wealth? Is there a middle ground between going to the authorities only to have accusations successfully dismissed and just sucking it up and moving on (or worse)?

 

[Northstar]

and libel laws are in place to defend those who have been misrepresented, and for which damages can be sought.

The thing about libel lawsuits is they kind of put the burden of proof on the defendants shoulder. And in the case of sexual assault or harassment unless you can prove you were somewhere else at the time of the alleged incident (aka an alibi) or you have them on tape confessing to making it up you're pretty much screwed.

No, but as I have stated elsewhere and referenced here, I don't know what that middle ground would be.

How about listening to the victim(s) while at the same time waiting to see all the evidence before calling for the accused person's head to be put on a pike outside the castle gates?

 

[TexRex]

The thing about libel lawsuits is they kind of put the burden of proof on the defendants shoulder. And in the case of sexual assault or harassment unless you can prove you were somewhere else at the time of the alleged incident (aka an alibi) or you have them on tape confessing to making it up you're pretty much screwed.

All the more reason for bona fide perpetrators to do everything they can to keep transgressions from being revealed.

How about listening to the victim(s) while at the same time waiting to see all the evidence before calling for the accused person's head to be put on a pike outside the castle gates?

And should the perpetrator manage to stifle initial allegations or dissuade investigation through considerable means and measures? What options are left for the victim(s)?

 

[Northstar]

All the more reason for bona fide perpetrators to do everything they can to keep transgressions from being revealed.

If they are bonafide perps, than the person making accusations doesn't have to worry about a lawsuit. So not really sure what you're getting at here.

And should the perpetrator manage to stifle initial allegations or dissuade investigation through considerable means and measures? What options are left for the victim(s)?

I need more info on this hypothetical situation before I really make an argument on it.

 

[Pupik]

Yes, that's what I said, guilty until proven innocent.

We actually don't have "innocent" in the American court system, thanks for playing.

It's called "not guilty".

 

[TexRex]

If they are bonafide perps, than the person making accusations doesn't have to worry about a lawsuit.

A lawsuit that would only be instigated by an accuser using a less-than-convential means of bringing attention to inappropriate behavior when conventional means have been for naught; and presumably if no such behavior occurred.

I need more info on this hypothetical situation before I really make an argument on it.

You mean like Larry Nassar--using means afforded to him as a once respected practitioner of sports medicine at a University and with an amateur athletic competition organization (USA Gymnastics), operating under the guise of medical procedures to get his rocks off diddling young women and girls for years--who has since, far too late, been found guilty by an actual court of law?

If it weren't for your Nassars--and even your Weinsteins, though I admit I find some of the alleged countermeasures there a little farfetched--of the world, I might not so readily suggest such a situation.

And the idea that someone would make false accusations against someone they merely don't like, and perhaps don't even know (more likely in a "piling on" situation than a unique accusation) is despicable. (rhetorical) Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world wherein nobody sought to deceive?

I've said it before; I don't think the best route is being taken, but I find the destination desirable.

 

[Pupik]

Having to go to a legal court to prove your innocence when you've already been convicted in the court of public opinion and your career and life are in tatters is to me not an ideal alternative. Do you also believe, like @Rallywagon, that there is no need for a middle ground between lives and careers being destroyed by unsubstantiated allegations on social media and completely ignoring the accusers and their concerns? Are you also willing to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater?

It didn't affect Kobe Bryant, and rightfully so.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

That’s Johnny’s point; it doesn’t matter. If you’re compensated for damages, the public has already branded you. And the people who lie get off without any scrutiny by the public for lying.

I mean, this is a hypothetical still, right? In that case, the people who falsely accuse don't always 100% get off without any scrutiny. Some may, some may not, just as @Pupik has pointed out that some peoples' careers weren't seemingly harmed after scandal. Kobe had a bunch of his sponsors back with him a year after his original mess.

False accusations are a small number of rape/assault cases IIRC. That's not excusing nor condoning them — I believe the original implication at the top of the page was that if a false accusation is what leads to someone who has been abused coming forward, then it's a positive. I'd say it's more of a silver lining than an outright positive, but that's getting into semantics.

 

[McLaren]

Kobe Bryant's case was dropped because at the last moment, the accuser said she would not testify. She filed a civil suit as well, that was then settled out of court. By that time, Kobe lost his endorsements and the public affection. Again, that's Johnny's point. He was already deemed a rapist by the public before he even took the stand to defend himself. And what happened to Trina McKay? Nothing because no one even knows that's the girl's name.

I'm not saying people shouldn't come forth, but I think the public should wait until enough info is out there before condemning someone. If they're found guilty like Nassar, then the public has every right to condemn him. If his name is Paul Nungesser, you give him 4 years of hell and smear his name even after the allegations are settled or dismissed. He gets to live trying to forget his college life and she continues on with nothing but support at-best from feminists.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I agree.


No, but as I have stated elsewhere and referenced here, I don't know what that middle ground would be.

What about an ability to find justice when an abuser has the means to--for many years, it would seem, in some instances--hide and deny behavior and actions through use of their fame, status or wealth? Is there a middle ground between going to the authorities only to have accusations successfully dismissed and just sucking it up and moving on (or worse)?

Abusers will always hide and deny, it's the nature of the beast isn't it? Accusers should be listened to and their cases should be adjudicated, where they belong, in the courts. In the larger scheme of things I think it's a very positive thing that this abuse is seeing the light of day. It's a terrible situation for the (mostly) women and they shouldn't have to suffer it to begin with and should be able to get swift justice. My objection is to the attitude that was expressed earlier that a few innocent victims getting wrapped up in that is no big deal. To me that's a slippery slope and just a terrible, terrible attitude from a human being. We've been down that road before and should have learned our lesson.

"Sir, are you now or have you ever been a rapist". No? "Too bad, you've been convicted in the court of public opinion, sue if you don't like it, bye bye".

We actually don't have "innocent" in the American court system, thanks for playing.

It's called "not guilty".

Yes, that was kind of the point.

 

[DDastardly00]

These 13 Mueller indictments show at least some level of Russian involvement in our election, however miniscule it may be. It's equally interesting that they supported both Bernie and Trump during the campaigns all while contributing large cash donations to Hillary's campaign as they were leaking anti-Hillary info to US media outlets, They played her like a fiddle. But let's not stop there, Russian Hackers were also linked to a disinformation campaign leading up to the Brexit vote. Then they were also linked to fiddling with the French election last year. This is not surprising, this is what Russia does.

The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia is a geopoliticalbook by Aleksandr Dugin. The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites and it has been used as a textbook in the Academy of the General Staff of the Russian military. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services.

[Some of the regional goals in the book:]

The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.

Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because

"Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics".

Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey.

These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism

, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."

Does any of this sound familiar when compared to recent events? Keep in mind that Russia has no political goals in reference to our election, or France's election last year, and they do not care about one side or the other, or even who wins. All they want to achieve is to sow discord, unrest, and cause instability however they can. Divide and conquer, it's as simple as that.

 

[Danoff]

These 13 Mueller indictments show at least some level of Russian involvement in our election, however miniscule it may be. It's equally interesting that they supported both Bernie and Trump during the campaigns all while contributing large cash donations to Hillary's campaign as they were leaking anti-Hillary info to US media outlets, They played her like a fiddle. But let's not stop there, Russian Hackers were also linked to a disinformation campaign leading up to the Brexit vote. Then they were also linked to fiddling with the French election last year. This is not surprising, this is what Russia does.










Does any of this sound familiar when compared to recent events? Keep in mind that Russia has no political goals in reference to our election, or France's election last year, and they do not care about one side or the other, or even who wins. All they want to achieve is to sow discord, unrest, and cause instability however they can. Divide and conquer, it's as simple as that.

To what end?

 

[Obelisk]

To what end?

Mother Russia ruling the world, da?

 

[DDastardly00]

To what end?

To the end that they are the world's foremost power, starting with anointing themselves to pre-cold war era levels and on up from there. Putin is extremely ambitious and not in a good way either.


edit:

In regards to the statement about the last French Election, the NSA confirmed they were able to hack their infrastructure, they also leaked 9GB of emails from Macron.

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/nsa-director-confirms-russia-hacked-french-election-infrastructure/

 

[Danoff]

Mother Russia ruling the world, da?

To the end that they are the world's foremost power, starting with anointing themselves to pre-cold war era levels and on up from there. Putin is extremely ambitious and not in a good way either.

But... why?

Why does Russia care about tearing down the US? How does that help Russia? Surely they're not actually considering trying to take over the US in the future. A Russian invasion would cost them so much, and an occupation would be worse. But if they're not looking to come here, shouldn't they want us to be prosperous? The more prosperous the rest of the world is, the better your own economy. Take a look a China, their development came in part from profitable (both ways) trading with the US. China's development only makes them more valuable as a trading part as they become more and more capable of purchasing higher and higher end services and goods from us.

It's good for nations to be wealthy.

 

[Joey D]

But... why?

Why does Russia care about tearing down the US? How does that help Russia? Surely they're not actually considering trying to take over the US in the future. A Russian invasion would cost them so much, and an occupation would be worse. But if they're not looking to come here, shouldn't they want us to be prosperous? The more prosperous the rest of the world is, the better your own economy. Take a look a China, their development came in part from profitable (both ways) trading with the US. China's development only makes them more valuable as a trading part as they become more and more capable of purchasing higher and higher end services and goods from us.

It's good for nations to be wealthy.

I'll freely admit I don't know much about Russia outside what I see in Bond films and through Sean Connery's performance in The Hunt for Red October, but I do wonder if they're still salty about the Cold War?

 

[DDastardly00]

But... why?

Why does Russia care about tearing down the US? How does that help Russia? Surely they're not actually considering trying to take over the US in the future. A Russian invasion would cost them so much, and an occupation would be worse. But if they're not looking to come here, shouldn't they want us to be prosperous? The more prosperous the rest of the world is, the better your own economy. Take a look a China, their development came in part from profitable (both ways) trading with the US. China's development only makes them more valuable as a trading part as they become more and more capable of purchasing higher and higher end services and goods from us.

It's good for nations to be wealthy.

Mostly likely not in the physical sense, no. I do not see Russia wanting to invade or occupy the USA. They would rather subdue us. Russia is also not really a trading partner of the USA, our trade with them is very small something like 0.5% of our exports go to Russia and our imports are about equal. It's so miniscule it's not even worth mentioning. They would love to see us knocked down a few notches as a world power just as they would love to supersede us as the world's top power, of course they would have to contend with China eventually...but that doesn't seem like their goal, otherwise the wouldn't be bolstering their trade relationship with China.

 

[Dotini]

These 13 Mueller indictments show at least some level of Russian involvement in our election, however miniscule it may be. It's equally interesting that they supported both Bernie and Trump during the campaigns all while contributing large cash donations to Hillary's campaign as they were leaking anti-Hillary info to US media outlets, They played her like a fiddle. But let's not stop there, Russian Hackers were also linked to a disinformation campaign leading up to the Brexit vote. Then they were also linked to fiddling with the French election last year. This is not surprising, this is what Russia does.

Does any of this sound familiar when compared to recent events? Keep in mind that Russia has no political goals in reference to our election, or France's election last year, and they do not care about one side or the other, or even who wins. All they want to achieve is to sow discord, unrest, and cause instability however they can. Divide and conquer, it's as simple as that.

I'll be interested to see if Mr Mueller has any more indictments forthcoming. I'll bet he does.

With regards to Russian interference in elections, it won't come as any surprise. Russia interfered in 36 elections between 1945-2000, albeit falling short of the US achievement of interfering in 81 elections. IMO, it's a competition, or a "Great Game" that nations play.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.


The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But... why?

Why does Russia care about tearing down the US? How does that help Russia? Surely they're not actually considering trying to take over the US in the future.

Since the 40s Russia has been a natural of opponent of America in political terms as much as geographical terms. America interferes with Russia as much as possible and vice versa. If they can upset American interests in business, politics and trade then they will do... and America will be busy doing it back. In fact I'd bet that the great majority of countries worldwide are doing as much as possible to do the same to their 'enemies', it's just that Russia and America have a lot of manpower, brains and technology to work with.

 

[Imari]

Personally, i for one am not so bothered by accusations leading to public repercussions.

I imagine you'd probably feel differently if you were falsely accused of something and suffered public repercussions. Nasser's case was horrific, but it was a failure of the leadership and justice system that kept him in place despite the allegations. For me, the solution is to fix those things, not create a society where people have life altering consequences purely based on an accusation.

Hell, we have people who actually faced trial that are found innocent years later. The trial and "innocent until proven guilty" system isn't perfect as it stands (see The Innocence Project), I hardly think it needs watering down to the point that people get their lives wrecked without even the chance to have a fair chance to present their case.

There's plenty of time for punishment and consequences after the facts have been clearly established, with input from both sides and preferably independent investigation also.

As far as i have heard, no one is being convicted without due process.

They are however facing severe repercussions for "crimes" that they didn't necessarily commit.

If I get you fired from your job because I accuse you of molesting squirrels, and it turns out six months later that I'm actually a bitter arsebiscuit that just did it for the lols and you've never pleasured a forest critter in your life, that doesn't undo what you've been subjected to because of a few words I said on a whim.

If you falsely accuse someone you should be held accountable for your actions and the damages caused. But i personally dont care if there are some false accusations if thats the trade off for more abused feeling empowered to come forward.

Sure. How do you feel about false accusations leading to severe negative consequences for the accused regardless of guilt or innocence?

I'm all for false accusations being punished more harshly than they seem to be at the moment. I'm all for accusations being treated more seriously in general for the majority that are accurate, and making it safe and relatively easy for people to come forward. I'm all for making sure that the justice system is less easily swayed by those in power, or those that can afford a high powered lawyer and bully those without.

I'm not so cool with accepting that the accused faces repercussions based simply on the accusation alone. First, it goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" rule which exists for very good reasons. Second, it's incredibly abusable.

What about an ability to find justice when an abuser has the means to--for many years, it would seem, in some instances--hide and deny behavior and actions through use of their fame, status or wealth?

That's a fault with the justice and reporting systems, both of which can be amended. The answer is not to ruin people's lives based only on an accusation in the hope that statistically they turn out to have been guilty. That's not how justice works; that's how anger works when you want to find anyone possible to punish.

And should the perpetrator manage to stifle initial allegations or dissuade investigation through considerable means and measures? What options are left for the victim(s)?

Again, that's a fault with the justice system. If the justice system is failing to investigate and bring actual crimes to trial, then work to fix the justice system. Taking it to the court of public opinion gets a victory for you, maybe, if we assume that you really are a victim and that a crime was committed (which you haven't needed to prove to any degree). Fixing the system gets victories for all those who will be victims.

It's harder, but it's also fairer and a better ultimate result. And there are organisations that exist to help with real miscarriages of justice. I'd far rather see the court of public opinion used to look into the failings of the justice system as a whole than individual cases.

And the idea that someone would make false accusations against someone they merely don't like, and perhaps don't even know (more likely in a "piling on" situation than a unique accusation) is despicable.

So is the idea that someone would use their position as a medical doctor to molest young girls. Yet both sorts of people exist. And in both cases we want to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, regardless of which is the accuser and which is the accused.

Justice comes from considering the facts of each specific case. Not from applying statistics and accepting that only a few innocents are going to have their lives ruined. Yes, the justice system fails sometimes, but not because it intentionally accepts that it's going to mischaracterise innocents as guilty.

 

[Rallywagon]

In a perfect world none if this would be an issue. With a better justice system and a less fickle populous we wouldnt have "trial by public opinion." But we don't have that utopia. What we have is a legal/ criminal system that tends to benefit the abuser and a public that tends to ostracize the abused. Somelike like only 30% of acts of sexual violence are reported, a number that drops to 20% for college age women.
Sorry that my opinion offends so many, but in this case, where public opinion is generally stacked against the victim, where only 2% of reported assualts/rapes are false, yeah, I'd rather have the system stacked in the victims favor instead of the perpetrators, and to hell with public opinion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

In a perfect world none if this would be an issue. With a better justice system and a less fickle populous we wouldnt have "trial by public opinion." But we don't have that utopia. What we have is a legal/ criminal system that tends to benefit the abuser and a public that tends to ostracize the abused. Somelike like only 30% of acts of sexual violence are reported, a number that drops to 20% for college age women.
Sorry that my opinion offends so many, but in this case, where public opinion is generally stacked against the victim, where only 2% of reported assualts/rapes are false, yeah, I'd rather have the system stacked in the victims favor instead of the perpetrators, and to hell with public opinion.

Joe McCarthy is resting comfortably knowing there are at least some that carry the torch for his legacy and his unique methods of carrying out justice!