Writes Instapundit in what might be the longest ever Instapundit post — with excerpts from Ashe Schow ("Why the Rolling Stone gang-rape story will never be labeled a hoax") and Cathy Young ("The UVA Case and Rape-Hoax Denial").
My question is: Why "more consequences" and not the usual and classic free-speech-loving remedy more speech? It seems as though more speech is working out well enough, or is the complaint that anti-rape activists are still going to use Rolling Stone story to maintain the feeling that something terrible is happening out there? That complaint is a concession of the weakness of your side of the debate. Improve your debate. Your more speech needs to be better. The grim call for consequences is chilling.
ALSO: This post was down for a short time, not because I intentionally took it down, but because I mishandled an open window.
AND: Instapundit responded to this, saying:
Yes, “more speech” is a remedy for opinions one doesn’t like. When speech falls into the category of actions — which false accusations certainly do — it calls for more than simple talk as a response. (But note that Jackie was smart enough not to file a police report, though that should have been a tip-off). And I should note that the fraternity in question was the victim of violent mob action that was ginned up in part by the University of Virginia itself. Is the only remedy for officially-inspired thuggery “more speech?” No. That’s one remedy, but it’s not the only remedy, nor should it be.I strongly disagree with the proposition that if free-speech law permits negative consequences to be imposed that we ought to want these consequences. I am promoting the more speech approach where the First Amendment would permit negative consequences.
Instapundit quotes a commenter of mine who says "The proper remedy for slander is not 'more speech.' The proper remedy... are [sic] 'consequences.'"
Proper remedy? I'm not purporting to be the arbiter of propriety here. I'm saying what I think is the better policy and the better approach to this political discourse. I called for more and better speech and rejected the "grim call for consequences" as "chilling."
पोस्ट्स
१६३ टिप्पण्या:
The proper remedy for perjury is not "more speech".
The proper remedy for filing a false police report is not "more speech".
The proper remedy for slander is not "more speech".
The proper remedy for all of the above are "consequences".
Except Jackie was smart enough to keep her lies out of a police report.
In fairness to "Jackie", she never did file a report with the police regarding the alleged rape. She asked to be removed from the Rolling Stone expose. She may be a serial liar, but her lies were of relatively small consequence until Erdely and Rolling Stone tried to use them as the foundation for their hysterical crusade.
Why "more consequences" and not the usual and classic free-speech-loving remedy more speech?
Because telling, believing and acting on these lies - in the face of the contradictory truth - have imposed real consequences on the victims in the case. The UVa fraternity was physically vandalized. They were ostracized on campus. A Dean's professional and personal reputation was damaged. The overall fraternity system was punished. Meanwhile none of the liars have recanted.
Ann, do you want your university administration to impose punishments on people - you, perhaps - based purely on allegations in a media report with no investigation at all? To refuse to protect you when people vandalize your home? And then refuse to rescind those punishments, acknowledge the truth, apologize and make restitution when investigations show that those allegations were lies?
"More free speech" is indeed the proper response to speech you don't like. But we are talking about more than just speech here, we are talking about actions. Speech can be answered with speech. Actions need to be answered with actions.
In addition to what DanTheMan said, that more speech would be derided as more "mansplaining".
DanTheManSplaining!
It's important to point out that under the standard that found only 2% of reported rapes were false claims, this UVA claim would not be a part of that 2%. That says a lot about the other 98%.
Jackie should just have insisted, "No explanation needed."
"Ann, do you want your university administration to impose punishments on [...] you, [...] based purely on allegations in a media report with no investigation at all?"
Hahahahaha. Like they'd ever do that to a woman.
My question is: Why "more consequences" and not the usual and classic free-speech-loving remedy more speech?
They PUBLICLY ACCUSED MEN OF GANG RAPE. The fraternity was punished harshly for no reason.
Why the hell should the VICTIMS here just shut up and take it?
It seems as though more speech is working out well enough, or is the complaint that anti-rape activists are still going to use Rolling Stone story to maintain the feeling that something terrible is happening out there?
Yeah, worked out great for the people slandered. Worked out great when a college decides to attack a frat for, literally, nothing.
Why are you trying to protect the victimizers here? Should they NOT suffer negative repurcussions for what they did?
Guess what --- I don't buy rape claims AT ALL now. I just do not. I also will advise my boys when they enter college to requent prostitutes because you can't trust the lunatic women on a campus.
But unless I have hard proof, I assume the woman is lying now when she claims she was raped because it has happened often enough to the point where my former "it probably happened" mentality is gone.
That complaint is a concession of the weakness of your side of the debate. Improve your debate. Your more speech needs to be better. The grim call for consequences is chilling.
Sorry, but that is an utter load of bullshit. These men did nothing and had the media, politics, etc all thrown at them for no reason whatsoever.
If a student claimed that you sexually harassed them and unleashed a massive media blitz against you that ruined your reputation --- you'd not want ANY repurcussions for their actions.
I never thought you'd come out so forcefully AGAINST slander and libel laws, but there ya go.
How is "more speech" even possible? Under our media's rules, Jackie never had to even give out her name, and yet could specifically name identifiable people (though in this case the identifiable person didn't exist) and fraternities, the latter of which was subject to being kicked off campus after having its property destroyed.
This is why the law has consequences for false reporting--granted, she didn't make her statement under oath and never reported to the police, but campuses do normally have disciplinary measures for this sort of thing (which don't seem to be used here). This isn't the same thing as one person making a generally incorrect or offensive public statement (that doesn't target a specific individual) and the proper response is to publicly rebut it.
"The grim call for consequences is chilling." Or, in Instapundit's usual style, big-talk w/ no back-up. I'm sure he's a groovy human being, but more and more his site is a one-trick pony.
How is "more speech" even possible? Under our media's rules, Jackie never had to even give out her name, and yet could specifically name identifiable people (though in this case the identifiable person didn't exist) and fraternities, the latter of which was subject to being kicked off campus after having its property destroyed.
This is why the law has consequences for false reporting--granted, she didn't make her statement under oath and never reported to the police, but campuses do normally have disciplinary measures for this sort of thing (which don't seem to be used here). This isn't the same thing as one person making a generally incorrect or offensive public statement (that doesn't target a specific individual) and the proper response is to publicly rebut it.
And Rolling Stone took it national and specifically blamed the frat, claiming that the gang rape was an INITIATION practice.
Yeah, more speech will help with "Does your frat require pledges to gang rape women?" Of course.
"The grim call for consequences is chilling."
So, if I made a death threat, would the call for consequences for me also be chilling and we need more dialogue?
"More speech" is for the little people. Consequence-free tort is a tasty morsel for Jackie et al. and fosters their appetites.
Given that the demand for punishment based on crime is now chilling --- can anybody provide a reason why vigilante justice is wrong now?
Appealing to "legitimate" authority is now not legitimate, apparently.
So, mob justice it is. Fine. Progressives REALLY won't like mob justice when the OTHER mob is armed.
One day the perfect world we arrive when there is a hot boyfriend for every girl and girls will only be hit on by hot guys.
I learned this by watching feminism be reduced to its purist roots by the crucible of Twitter.
The grim call for consequences is chilling.
Yup. That's the point. As others have commented ahead of me, the story has already had consequences, for the reputation of the innocent parties involved coupled with physical vandalism of the fraternity house as the campus and Charlottesville stood by and did nothing. It is important not only to punish the guilty, but to send a message to other magazine writers and university presidents that whipping up hysteria is not the way to advance their respective careers.
Maybe those who use the serial lies of a confused young woman in need of serious professional help to make a political point and attack often blameless members of an fraternal organization that offends these folks by their very existence (don't kid yourself, they are out to put these empowered white male bastions of privilege out of business, in the long run, and seize their assets for the cause, if they can) need to be chilled. They can't help themselves because they hate these frat boys just that much.
The truth is simply a distraction.
Shorter Althouse:
Man up and just accept the abuse, boys, any other response just shows you are weak and impotent.
Man up and just accept the abuse, boys, any other response just shows you are weak and impotent.
Basically. The last few years are pushing me more and more towards the MRA movement. Men need, specifically, to STOP taking it and punch back twice as hard.
"More speech" would be a more effective remedy when the press outlets that breathlessly repeated the slander would report that it was a hoax with the same vigor that they reported the initial charge, and the authorities (UVA admin) did a fair investigation prior to exacting revenge, I mean punishing, the alleged perps. Even note, major press outlets cling to the notion that something happened, they refer to her as a victim, and still won't name her, because the don't name victims.
These aren't just bad ideas that need to be challenged and exposed.
Not much empathy for the falsely accused. Maybe it's hard to see things from a perspective where you will never be in same situation.
My question is: Why "more consequences"
Punishment because of the consequences they caused for others, and to prevent false accusations in the future.
My question is: Why "more consequences" and not the usual and classic free-speech-loving remedy more speech?
If I remember correctly, last week there was a post about the dangerous amount of disclosure that would be opened up against every fraternity member if they filed a law suit.
Example: "Since you can't remember the names of all the girls on campus you have slept with, how do you know you didn't rape one of them? Do you have proof of consent given in all situations?"
If I was one of those frat guys, knowing the University President is even stacked against you...I'd shut up, crack a beer, enjoy the schadenfreude of the whole thing, and find my next date at a strip club or a church function.
You're unlikely to find feminists in either place.
Dan, on this topic you ARE the man.
The Frat boys weren't spoken to harshly. They were PUNISHED. Tried and convicted with out trial. And no platform for "more speech" plus the rape-enabler tag.
How many banks would be robbed if the punishment was a stern, and well constructed, lecture.
The grim call for consequences is chilling.
A system that makes it easy to punish the innocent is also chilling.
This is not a free speech issue Ann.
Really disappointed in you on this one.
Why the hell should the VICTIMS here just shut up and take it?
Because in this case the "victims" are men, and men are always at fault, so somehow they caused those women to behave the way they did.
Guess what --- I don't buy rape claims AT ALL now. I just do not. I also will advise my boys when they enter college to requent prostitutes because you can't trust the lunatic women on a campus.
But unless I have hard proof, I assume the woman is lying now when she claims she was raped because it has happened often enough to the point where my former "it probably happened" mentality is gone.
I think that this was probably the standard decades ago when women (men claiming to have been sexually assaulted was probably unthinkable) were rightfully afraid that they’d never be believed or even blamed for being attacked. However the “women don’t lie about this” mentality and ginning up false statistics to create the appearance of an “epidemic” has pushed the pendulum so far in the other direction that it may swing around full circle before the SJW crowd realizes the full extent of what they’ve done.
or is the complaint that anti-rape activists are still going to use Rolling Stone story to maintain the feeling that something terrible is happening out there? That complaint is a concession of the weakness of your side of the debate.
No its not. It is an indictment of the bias of popular culture and the MSM.
Yes Althouse, Consequences. Here is the front page of UVA's Honor Code:
The University of Virginia’s Honor Code is at once an injunction and an aspiration. The injunction is simple: students pledge never to lie, cheat, or steal, and accept that the consequence for breaking this pledge is permanent dismissal from the University. It is for its aspirational quality, however, that the Honor Code is so cherished: in leading lives of honor, students have continuously renewed that unique spirit of compassion and interconnectedness that has come to be called the Community of Trust. In the words of the Michael Suarez, S.J., Professor of English, “honor calls us to be honorable to each other not merely by not committing transgressions, but also by doing reverence to the other in our midst.”
another quote:
Today students at the University make a commitment not to lie, cheat, or steal within Charlottesville, Albemarle County, or where they represent themselves as University students in order to gain the trust of others. Because of this commitment, there's a strong degree of trust among the various members of the University community
By any measure Jackie lied multiple times in multiple settings to Staff, faculty, and peers. She was the proximate cause of permanent damage to reputations and physical destruction. She tarnished the reputation of individuals, groups and the whole of UVA.
Why should she not be expelled?
In fairness to "Jackie", she never did file a report with the police regarding the alleged rape. She asked to be removed from the Rolling Stone expose. She may be a serial liar, but her lies were of relatively small consequence until Erdely and Rolling Stone tried to use them as the foundation for their hysterical crusade.
I agree with this. "Jackie" really doesn't need any public flogging. Her name is already out there---I'm sure everyone at Virginia knows who she is--the power and satisfaction she gained as a "survivor" has been damaged by the other campus activists who ended up talking to WAPO when the web was unraveling. She needs no more consequences.
My question is: Why "more consequences" and not the usual and classic free-speech-loving remedy more speech?
Isn't bearing false witness still a sin, or a minimum a problem?
Erdely's career is wrecked, and her self promoting tweets and writing have disappeared since the scandal.
The truth of Jackie's credibility emerged.
I didn't expect anything other than Sullivan's reaction. Typical, disingenuous, liberal, agenda driven, University President.
It REALLY bothers all three of them at night. Good enough.
As far as changing liberal hypersensitivities...good luck. Grab a helmet and head for a play-doh filled safe space.
"Speech can be answered with speech. Actions need to be answered with actions."
So, was Ms. Althouse prodding for an explanation that she believed in but wanted her commenters to express, or does she really thing that actions shouldn't be punished?
(And, yes, I don't believe speech except to advocate imminent violence should be punished. I think too many people have lost their livelihoods unfairly over what they've said away from their job.
But Rolling Stone did not do its homework and slandered the fraternity; a college president damaged a fraternity's reputation by her actions. The fraternity should sue both.)
Ball's in your court.
DanTheMan won the thread with the first comment.
Defamatory statements are not speech, they are injurious actions that should be remedied by a judgment and an award of damages.
Chilling?
Good. Those who lie and slander need to have their speech chilled.
Althouse: Come up with better lies.
Wouldn't "more speech" at a minimum include giving the full name of the false accuser? Presumably, that is the motive for the mantra in every MSM article that "something must have happened to Jackie."
The fraternity was (and is being) punished by the UVA President, as well as suffered foreseeable physical damage to their facilities. I have never heard that the remedy for official misbehavior or private libel and slander is simply "more speech." How can a private party wronged by a newspaper corporation (that buys ink by the barrel) ever win a "more speech" fight?
I've read this blog for years, but this post is one of the most feeble minded asides I've ever seen Professor Althouse throw up. To cause harm to reputation, future job prospects, etc that a false rape allegation will paint these "defendants" with, and posit that dialogue is really the only remedy, is an utter disconnect from reality.
libel and slander aren't protected speech, so "more" as a solution doesn't really apply. And they shouldn't be.
The only reason to keep Jackie anonymous is if the press refuses to name the mentally ill.
Accusing people of committing horrendous crimes that they did not commit is libel and/or slander. The traditional response to libel and slander has not been more free speech.
Jackie and Erdely and Teresa were each heard to say:
I'm just a girl.
Hence, no consequences.
===========================
I see that Insta has pushed back at Althouse.
Ask yourself... when thinking about authentic rape victims, after everything has been said and done, do you think all this has helped them or hurt them? If your answer is that it most likely hurt them, then I don't see how you could be opposed to the idea of harsh consequences for the false accusers and those that pushed the narratives.
Althouse's remedy for defamation and so on is "more speech"? I guess we can do away with libel and slander lawsuits.
Ridicule of the MSM audience is the proper remedy. Make their soap opera business unprofitable..
The grim call for consequences is chilling.
I'm at a loss as to why you think it would be "chilling" if a lying sack of an ideologue like Erdely had to face consequences any harsher than being labeled a lying sack. You write as if she did nothing beyond express an ill-informed opinion or make an honest mistake in otherwise diligent reporting, instead of setting out with malice aforethought to ruin the lives of people that she and her ilk have "otherized" with a degree of ignorant bigotry that would be comical if they had no power to harm anybody.
Hey, I thought we were all about righteously depriving the haters of their livelihoods, emptying their bank accounts in reparation for making people uncomfortable, and hounding them out of decent society?
I don't know how libel law works, or if anyone has standing to sue. If someone did, exactly why would that be so awful?
But hey, yeah, it's not like she did something really vicious, like express an opinion against gay marriage. Mustn't go all vigilante and lose our sense of proportion about these things.
(Ah, I see that the beleaguered ace reporter's twitter account has been silenced since last November. That you mad dogs are not satisfied with the dreadful consequence of having been intimidated out of tweeting just shows the weakness of your side of the debate.)
The rape culture thing is a full employment opportunity for lawyers. The plaintiff bar will be suing universities for the next decade,
It's probably the only good news for lawyers this year.
We had Duke Lacrosse and one would think lessons would be learned. But then something like this happens and we realize that, at best, there's no societal gestalt on these things. Sure, none of those involved in Virginia were involved at Duke, but one would think the rush to judgement debacle would have cautioned some.
Maybe it did and they didn't participate in the mobthink actions. At the VERY least, the university administration, who are supposed to be academics of some stripe or other, should have been able to put the brakes on such reckless behavior.
More speech is fine. It's great, in fact, but it doesn't redress actual harm done.
Except Jackie was smart enough to keep her lies out of a police report.
Was she? I thought he was forced to change the attack from oral to PIV.
If we still lived in a society that encouraged people to feel shame for their misconduct, "more speech" might be sufficient. Be we do not live in such a society.
We live in a litigious society of utility-maximizing strangers.
"More speech" is not going to do anything to stop people like Jackie and her enablers from concocting stories, casting false aspersions, etc., particularly when the lies are of such obvious benefit to the liars.
What happens when a reporter and college student concoct a false story that's much harder to disprove? This Jackie incident was invaluable training. A case study for skilled liars to learn which pitfalls to avoid.
The University of Virginia administration is a joke. But fools will still go there. No self respecting prospective student would go there or Oklahoma with their cowardly administrations. No one should advertise or buy Rolling Stone.
Higher education is mostly a scam. Most of the people who work in it would not be able to earn a living elsewhere. the only people held accountable at universities are the men's football and basketball coaches. If the teams don't win, you will lose your job.
I think the only consequences should be that the veil of anonymity should be pierced for false claims.
Perhaps someone here can remember the name of the woman involved. Some years back a woman drove her car into the lake and drowned her children. She claimed that the car had been carjacked by some black men. When it turned out that she herself had committed the crime and had blamed mythical black men for it, there was as much outrage expressed at her racism as at the crime itself.......If Jackie had accused black men of this crime, you can be sure that there would be consequences for her and for any who publicly supported her.
I'd be more inclined to go along with a "more speech" argument if the federal government wasn't using Title IX "hostile environment" precedent to turn the nation's college campuses into a truly hostile environment for men (esp. heterosexual men).
Perhaps I should adhere to a more absolutist moral frame here, but there's also sanity: when someone's swinging a baseball bat at your head, sticking out your hand with "Can't we just be friends?" is not a sane response.
"However the “women don’t lie about this” mentality and ginning up false statistics to create the appearance of an “epidemic” has pushed the pendulum so far in the other direction that it may swing around full circle before the SJW crowd realizes the full extent of what they’ve done."
Sober, reasonable people really want one thing when there's a rape accusation--a fair process that aims to get at the truth, while reconciling the often competing goals of encouraging genuine victims to come forward, protecting the rights of the accused, and discouraging any falsehoods from any party. When activists see all that happened here and STILL want a hangin', it shows their true colors. This isn't anymore about preventing or punishing rape, it's about proving just how socially just you are and signalling your general greatness. Innocent parties be damned, because there's no real innocence in a world of collective punishment.
Was she? I thought he was forced to change the attack from oral to PIV.
I thought she refused to talk to the police.
But since she gave the story, she should be liable. She can sue RS if she claims they made it all up, but the frat has RS saying she said it happened.
If FNC reports that I said Althouse harassed me, would I be free of consequences? Heck no. She'd likely sue me. Even if it was false, it'd be up to me to sue FNC for slandering me.
The University of Virginia has -- used to have -- a very strong honor code. Lying used to be grounds for dismissal from the school. But "Jackie" has not been dismissed, nor have the students who've owned up in print to vandalizing the fraternity house been brought before the Honor Board.
I guess the point of Teresa Sullivan's tenure has been to dismantle Thomas Jefferson's university and make it no better than, for instance, Wisconsin-Madison. Pity.
I can see Ann's point a little.
Society's collective outrage meter is always at full throttle. Depending on what tribe you belong to, your cause (exposing the UVA hoax or say, Indiana's RFRA) is righteous and those who are at fault need to be punished as a lesson to all. Perhaps everyone needs to take a step back and take a couple of deep breaths.
But this is more my attitude to a National Public Flogging of "Jackie" and a Statewide boycott of Indiana. Litigation should take care of Rolling Stone. I would hope that alumni and donors would take care of Teresa Sullivan on their own. As to the "correct" response to Indiana? Well, why don't they go find some of the new, real segregation that has propped up overnight in Indiana and expose it for all to see. Probably would change a lot of minds if they had some good examples.
And, while the University of Virginia is going batsh*t crazy over "Jackie's" phony story about gang rape, Teresa Sullivan did absolutely nothing to protect the co-eds on her campus while Jesse Matthew, a serial rapist/murder, was prowling her campus and trolling for targets. Heather Graham paid the price with her life.
DanTheMan won the thread with the first comment.
Yup. Odd how easily he dispatched Ann's argument. Here is it again:
--
"The proper remedy for perjury is not "more speech".
The proper remedy for filing a false police report is not "more speech".
The proper remedy for slander is not "more speech".
The proper remedy for all of the above are "consequences".
The only consequence that makes sense to me is kicking her out of school or at least suspension. I think that would be fair for causing this mess.
In fairness to "Jackie", she never did file a report with the police regarding the alleged rape.
That is the only thing that makes it sort of less bad to me. It seems she was idiotically and ineptly trying to get the attention of a guy and it led her down this stupid lying path. It's wrong, but I don't know that she had any malicious intent. I've seen worse examples at least.
And, while the University of Virginia is going batsh*t crazy over "Jackie's" phony story about gang rape, Teresa Sullivan did absolutely nothing to protect the co-eds on her campus while Jesse Matthew, a serial rapist/murder, was prowling her campus and trolling for targets. Heather Graham paid the price with her life.
Yes. That makes this whole thing particularly insane. Their was a serial killer stalking campus, and we're talking about this lying idiot instead.
Big Mike,
Schools that tout their honor code are telling you that the people who run them they have no honor. Individuals have honor. Institutions don't.
When someone touts the honor code, put your hand on your wallet. When someone says Colin Powell and Savid Petraues are men of honor, we know they aren't. People who rise to high positions in institutions didn't get their because they have honor. They made it because they don't.
That is the only thing that makes it sort of less bad to me. It seems she was idiotically and ineptly trying to get the attention of a guy and it led her down this stupid lying path. It's wrong, but I don't know that she had any malicious intent.
I'd buy that --- except for the RS article. Now if she says Sabrina made it all up, that's one thing, but in the end, she was willing to smear a fraternity in the national press for no reason whatsoever.
She didn't press charges only because that could possibly lead to jail time (though how many women who falsely accuse men of rape actually get prison time for doing so?). She went this route instead.
Yes. That makes this whole thing particularly insane. Their was a serial killer stalking campus, and we're talking about this lying idiot instead.
That Sullivan is still there shows Virginia in a poor light.
The grim call for consequences is chilling.
The consequences are proposed as some kind of restitution for torts committed against a particular fraternity, then all fraternities, by a University President in a flagrant abuse of power. Among a multitude of other damages to individuals arising from negation of due process, and public declarations of guilt-unless-proven-innocent, inciting political lynch-mob activity.
Actual harm was done.
Ann, with all do respect, Jackie did a lot of actual damage, not the least of which to the victims of her slander. There is a hardcore of people who will never believe "Drew" and others did NOT rape her, and a larger circle radiating out of that core who figure "where there's smoke, there's fire" and will make sure not to deal with any of the members of that fraternity in hiring, employment, etc, if any member dare lists it on a resume or speaks of their membership.
Where do these people go to get their reputation back, while Jackie slips off into anonymity and will feel free to pull this stunt again.
Not to mention the damage Jackie has done to real rape victims.
If the police refuse to act, then Jackie needs to be named.
damikesc said...
Was she? I thought he was forced to change the attack from oral to PIV.
I thought she refused to talk to the police
As I understand it, she made the rape claim to the Dean in conjunction with an inquiry into her failing academics. The rape was her excuse. The Dean sent her to the PD where she would make NO statement.
The Police came to her recently as part of their investigation, again, she refused to make a statement or otherwise cooperate.
However, I would think that the statements to the Dean, memorialized in the report the Dean made at the time along with the referral to the Police and the rape Counseling Center are all still available and amount to "lying in the university setting"
'd buy that --- except for the RS article. Now if she says Sabrina made it all up, that's one thing, but in the end, she was willing to smear a fraternity in the national press for no reason whatsoever.
Didn't she initially talk to Erderly and then later ask to be removed entirely from the story and Erderly refused?
That's a significant walk back.
Wow. Guys aren't spiooge stooges and still manage not to deserve to not be punished.
Didn't she initially talk to Erderly and then later ask to be removed entirely from the story and Erderly refused?
That is what I heard, and I am basing my comment on that. It sounds like Erderly was shopping around for a mean horrible rape story, specifically frats, specifically in the south, and found this through that girl who worked for Obama (?maybe). And then maybe 'jackie' talked to the RS person a bit, but she probably already had some details and then she tried to back out when she realized maybe taking this lying national was a bad idea.
Now, if that isn't true, than maybe she deserves something beyond suspension, but I think otherwise she tried to keep things vague enough that she really didn't intend harm to a specific person.
I think this is a lower level of bad behavior than someone like the girl at Duke, who accused specific people of specific things and took it to court.
"The grim call for consequences is chilling."
Really? Does that mean there should be no consequences for actual rapists as well?
A woman lied about a rape. That can ruin a young mans life just as surely as actually being raped can.
I think there SHOULD be consequences for making false sexual assault claims, and for those in places of power who only too willingly assumed them to be true, and punished innocent people with not one iota of due process or actual evidence that it ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
[I AM TRYING TO RECONSTRUCT THIS POST WHICH HAD BEEN ACCIDENTALLY LOST]
I hate that feeling one second after the click when you realize it's gone.
Jackie didn't tell Erdely she made it all up. So no, not enough of a walk back.
Real people were hurt by this. Real people are still being punished (that stupid contract fraternities are supposed to sign with the university) . And the White House is still pushing full steam ahead with planning on punishing men for this problem they are lying about.
So yeah, the people who caused this problem weren't just speechifying. They were creating consequences for innocent people. And planning to do more of it
SJWs do not care about the truth. Like the "hands up, don't shoot" lie, this frat rape lie served a useful purpose. Fake but accurate.
The world needs changing, and by golly the SJWs are going to change it - by hook or by crook.
The Frats and Sororities were punished.
Hell, the Frats have a new more strict code of conduct because of the awful gang rape that never happened.
Google has it forever.
so if you were, are or will be a member of a certain frat at UVA, your name will be linked in google to a gang rape forever.
want more speech, thus a bigger google score?
Hell UVA was punished. The only people at UVA not punished were Jackie and the UVA President
If "Jackie" actually was pressured into filing a false police report she should be prosecuted. But my understanding is that she was -- for reasons which in retrospect are obvious -- extremely reluctant to go to the police at every stage, both when her friends told her to go to the police, when the Dean told her to go to the police, and when the public cried out that she should go to the police. In fact, she apparently refused to cooperate with the investigation at all, and probably thereby avoided lying to the police.
The journalist may have slandered someone, I suppose, and that can be fought out in court. I hope the fraternity has standing to sue her individually and Rolling Stone as a publication for their conduct in spreading a despicable lie, but honestly, that's their affair not mine.
Gillibrand is a politician so it shouldn't come as any surprise that she's a bit of a sleazebag and happy to exploit any convenient lie to hand.
The one I think is morally culpable is the president of the college. She reacted shamefully and ought to be removed from office. I am sure she never gave the order for the brownshirts to vandalise the fraternity's house, but when you purposefully hold giant hate rallies (see some of the photos at the link), well, you might not be legally culpable when your budding SA-men go out and break windows, but you're certainly morally culpable for stirring up hate.
So yeah, the people who caused this problem weren't just speechifying
Sure, but who caused the major problem? Jackie started it, yes, but in a sane world people would look at her claims, find them false, and ship her off where she could do no harm.
The problem is the lynch mob mentality that came from Erdely, then the president of the university and it's student body who harmed the frat.
I'm not sure how much responsibility Jackie should bear for the actions of the others. She shouldn't have lied, but she seems to have kept her lies contained until Erdely got involved. Then it was all the 'we have a cause' people going to town.
I'm not sure how much responsibility Jackie should bear for the actions of the others. She shouldn't have lied, but she seems to have kept her lies contained until Erdely got involved. Then it was all the 'we have a cause' people going to town.
Contained...until. That until is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
She gave the story to a reporter for Rolling Stone! She named the fraternity. She knew she was lying! She knew who she was talking to! She made up quotes from her friends that made it worse!
Proper remedy? I'm not purporting to be the arbiter of propriety here. I'm saying what I think is the better policy and the better approach to this political discourse. I called for more and better speech and rejected the "grim call for consequences" as "chilling."
But if somebody had real harm, what then?
Their university basically said they did it. The college activists said they did it. Even though the case is debunked, plenty of feminists STILL said they did it.
What can they do? Say they didn't do so?
"Well, a rapist would never admit it" would be the likely response.
These men weren't public figures. They had notoriety thrust upon them. They are the victims in every meaning of the word possible.
If nobody is punished, why would they ever stop? Notice the increase in false rape accusations? There is a reason. If you can get tons of attention at low risk for negative repurcussions, why WOULDN'T somebody do it?
If "Jackie" actually was pressured into filing a false police report she should be prosecuted. But my understanding is that she was -- for reasons which in retrospect are obvious -- extremely reluctant to go to the police at every stage, both when her friends told her to go to the police, when the Dean told her to go to the police, and when the public cried out that she should go to the police. In fact, she apparently refused to cooperate with the investigation at all, and probably thereby avoided lying to the police
But this is exactly what the White House is pushing for. Women who are reluctant to go to the police should be able to get action from the university.
"She made up quotes from her friends that made it worse!"
But she's a Victim. Some guy probably mansplained at her in the past.
Also, when did the word "allegedly" or "accused" disappear from the media? There was precious little talk that the accused here MIGHT be innocent.
Hell, the Duke lacrosse team messed up in not suing CNN and Nancy Grace for their repeated character assassinations upon them.
Whoa. I had no idea Theresa Sullivan is married to Douglas Laycock, who famously represented Archbishop Patrick Flores in the Boerne v. Flores case.
The holding in that case limited the application of federal RFRA, thereby encouraging states (like Indiana) to enact their own RFRA statutes.
Interesting intersection of topical stories.
The women's movement has turned into all hat, no cattle. Lies like that send innocents to prison and ruin lives. But as long as the narrative is expanded, so what?
But this is exactly what the White House is pushing for. Women who are reluctant to go to the police should be able to get action from the university.
...where the accused gets strung up with virtually no chance to defend himself.
And even if they DO defend themselves, THEY ARE STILL RAPISTS (see mattress chick's campaign joined by a member of Congress).
Proof doesn't matter to these people. You can't reason with them any more than you can reason with a 2 yr old. Sometimes, you have to pop somebody on the ass.
What has happened at UVA reminds me of what is happening with the Indiana RFRA.
Sure, the true story has nothing to do with the salacious and harmful details that were reported. But to make up for the harm to your reputation, you now have to implement this *other* thing that we've wanted all along.
Mistaken or foolish statements need to be refuted or ridiculed. Malicious lies need to be punished.
Pence needs to not surrender here.
Don't give them their pound of flesh.
This reminds me of Former Labor Secretary Ray Donovan asking where he is supposed to go to get his reputation back after having been falsely alleged to have commited fraud in conjunction with organizaed crime.
These young men and their organizaiton were falsely accused of horrendous things by Jackie, by UVA and by Rolling Stone, and the law professor thinks there should be no, zero, none, nada consequences??????
Wow.
"I called for more and better speech and rejected the "grim call for consequences" as "chilling.""
As long as the collateral damage is just a bunch of proto-rich white kids, then sure.
Richard Jewell should have just engaged in a little more speech.
Pence needs to not surrender here.
That would require him to lead.
Can he?
What will best deter people from lying about rape?
Consequences? or more speech?
Is this a First Amendment issue? Is slander protected speech? If this is not slander, why not?
What will best deter people from lying about rape?
Women are already deterred from lying about rape. It literally never happens.
Unknown said...
I've read this blog for years, but this post is one of the most feeble minded asides I've ever seen Professor Althouse throw up. To cause harm to reputation, future job prospects, etc that a false rape allegation will paint these "defendants" with, and posit that dialogue is really the only remedy, is an utter disconnect from reality.
I agree, and am kind of baffled by it. I think there must be unstated assumptions that aren't being made clear here. Are you hanging it all on the fact that it was "only" a Rolling Stone article and not an official police report? Because getting someone arrested on a false charge definitely falls outside of "speech."
"Richard Jewell should have just engaged in a little more speech."
I am not an extreme absolutist on free speech and defamation. I just want a high threshold that limits the risk of those of us who are trying to participate in public debate of public issues.
And Jewell was wronged by government.
I don't oppose his legal remedy and I wouldn't have advised him against suing.
I think the university could exercise "more speech" by rescinding Jackie's degree for breaking their codes.
I think the University of Pennsylvania could exercise "more speech" by rescinding Sabrina Erdely's degree as a result of gross fabrication - and she would be terminated from her teaching positions at Temple and U of P publicly.
The idea that "more speech" is the answer is predicated upon each side having, or being able to achieve, an equal platform to affect opinion on a rolling topic.
The idea of "consequences" in that an action has taken that was deliberate, has concluded, and who has either or both clear or unclear negative ramifications.
I'm a big time Ann Althouse fan and have been a many-times-a-day-reader for years. The idea "consequences" is chilling here is startling, doubly so coming from Ann.
This is a classic case where the ONLY ability to redress the wrongs and prevent repeat examples is a combination of consequences and promotion of those consequences.
The left is composed entirely of drama queens (male or female) and would-be nannies (i.e., our mental superiors (sic), the awesome champions who ought to rule everybody else);
there ain't anything to discuss, they never listen, since they always know better.
The Era of the Drama Queens:
Every Crisis Is a Triumph
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-era-of-drama-queens-every-crisis-is.html
…/… Leftists are drama queens. Leftists constantly erupting in hysterics — male (girly men?) or female — rule the roost.
Racism! Patriarchy! Sexism! Rape on campus! Christianity's bigotry! The reactionary average American! Republicans' hate speech and hate thought! US history, a litany of racism and oppression! All the founding fathers, hypocritical sonzabitches! All our ancestors, imperialist mongrels! Oppression of women, and gays, and transgenders!
…/… Anything that will provide food for drama, for a crisis, may, and will, be used.
In no sense whatsoever is there the slightest value in unity.
Creating chaos is their raison d'être. …/…
Re: Maybee:
I thought we were discussing consequences here -- "Jackie" hasn't committed a crime (as far as I know), and she's already been held up and exposed to her fair share of public ridicule for the "Haven Monahan" business and the soppy sockpuppetry, even if people are being very genteel and leaving open the the possibility that somewhere sometime she might have been raped, just under completely different circumstances. The very lengths the authorities have been going to, to leave open the possibility that there was a granule of truth in her stories is itself a very patronising and chauvinistic bit of business, and if she has any pride or self awareness I am sure she must feel their condescension very keenly.
Her humiliation shouldn't be a national story, though. She should be permitted to slink away into private life.
If you drag a $200,000 lawsuit through a trailer park you have to expect to pick up some liars.
Strong speech invoking the need for more serious consequences is more speech.
I'm saying what I think is the better policy and the better approach to this political discourse.
You're being very unclear. No-one is suggesting suing the people generally campaigning to end the far-overblown 'rape culture'. Of course the cure for that nonsense is more and better speech.
But you haven't defined or defended a 'better' approach in response to the untruths first stated by Jackie, parroted by Erdeley, and used maliciously (unlawfully?) by Sullivan. That's where 'consequences', rather than more speech, are warranted.
This is particularly true when the call for more consequences doesn't name them.
Chilling? Hilarious.
You want "chilling" then think of sending a son off to college in this environment when their future is in the hands of crazy women and insane policies. Slight some unhinged woman and you are in a fight for your future. Go to bed with a woman you do not call the next day and you are potentially looking at jail.
Chilling? What a stupid fucking comment.
That Althouse finds this speech disturbing, in light of her commentary on this and similar matters, suggests it may be effective speech. It is meant to discomfit people who neglect to consider aspects of the consequences of the speech that got this debate started.
Ann Althouse said...
I am not an extreme absolutist on free speech and defamation. I just want a high threshold that limits the risk of those of us who are trying to participate in public debate of public issues.
And Jewell was wronged by government.
The Frat and its members were also punished, harmed and held up to ridicule by the government. Big Government UVA and its President, Theresa Sullivan. Prejudged, punished, and still lack an apology or a roll back of the punishment.
I try to look at this from the SJW point of view, if only to understand it--their big concern is that actual rape victims very often don't report their rapes to the police, and when they do, they often drop charges or get talked into dropping them by police and prosecutors if there's not enough evidence to convict (and usually, there's not--it's usually one's word against another). And the SJWs want more victims to report, and to send the message that they will get support from the community, and be believed--it must be particularly nasty to not just be raped but to have people think you are making it up, with all that that implies (e.g., that you're crazy, vindictive, nasty). I get the impulse to push the 1 in 5 statistic, or the "only 2% of claims are false" statistic.
The problem is not only can this attitude of "never question the accuser" result in a lot more false accusations (and we do NOT live in a rape culture--there is no crime stigma greater than being a rapist--even being a murderer is preferably reputation-wise). It also leads to a lot more high profile cases like this or Duke Lacrosse, and if anything makes false accusations look MORE prevalent than they are, to the point that observers are becoming more skeptical than ever.
MadisonMan said...
Pence needs to not surrender here.
That would require him to lead.
Can he?
No.
"I am not an extreme absolutist on free speech and defamation. I just want a high threshold that limits the risk of those of us who are trying to participate in public debate of public issues."
I would agree to the extent that anything Rolling Stone or Jackie said was merely public debate of public issues. But this was flat out defamation, which shouldn't be encouraged.
Jackie violated UVA's code of conduct. Erdely is a terrible journalist. Sullivan showed herself unworthy of her position. Consequences do not necessarily entail defamation suits. Being targeted for opporobrium, finding it difficult to find work for which one has proven ill suited, well, these seem like reasonable consequences for this kind of misbehavior.
"...or is the complaint that anti-rape activists are still going to use Rolling Stone story to maintain the feeling that something terrible is happening out there?"
Guardian: "Inconsistencies in Jackie's Story Do Not Mean That She Wasn't Raped at UVA"
That complaint is a concession of the weakness of your side of the debate.
They don't and won't concede the fact that their activism is based on lies.
The proper remedy for libel is more libel.
Maybe a little hashtag justice. Make sure every time Erdely's byline appears, the shame of this story follows. Remind people whenever Sullivan's name appears anywhere how she acted with disregard for the facts and for the welfare of wrongly accused students. All these are consequences that Instapundet might be calling for. Are these chilling?
daskol said...
Maybe a little hashtag justice. Make sure every time Erdely's byline appears, the shame of this story follows
so why won't the press give us Jackie's name?
She's already been outed. You just have to know where to look. Google "charles c johnson jackie uva"
I thought we were discussing consequences here
Balfegor - yeah, I guess we are talking about consequences here, among other things. I was just trying to point out that this case was used to advance the idea that what was done here should be what is done -- except with more consequence for the accused.
The whole "campus rape" focus right now is in making campuses responsibie for investigating rapes when women won't go to the police. One of the focuses of Erdely's piece was that UVa hadn't taken Jackie's reports seriously enough. That's why UVa immediately moved to treat it seriously when it came out as "Just a report" in Rolling Stone.
Women lying about rape? Must be some brand new phenomenon...
Genesis 39: Now Joseph had been taken down to Egypt. Potiphar, an Egyptian who was one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard, bought him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him there.
2 The Lord was with Joseph so that he prospered, and he lived in the house of his Egyptian master. 3 When his master saw that the Lord was with him and that the Lord gave him success in everything he did, 4 Joseph found favor in his eyes and became his attendant. Potiphar put him in charge of his household, and he entrusted to his care everything he owned. 5 From the time he put him in charge of his household and of all that he owned, the Lord blessed the household of the Egyptian because of Joseph. The blessing of the Lord was on everything Potiphar had, both in the house and in the field. 6 So Potiphar left everything he had in Joseph’s care; with Joseph in charge, he did not concern himself with anything except the food he ate.
Now Joseph was well-built and handsome, 7 and after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, “Come to bed with me!”
8 But he refused. “With me in charge,” he told her, “my master does not concern himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care. 9 No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?” 10 And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her.
11 One day he went into the house to attend to his duties, and none of the household servants was inside. 12 She caught him by his cloak and said, “Come to bed with me!” But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house.
13 When she saw that he had left his cloak in her hand and had run out of the house, 14 she called her household servants. “Look,” she said to them, “this Hebrew has been brought to us to make sport of us! He came in here to sleep with me, but I screamed. 15 When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.”
16 She kept his cloak beside her until his master came home. 17 Then she told him this story: “That Hebrew slave you brought us came to me to make sport of me. 18 But as soon as I screamed for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.”
19 When his master heard the story his wife told him, saying, “This is how your slave treated me,” he burned with anger. 20 Joseph’s master took him and put him in prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined.
But while Joseph was there in the prison, 21 the Lord was with him; he showed him kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden. 22 So the warden put Joseph in charge of all those held in the prison, and he was made responsible for all that was done there. 23 The warden paid no attention to anything under Joseph’s care, because the Lord was with Joseph and gave him success in whatever he did.
Let's see, start with a minimal burden of proof, mix in an assumption that no one lies about rape, and then, just for kicks, top it off with a policy that there will be no consequences for making false accusations. Yeah, I can't see any problems with that approach.
Dan Rather calls for more speech in light of TANG memo debacle.
Courage. Not consequences.
Go back and read the stories and look at some of the pictures of the initial coverage. If more speech is the answer to this, then each one of the sign-carrying occupiers of the Phi Psi house should have to go back with another sign of the following genre:
"I am an idiot"
"I prejudged and I was wrong"
"Expel the False Accusers"
"Sometimes Women Do Lie"
"Due Process Matters"
"Meme Before Facts Makes Jill a Very Dumb Girl"
"I Am Sorry"
I just want a high threshold that limits the risk of those of us who are trying to participate in public debate of public issues.
And Jewell was wronged by government.
Sullivan wasn't participating in a public debate of public issues. As The Drill SGT points out, in this situation she was the government, wronging the fraternity and the entire greek system. She treated them as guilty because Erdely (formerly played by Tom Brokaw) was reporting an untrue accusation that led to a presumption of guilt by the public.
Jackie wasn't participating in a public debate. She made specific accusations - horrible accusations- that she knew were untrue.
She is an anti-rape activist and was using her story to try to bring about consequences for others accused of similar things.
Proper remedy? I'm not purporting to be the arbiter of propriety here. I'm saying what I think is the better policy and the better approach to this political discourse. I called for more and better speech and rejected the "grim call for consequences" as "chilling."
Because of course, women should never have to "suffer the consequences" of their actions.
I strongly disagree with the proposition that if free-speech law permits negative consequences to be imposed that we ought to want these consequences.
You're welcome to disagree, Professor. But from where I stand all attempts to point out that the "1 in 5" (co-eds will be raped) statistic and 2% (of reported rapes are false) statistic, and other statistics that bolster the notion of modern campuses as seething caldrons of rape are bogus falls on deaf ears. It's time and past time to get out the baseball bats.
As long as the collateral damage is just a bunch of proto-rich white men, then sure.
FTFY
Make that "other made-up and utterly bogus statistics."
AA: I strongly disagree with the proposition that if free-speech law permits negative consequences to be imposed that we ought to want these consequences. I am promoting the more speech approach where the First Amendment would permit negative consequences.
It's not clear (to me, anyway) whose theoretical or actual doing what to whom you're referencing here. Perhaps if you could be a little more specific about the persons, acts, or calls for action you're disapproving of here? What is the problem that "more speech" is "working out well enough" as a remedy for?
You seem to be saying that falsely accusing people of felonies (with real-life, not theoretical, harm accruing to the accused) is properly seen as "political discourse" and should be responded to only within that channel - but surely I'm misreading you here? It constitutes a "weak argument" (against what, exactly?) for the people harmed by Jackie's, Erdely's, Sullivan's, or whomever's actions to seek redress outside of the boundaries of free political speech?
I'm getting a very strong odor of "lawfare for me but not for thee"underneath all this.
Ann:
I am not an extreme absolutist on free speech and defamation. I just want a high threshold that limits the risk of those of us who are trying to participate in public debate of public issues.
What has this got to do with debate of public issues? People were slandered. People were punished. People were the actual victims of actual criminal acts (vandalism). And it was all based on lies, lies that were swallowed whole without a shred of evidence. Consequences were imposed on people based on lies. Consequences should be visited upon the people who committed the actions based on those lies.
Ann, please address what you think should be done about the actions that were taken, not the words that were spoken.
If my kid ever decides to go to law school, he/she is going to be prohibited from going to Wisconsin for their education. There's no point in even reading the blog entries anymore. Our esteemed hostess makes zero sense on important issues and quite frankly is totally overshadowed by the actual intelligence and analysis found in the comment section.
"I just want a high threshold that limits the risk of those of us who are trying to participate in public debate of public issues."
Ah, someone makes a specific accusation, which is then shown to be false, so you try to reframe the issue by calling it a "debate." The old "fake but accurate" defense.
False accusations of rape are not "merely speech". The side that is doing the fasle accusing, and is talking about "rape culture", is not content with mere speech. They have already imposed a system of pains and penalties, official and social.
"More speech" is not an appropriate response to a punch in the face.
The black football player who spent ten years in prison on a false rape charge could not be heard from. He was too busy trying to salvage what would have been good NFL career.
He didn't make it. Ten years was too much. The girl still has her millions from the city.
Here are some consequences:
I was a member of the SCA, one of those groups that recreates medieval history and beats each other up with swords.
We had a knight that attempted to molest a 12-year old girl on three separate occasions. No one would do anything about him - because the SCA has a culture that enables child predation. (See: Ben Schragger lawsuit and Marion Zimmerman Bradley)
So we quit. And I turned all my information over to the FBI and four States Attorney General (Kingdom of Atlantia covers MD, VA, NC, SC).
I've even considered going to the media - because if the leadership of the SCA refuses to deal with a child predator, then potential new members have a right to know, through the press.
This was right on the heels of the fake Rolling Stone story, and the fake Lena Dunham story.
Do you think any media outlet is going to touch my story with a 10 foot pole now?
Which means this pedophile knight is free to wander into more families lives and molest their kids too.
Thanks Jackie.
The remedy for bad speech is more speech until the speech has consequences. When UW-Madison fires a tenured prof because of speech that UW doesn't like, is their remedy to speak more? Or is the remedy litigation and reinstatement?
The grim call for consequences is chilling.
No, the call for consequences is just speech.
The consequences themselves should be chilling.
Reviewing the famous God given ten commandments finds that put giving false reports of crimes is a big one under the translation Thou shalt not lie. It actually says thou shalt not swear falsely, which means in effect to do no assassinations by legal process.
Reviewing the famous God given ten commandments finds that put giving false reports of crimes is a big one under the translation Thou shalt not lie. It actually says thou shalt not swear falsely, which means in effect to do no assassinations by legal process.
Did God really mean that to apply to women who may have had some man interrupt them some time?
I doubt it.
"Is this a First Amendment issue? Is slander protected speech? If this is not slander, why not?"
Because Haven Monahan is not a real person?
Fritz said...
"Is this a First Amendment issue? Is slander protected speech? If this is not slander, why not?"
Because Haven Monahan is not a real person?
Haven may not be real, but the Frat was and so were 6 of Haven's Frat Bro's
Real enough for the UVA to punish them before trial.
Now that the hoax has been outted, we're told that doesn't matter because:
"something happened"
"victims don't lie"
"we need to start a conversation"
"we need new more stringent rules to prevent the gang rape happening again"
Ann Althouse said...It seems as though more speech is working out well enough, or is the complaint that anti-rape activists are still going to use Rolling Stone story to maintain the feeling that something terrible is happening out there?
Well enough? I guess that's all the consolation those guys get, then, too bad you were harmed by false accusations, called names, lived under the threat of violence, victimized by vandalism...things worked out well enough for you, just learn to debate better next time. Oh, mind, you, when you do in any way attempt to defend yourself in a debate you'll be called a sexist pro-rape verbal assaulter, but if you would just learn to debate better ths wouldn't be a problem.
Why the strange detachment on this issue, Professor? Why not highlight your posts discussing the issue, calling for a good debate, holding the people in the outrage mod to account for their over-the-top, debate-stifling tactics? Certainly the Media backed the wrong side in this one, and you were out in front early, calling for them to let other voices be heard, right?
Believe and Support, no matter what. Otherwise you're pro-rape.
An obvious lie, easily refuted? Believe and support.
How dare you question the surivor! Survivor's stories don't have to make narrative sense, or stay relatively stable over re-tellings, or pass any basic plausiblity test! Believe and support.
Oh, and villify and punish the accused, of course. That's part of believe and support.
Real consequences will "chill" speech.
Good. This is speech which should be chilled. Leftists should be afraid to gin up another hoax blaming supposedly right-wing institutions horrid behavior.
But I suppose we should have more speech. The judge in the libel trial should order:
1) Rolling Stone run on its cover, for a regular issue, "The UVa Rape Story Was a Hoax. The Fraternity Was Innocent. Jackie (lastname) Lied to Us and We Wanted To Believe It, Because We Hate White Men."
2. The story inside should include Jackie's full name and last known address. And Erdely's current address. And Teresa Sullivan's address.
3. Teresa Sullivan should be required, prior to resigning, to publically state, at an open press conference, that she punished all fraternities for the unbelievable sins of only part of one, and that her Nazi-style collective punishment was driven by anti-white-male hatred. And that it's a violation of the UVa Honor Code, and thus she is resigning.
4. Jackie should be expelled from UVa for gross violations of the honor code, and the school administration should announce this, using her last name, at an open press conference.
What consequences did Harry Reid face for lying about then-candidated Romney's tax returns? Hey, it's a public debate, anyone can say anything. If Romney had been a better debater the lie wouldnt' have mattered. I'm sure that episode will have a salutary effect on future public debate/statements by those in positions of power.
What consequences have the IRS/federal Gov. faced for targeting Tea Party-type groups? Lerner got sorta-fired, some retirement dates were accelerated, but hey, the election's over, big deal. If those groups had been better debaters it wouldn't have mattered.
I looked at the results from Googling "charles c johnson jackie uva". Johnson outed a Jackie Coakley as the UVA Jackie. But the supposed photo of her is apparently of a slut walk "survivor" who said essentially that her boyfriend didn't know that he had raped her, or something like that. So, not sure if UVA Jackie is really Jackie Coakley.
The above maybe being an indication of where I sit on the issue. Women do lie about rape, and esp. about being sexually assaulted. My guess is that in college, the females are lying more than the males are. But, that is my personal opinion, based on no more evidence than those claiming the opposite.
My view is that a woman's anonymity should be maintained, as long as she is telling the truth. But, if it is a he says/she says thing, and his record is permanently blemished by her defamation, then I think that she should be outed. And, in this case, the liar about the fraudulent UVA fraternity gang rape should definitely be outed, since she had done damage to real identifiable people (that fraternity in particular, and fraternities in general) by her lies.
The problem, in my view, is that the pendulum has swung so far in the direction of protecting young women in college, even when they are the ones at fault, that we need something by which to push the pendulum back towards the center, and outing false, or even in my view ambivalent, claims is maybe the best way of doing that. I think that if a young woman's false sexual assault claim permanently harms a young man's reputation, then her reputation should also be harmed. She should have her lies come up every time that a future employer Google's her name. And, if that harms her financially, she probably should have thought of that first, before making the false (or even ambivalent) claims.
It seems as though more speech is working out well enough, or is the complaint that anti-rape activists are still going to use Rolling Stone story to maintain the feeling that something terrible is happening out there? That complaint is a concession of the weakness of your side of the debate. Improve your debate. Your more speech needs to be better. The grim call for consequences is chilling.
Let's analogize to something like, oh I dunno, acceptance/tolerance of homosexuals as seen through the legality of gay marriage. It's pretty obvious the pro-gay marriage side is winning, as more and more of us support gay marriage. It's only a matter of time before gay marriage is made legal almost everywhere in the US, by popular vote. Nevertheless gay marriage is a controversial topic and subject to public debate.
What happened to prominent people who donated small amounts of money to anit-gay marriage causes? Which side has passed laws, filed lawsuits, and used mass protests to enact their will against others' wishes under the treat of force (legal and otherwise)? Does all of that fall under "more speech?" The law was used against the baker and the photographers we all love talking about. Was that just spech? Private individuals were harassed at work, had protestors at their homes, and lost their jobs. Was that just speech?
Hey, that's the cost of being a bigot, you say. Fair enough. What's the cost of lying about a gang rape, or negligently promulgating that lie?
I, for one, welcome the "chilling effect" of exorbitantly large monetary damages, destruction of reputations, criminal & civil convictions for UVA, Rolling Stone, and Jackie, in that the "chilling effect" will be to repress false, libelous speech which resulted in mob violence and group punishments without due process or even commission of the accusations by the accused.
Shame was fine as a tactic, and making the personal political was just hunky-dory when the target was the frat (and by extension privileged white men generally). Who spoke up for those accused rapists (and confirmed white men) when they were maligned, threatened, had their faces on the news (as they quickly moved out of their house for their own safety), saw their home vandalized, etc.
When the target might be the woman who lied about being attacked, or those who helped spread her lie, well, suddenly shame isn't appropriate and possible non-speech consequences are scary.
It's so very similar to the Gamergate nonsense, where one side could mob up, shame, blacklist, intimidate, etc, but when they received threats or vile speech it was "oh, poor us, we're being targeted, we don't feel safe." How safe do you think those frat guys felt? Or are feelings of safety more important when they're the feelings of, you know, a woman?
Feminist Melody Hensley says she got PTSD from people saying mean things to her on Twitter. Do you think those frat guys got PTSD after being publicly accused of heinous crimes, threatened, investigated, and demonized?
Well, things are working out well enough, and hey, speech is speech, right? Unless it's hate speech, of course. Or creates an unsafe environment. Do you think being falsely accused of gang rape would make a group of fellas feel unsafe on campus? If the admin's actions were due in part to a bias against men (willingness to automatically believe an unsupported claim of gang rape sure seems like evidence of bias) should there be any Title IX consequences for the school? Or just more speech?
If I as a student shouted insults at the Prophet in front of a Muslim sorority house, called the occupants dirty names, and encouraged others to vandalize their house I'm pretty sure I'd face consequences outside of "more speech." Did people who acted similarly against the real frat face any consequences? Are they at all ashamed, or being held up for shame?
Filmmaker Nakoula Nakoula made an insulting movie about an historical religious figure. Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, et al. blamed him for riots and deaths; he was sent to prison. Were the consequences of Nakoula's speech chilling? Did Hillary, Pres Obama, or anyone on the Left call for only more speech to combat him, or did the non-speech consequences indicate that the arguments of those who opposed Nakoula were weak?
The fraternity is too afraid to stand up to the school or to the social justice warriors. i can't blame them. They just want to graduate and go on with their lives.
No self respecting young man would go to Virginia after this debacle. Young men who go to Duke are fools unless you go there to play in the NBA, and even then they should go to another college for one year. Any guy who applies to Virginia now is a fool.
Althouse -- I agree with the spirit of your call for more speech. In this case, I'm more persuaded by the practicality of the argument calling for consequences. Here's why:
If we were having a civil debate (even when such a debate devolves into decidedly uncivil statements and accusations), I would agree that those arguing for due process rights for the accused should limit their response to more speech. That's not the situation. The feminists are going after their opponents in a manner designed to intimidate others from speaking. They are threatening boycotts of firms unless those firms rid their ranks of "rape apologists". They are trying to get newspapers to drop columnists who express the wrong opinion. They are supporting, and in some cases engaging in, physical violence.
In short, feminists are tying to exact a high price from anyone expressing a contrary opinion. They are doing this in an overt attempt of preventing speech. More speech simply cannot combat these feminists' tactics. It cannot combat these tactics because feminists shout down any opposing view. Literally, they will not let the other side speak. Until they are made to pay a price for engaging in these tactics, the other will not be able to engage in more speech.
An example: A male member of the university senate was leading the opposition to a proposal to put forward by a female student. The two students knew each other since they were freshmen and were friends.
The year before, the guy sent a text to the gal suggesting they "hook up". She declined; he apologized, and she said no big deal. The male student forgot about the incident until two days before the student senate was to vote on the female student's proposal. He was notified by the school that she had filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment against him. The school barred him from attending the student senate.
Without the male student to lead the position, the proposal passed by two votes. The female student's accusation had silenced the chief critic of her proposal. The male student's academic career and future job prospects (he lost a summer internship) were significantly harmed by the charges brought against him. For asking if she wanted to have sex?
How, again, are we to obtain affirmative consent when even asking the question could cost you your job and reputation?
Teresa Sullivan, the UVA president, has two adult sons. Subject them to the same treatment she subjects fraternity members. These people won't relent until they are made to live by their own standards. They rely on other people not acting like they act.
DKWalser,
You make good points. They way to get back at these folks is to do it indirectly over time. It's not with more speech. It's with subjecting their friends and family to their own tactics.
Our esteemed Host (Hostess?) takes this one on the chin, methinks.
She has conflated a battle of ideas (more speech!) with a battle of reputation and liberty.
Jackie, the liar, tried to and succeeded in sullying the reputation of the Frat House. Her claim, if true, would have sent some men to prison for a long time. At a miminum, they would have been kicked off campus and vilified just like the Duke lacrosse team.
The proper response, in this case, is not simply more speech(!). More speech is good, of course. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Jackie, Erdely, Rolling Stone and Teresa Sullivan should all offer written apologies to clear the name of the Frat House. They won't, of course. Instead,they'll just pat themselves on the back about "raising awareness" of rape victims.
Also, the fact that Jackie, the liar, did not file a police report is only mildly mitigating. She started the chain of events, that did result in a dangerous police investigation.
She needed to put the kibbosh on the Rolling Stone article, but she stood silent. She spun a web of lies when it suited her, and then stood silent when she had a duty to speak out.
The kind of "more speech" that would be appropriate here would be to publicize Jackie's full name and picture, so that anyone who deals with her in the future can be aware of her history. Right, Althouse?
Teresa Sullivan deserves "more consequences" because she did not just engage in speech, she abused her office to infringe on students' First Amendment rights and other liberties because she thought that something had to be done, banning Greek social activities for a semester was something, and therefore banning those activities was a good call. Her offense wasn't about speech, it was about tremendously poor judgment in how she used the power of her office, and removing her from that office would be an appropriate consequence. (This wasn't even the first time she showed terrible judgment as UVA president.)
I think further publication of how lousy Erdely's journalism was, and how RS's journalism is so often shoddy, is necessary and sufficient further consequence for their role in this debacle.
Talked about this post with the wife. Her opinion, and I think she's onto something, is that Professor Althouse's sons have been out of college for a while, so she no longer worries that some chippy will get one of her boys thrown out of school on a false rape charge. (You think Chris would be immune, ma'am? Think again.)
I think there's something to what she said.
@Althouse, we're way past talking. Intelligent people can point out forever that the "1 in 5" statistic is bogus, and the other made-up statistics are bogus, and it doesn't penetrate. It's time to fight back. In 2008 you voted for a man who said to "punch back twice as hard." So we shall.
"In 2008 you voted for a man who said to 'punch back twice as hard.' So we shall."
Yes.
Also: Voting for Obama was a clear indication of a fatally flawed intellect. Anyone with a lick of sense knew from his history that he would be bad news. What was it George Orwell said about intellectuals believing foolish things?
In 2008 you voted for a man who said to 'punch back twice as hard.' So we shall.
I think Althouse voted for Obama because she thought he was going to be the Jimi Hendrix of politics: a bridge builder instead of a bridge burner. Of course, she mostly ignored his politics and voted for his skin color.
Without the consequences there won't be the better speech. Only through suffering consequences do people who might cry rape learn that they can't say such stuff.
They are not going to self correct themselves.
Just the other day I watched an interview where the interviewer was talking to Harry Reid and asked him about his claim about Mitt Romney not paying taxes, and she said that some considered the attack Mccarthyesque.
And he said something like "Well, Mitt Romney isn't president". As in, i got it done. Whatever needed to be said.
Without consequences Harry Reid says whatever he wants with impunity.
If the story had been true, would a call for consequences be chilling too?
Even where the media are concerned and when the object of a false statement of fact is a public figure or introduces himself into a public issue, the law still recognizes common law slander and libel as actionable and not protected by the first amendment provided the "actual malice" standard is met.
Get thee out of thy classroom, Prof. and sit in on one of your colleagues' first year torts class.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा