The Tide may finally be turning

Finally the courts are starting to take these things seriously. It is far too easy for someone to make up false claims and face no consequences.

https://deadspin.com/nfl-ref-carl-jo...now-1821270452

"Since that first TMZ report, Johnson has gone from being the subject of a law-enforcement investigation to being cleared. And Brooks herself is now facing a possible conviction. The request for an extended restraining order was denied, and the Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office ended its investigation of Johnson, declining to charge Johnson and instead charging Brooks. Her criminal charges include filing a false police report and domestic battery. She is due back in court on Feb. 21, according to the Lafourche Parish Clerk of Court. Court records, as well as a transcript obtained by Deadspin, show how that happened."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Finally the courts are starting to take these things seriously. It is far too easy for someone to make up false claims and face no consequences.

---

Our courts have always 'taken these things seriously', but they were historically slow to give restraining orders for protection from abuse. And no, it's not so easy for someone (you mean women) to make false claims (against men) and face no consequences.

For some reason, you've got the impression that false accusations and bogus court orders outnumber unreported and/or non-prosecuted sexual assaults. That men are somehow being victimized by lying women and over-zealous courts, and in great numbers. You're letting the instant news cycle and social media confuse you on the facts. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Our courts have always 'taken these things seriously', but they were historically slow to give restraining orders for protection from abuse. And no, it's not so easy for someone (you mean women) to make false claims (against men) and face no consequences.

For some reason, you've got the impression that false accusations and bogus court orders outnumber unreported and/or non-prosecuted sexual assaults. That men are somehow being victimized by lying women and over-zealous courts, and in great numbers. You're letting the instant news cycle and social media confuse you on the facts. :bored:

---

The fact is that it is nearly impossible to tell if an accusation is false or true without actual physical evidence. People bandy about claims of 'oh x% of accusations are false' but there is no real way to determine that. Almost all of the false accusations that come to light are due to the sheer incompetency of the accusers. The intelligent ones... shit we probably will never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The fact is that it is nearly impossible to tell if an accusation is false or true without actual physical evidence. People bandy about claims of 'oh x% of accusations are false' but there is no real way to determine that. Almost all of the false accusations that come to light are due to the sheer incompetency of the accusers. The intelligent ones... shit we probably will never know.

---

You started this thread without citing any facts. You made a conclusion, without facts, and found a source (that linked to TMZ :rolleyes:) to support your position.

The "Tide may finally be turning" when you stop doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The fact is that it is nearly impossible to tell if an accusation is false or true without actual physical evidence. People bandy about claims of 'oh x% of accusations are false' but there is no real way to determine that. Almost all of the false accusations that come to light are due to the sheer incompetency of the accusers. The intelligent ones... shit we probably will never know.

---

Provide some evidence please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Provide some evidence please.

---

face palm

Yeah Rand, how dare you call him on his bullshit. Did you not see how carefully he thought he worded his response?

God, why do you have to be so insensitive towards ignorance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Yeah Rand, how dare you call him on his bullshit. Did you not see how carefully he thought he worded his response?

God, why do you have to be so insensitive towards ignorance?

---

It is nearly impossible to prove how many false allegations there are. Many cases are things like 'it wasn't violent but I didn't give consent.' How exactly are you able to prove the accuracy or non-accuracy of the claim? Or when allegations are made years later? It is literally impossible and that was my point. The response is 'well show us the evidence.' That's like asking someone to prove a negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

It is nearly impossible to prove how many false allegations there are. Many cases are things like 'it wasn't violent but I didn't give consent.' How exactly are you able to prove the accuracy or non-accuracy of the claim? Or when allegations are made years later? It is literally impossible and that was my point. The response is 'well show us the evidence.' That's like asking someone to prove a negative.

---

How many false allegations do you believe there are, compared to the total number of rapes or allegations of rape?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

How many false allegations do you believe there are, compared to the total number of rapes or allegations of rape?

---

That's just it... I don't know. And any guess would be no more than a guess. Which is why due process and the like are important. Why we shouldn't rush to judgement and railroad innocent people based on one person's word when there are obvious benefits to lying.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/rising-foot...ry?id=16424770

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

That's just it... I don't know. And any guess would be no more than a guess. Which is why due process and the like are important. Why we shouldn't rush to judgement and railroad innocent people based on one person's word when there are obvious benefits to lying.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/rising-foot...ry?id=16424770

---

You clearly have a belief about how many allegations are false. What is your belief?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Finally the courts are starting to take these things seriously. It is far too easy for someone to make up false claims and face no consequences.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

That's just it... I don't know. And any guess would be no more than a guess.

---

Given your words at top, and this thread title (a tide - a huge movement of water all along a coastline), I'd say you're not taking your second quote above very seriously. I think you believe there's a shit ton of false accusations. Are there so many false accusations that it's worth mistakenly ignoring a real rape or domestic abuse case to protect the rights of a "tide" of unjustly accused men? Sure it is -- you know a woman that stays with the man that supposedly beats her secretly enjoys it, right? It's her own fault, so why risk embarrassing an innocent man just to give a lying woman unfair revenge against her husband? Yes, the tide is finally turning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Given your words at top, and this thread title (a tide - a huge movement of water all along a coastline), I'd say you're not taking your second quote above very seriously. I think you believe there's a shit ton of false accusations. Are there so many false accusations that it's worth mistakenly ignoring a real rape or domestic abuse case to protect the rights of a "tide" of unjustly accused men? Sure it is -- you know a woman that stays with the man that supposedly beats her secretly enjoys it, right? It's her own fault, so why risk embarrassing an innocent man just to give a lying woman unfair revenge against her husband? Yes, the tide is finally turning.

---

What the hell are you blathering about? I'm talking about false accusations. Shit stains who actually beat their wives or molest children or rape women can fry or be locked up for life.

He's talking about what happens when you go after these imaginary false rape accusations as hard as you seem to want; you get women who were raped in gaol for making 'false accusations' because they weren't able to prove they were raped and a chilling effect on victims coming forward. Exactly what's intended by people who want to spend more time talking about false accusations than real ones that weren't prosecuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

He's talking about what happens when you go after these imaginary false rape accusations as hard as you seem to want; you get women who were raped in gaol for making 'false accusations' because they weren't able to prove they were raped and a chilling effect on victims coming forward. Exactly what's intended by people who want to spend more time talking about false accusations than real ones that weren't prosecuted.

---

Exactly.

Lewk, if a woman gets raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted, by a man but she has no independent proof, should she report it to the police? Or just suck it up. Because your turning tide means she has a good chance of being brought up on charges if she accuses her rapist without hard proof.

Lewk wants women to follow the "if you can't prove it, don't claim it" guideline.

Because he is an ass.

Plus Lewk is portraying cases collapsing because there isn't beyond a reasonable doubt proof that the accused was guilty, as proof that the woman who made the accusation was guilty of making a fake one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Exactly.

Lewk, if a woman gets raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted, by a man but she has no independent proof, should she report it to the police? Or just suck it up. Because your turning tide means she has a good chance of being brought up on charges if she accuses her rapist without hard proof.

---

No. Reasonable doubt cuts both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Lewk wants women to follow the "if you can't prove it, don't claim it" guideline.

Because he is an ass.

---

No. I'm saying "If you can't prove it, society shouldn't automatically believe you and sanction the person you've accused. Because that's how you get false accusations ruining innocent people's lives."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

No. I'm saying "If you can't prove it, society shouldn't automatically believe you and sanction the person you've accused. Because that's how you get false accusations ruining innocent people's lives."

---

Except that doesn't happen already. So you're fighting a straw man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Except that doesn't happen already. So you're fighting a straw man.

---

Except it does. Duke Lacross, Brian Banks, that guy I posted about from UK. That other guy who went to prison based on a false accusation by the serial false accuser (also in Britain).

So, in your mind, every time a conviction for rape fails or is overturned = the justice system throws men into prison on just the say so of the victim?

Do you apply this remarkable standard to other crimes, or just rape?

As we've already determined, in Lewkistan, it would just be better to kill people and claim self-defense against rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

So, in your mind, every time a conviction for rape fails or is overturned = the justice system throws men into prison on just the say so of the victim?

Do you apply this remarkable standard to other crimes, or just rape?

---

I didn't say that either.

Social sanction includes things like job loss, careers in jeopardy, kicked out of college, social stigma and other things. Merely on the say so of one person making the accusation. In fact in several cases the person who was accused never saw jail time however that doesn't mean they weren't irreparably harmed by the mere accusation. In most cases the truth can be muddy but when we can positively identify the person is making a false accusation we should absolutely throw the book at her (or him).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I didn't say that either.

Social sanction includes things like job loss, careers in jeopardy, kicked out of college, social stigma and other things. Merely on the say so of one person making the accusation. In fact in several cases the person who was accused never saw jail time however that doesn't mean they weren't irreparably harmed by the mere accusation. In most cases the truth can be muddy but when we can positively identify the person is making a false accusation we should absolutely throw the book at her (or him).

---

Well, you can always go on to be a film producer, right wing media personality, senator or president of the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

No. I'm saying "If you can't prove it, society shouldn't automatically believe you and sanction the person you've accused. Because that's how you get false accusations ruining innocent people's lives."

---

@Lewk--I agree with you, society should not automatically believe an accusation. There should be due process and it should be fair. But on the other hand, as has been the rule until recently, society should not automatically dismiss an accusation because the accused says "she wanted it, and she's just mad because I didn't call her the next day." I understand there have been cases of false accusations, but by all evidence it is nowhere near the pervasive history of the accuser being disregarded, demonized, and retaliated against based only on the word of the accused. There is no long history of men having lives wrecked by lying women - no tide to turn as your thread title implies.

@Everyone -- On a related note, we've been seeing careers destroyed, bodies of work erased, by employers based on accusations that have not been vetted by any kind of due process. Just try to see or hear any of Louis CK's work. It's gone. And Garrison Keillor's Prairy Home Companion is gone too. Neither of these guys were accused of violence, and while CK confirmed everything, Keillor denied it. So how is it his whole body of work is gone - and not just his work, but the work of a great many people over 4 decades - without so much as a charge filed? Something is not right here. He may have long-term harassed a woman that worked for him, but man, I don't see the punishment fitting the crime at all, and I don't see the due process that justice requires at all. And for CK, same thing. I don't think you can rightly say what he did was truly harassment, nor is there evidence that he retaliated against any of the women involved either. Yet his career and work are literally gone.

This doesn't feel right -- and that may be because I don't know all the details. But in the case of Keillor, the details are more or less secret - there has been no trial, only a conviction and sentence imposed. Yes, it's a private business matter, no charges involved, and that's not subject to the rules of the justice system, but damn. Seems like is should be.

But Lewk didn't articulate it the way you did, Choobs. He said, "Finally the courts are starting to take these things seriously. It is far too easy for someone to make up false claims and face no consequences."

Lewk, it took you until post #24 to say *social sanctions without due process*, which is a very different thing than your OP. When you lump ALL false accusations into one big group like that, and give crappy examples, you shouldn't be surprised by the replies (or face palm). :bored:

That said, I agree with EyeKhan that we're hitting in new, weird territory when peoples' creative work gets scrubbed/erased. My guess is that (even though it may not go through the court system) if there were violations of legal contracts or morality clauses, from third parties or license holders, they can do what they want with the content?

Clearly that's what's happening. It just feels very wrong to me.

So Lewk, what do you think about WH staff secretary Rob Porter's situation?
What do you think of a WH that ignores FBI interviews (with ex wives) reporting domestic abuse, yet hires the man without full top security clearance anyway?

Seems to me the good ole boy culture, that believes men's denials first, is alive and well. Even when there was 'proof' of police reports and restraining orders and photographs, Trump and his cronies refused to believe the women. Either they're suggesting domestic abuse isn't really a big deal, or they're woefully ignorant that it happens in private, often without witnesses or 'proof'. What else explains this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Clearly that's what's happening. It just feels very wrong to me.

---

What about it "feels" wrong to you? That lawyers make calculating decisions about potential civil suits when they write legal contracts? Or that things like morality clauses see the light of day before any formal law suit? Well, what do you think about non-disclosure agreements? :bulb:



Women haven't exactly gotten a fair shake for decades, generations even, as you well know. It never "felt" right to me that women could be dissuaded from reporting any form of abuse to their bosses, or even the police, because lawyers and prosecutor would say they'd never win in court. Deep pockets win court cases.

Custody and/or visitation of minor children is given to convicted violent abusers, even rapists, in some states. Not to mention the thousands of rape kits sitting in forensic warehouses, legitimate cases that haven't been processed, let alone prosecuted. Imagine how wrong that "feels" to the women involved.

While I don't "feel" good about any creative work being deleted, I also don't "feel" sorry for anyone in power (historically men) who had access to teams of publishers, publicists, editors, and lawyers, when their accusers victims didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

What about it "feels" wrong to you?

---

In the case of A Prairie Home Companion, it feels wrong that the entire body of work of a broadly beloved show that ran for 30+ years, with creative contributions from hundreds of people, is suddenly gone because the creator of that show was accused of harassing a woman that worked for him. I get that making the show gone was legal. That's not the point.

The conclusion that he is guilty as charged was made in a closed room with, maybe (it's not public knowledge), nothing like due process. Was there a chance to rebut the accusations? Was evidence presented and cross-examined? Was the judgement made based on the strength of evidence and the scope of the harm done, or simply to minimize risk for some corporate entity? Who knows? And for that matter, if he's guilty, his actions ought to be made public. He deserves to be exposed.

To be clear, assuming he is guilty, I believe without reservation that nobody should have to suffer that shit in the work place. And, especially those who use their authority positions to coerce, should be dealt with. But how is this particular remedy just? Shouldn't he, and whoever looked the other way to enable him, be the one(s) punished, and in a way that is proportional to the harm done? A LOT of people have been punished here, presumably including the harrassed woman. It's conceivable that she might even regret going public, given that the show has apparently been erased from the public domain.

Do you think it would be just if every film Harvey Weinstein had any involvement with were suddenly no longer available for anyone to see and no longer generate any kind of royalties for anyone who worked on them?

Just because A Prairie Home Companion is harder to find on-line doesn't mean it's suddenly "gone". There are books and DVDs, people recorded those radio shows at home, and it's archived/stored somewhere. So it's not like Keillor's "entire body of work" has simply vanished into thin air.

We have no idea if the 'closed room' deal was part of contractual third party arbitration, or if Keillor's lawyers made the deal to delete on-line material in exchange for not clawing back millions in a counter-suit, or something else. He had previous law suits (a divorce, and a building code violation) that were also about property ownership (and millions of dollars), so it wouldn't be surprising if he made a private deal that didn't make sense to his audience. Just because the public doesn't know the legal or contractual details doesn't mean there was NO due process.

I get what you're saying, and yes it can feel wrong (or unjust) when we can't immediately access the material we like or want....because it's gotten wrapped up in legal fights between legal teams, regarding issues like content, copy, platform, patent, or property rights. But what bothers me more is that 'justice' can still be bought, or avoided, by the highest paid lawyers. There are real victims here, so don't delude yourself into thinking Keillor is a victim, or that you are, because it's harder to find his work on-line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Do you think it would be just if every film Harvey Weinstein had any involvement with were suddenly no longer available for anyone to see and no longer generate any kind of royalties for anyone who worked on them?

---

But that's why the entertainment industry has Unions, and they have legal teams.