The federal judge Glen E.Conrad has rejected the argument — made by "Jackie"'s lawyers — that testimony will "re-victimize" her and psychologically damage her.
The judge’s order stems from a lawsuit brought by UVA associate dean of students Nicole Eramo, who alleges that Rolling Stone’s Nov. 2014 article cast her as the callous villain of its tale and falsely asserted that she discouraged a student identified only as “Jackie” from taking her rape allegations to the police. Rolling Stone, which apologized to readers for the story, strongly denies that it defamed the university official and declined to comment on Tuesday’s ruling....
Ms. Eramo, in court papers, alleges that Jackie is “a serial liar” who fabricated her claims and served as “Rolling Stone’s sole source for the false tale of rape that it recklessly published.” That makes Jackie’s testimony “highly relevant” to the defamation claims, her lawyers say.
IN THE COMMENTS: Ignorance is Bliss said...
re-victimize
Assumes facts not in evidence.
That made me think of
what Patricia J. Williams wrote in her book "The Alchemy of Race and Rights" about Tawana Brawley: Brawley "has been the victim of some unspeakable crime. No matter how she got there. No matter who did it to her and even if she did it to herself."
পোস্টগুলি
৭১টি মন্তব্য:
Good. If Jackie wants to accuse, Jackie must accuse directly.
re-victimize
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Jackie is already mentally damaged because of her fabulous tendencies make her not sane. Ms Eramo is correct in that Jackie is a serial liar.
Lawyers for “Jackie” have fiercely objected to her giving testimony in the case, describing her as a fragile sexual assault victim...
Ok, that's funny. Not in a ha ha way.
The name Monahan is missing from the story.
Who's side do "Jackie's" delusions help/hurt?
"Jackie" is the criminal, not he victim.
Why can't she just go to her safe space?
Hurray! There is hope yet.
Why is this person still provided with a pseudonym?
It is clear she is the person causing offense, not a victim of a sex crime.
Name her, shame her, maybe it will stop a future "Jackie" from doing again what "Jackie" and Rolling Stone did here.
The federal judge Glen E.Conrad has rejected the argument — made by "Jackie"'s lawyers — that testimony will "re-victimize" her and psychologically damage her.
This is the same excuse the campus sex fascists use to railroad men falsely accused of rape by crazy/vengeful girls like Jackie. Questioning them to verify their story is "re-victimizing" them, or it is "victim blaming".
Out and proud cutting edge Feminists are the ones who push sex fascism in schools. Yet, we're still to pretend they are for civil rights.
She's not a victim. She's a loon.
If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.
Although I'm not certain that I'm sympathetic to the UVA Assistant Dean here. The whole business of campus sexual assault matters is permeated with injustice to all parties concerned. You put Title IX bureaucrats nose into things they are not competent to handle, and merde happens. The regular old city police departments were traditionally able to handle--or in some cases mishandle--sexual battery and rape charges. Letting college bureaucrats into the field is simply inviting everybody involved to get down and wrestle in the mud of a pig pen. The pigs enjoy it, and the rest of the folk get dirty.
Jackie probably figured no one would be hurt by her lies because the person she accused was made up. But once her story got out, a fraternity was subject to public shaming and acts of vandalism (as well as being suspended from campus), the dean was smeared by the article, and UVA itself ended up looking like an enabler of gang rapes.
Is anyone going to sue her directly?
And anyone saying Tawana Brawley was a victim of a crime--even if "she did that to herself"--is basically announcing that they don't know what victim means.
How can you be re-victimized by something that didn't happen? She could have claimed to be "traumatized" by her own actions becoming public knowledge. But apparently she believes there's something special about being a victim which by definition is someone else's fault.
Brando said...
Is anyone going to sue her directly?
Since she has no assets it's better to leave her out of it, lessening her motivation to lie or omit events.
It's interesting that the plaintiff seems to be claiming that she did, in fact, encourage the "serial liar" to report the "crime" to the police.
I'm going to assume we've got a Howard Baker thing going on here.
I'm just a little old hamster, hiding in my burrow. I don't know any titmouses and have never met one. It won't affect me if you say hamsters eat titmice. I'll just crawl back into my burrow.
Forced to Testify" is misleading. If there's a lawsuit and you have relevant information about the facts, and the parties have jurisdiction over you, and you get properly served with a subpoena, ya gotta testify. That's life. That's how it works.
I suspect Jackie is a liar, I suspect that the author of Jackie's story, Sabrina Erdely, is a liar too.
I also suspect that both were part of this larger vicious "War on Women" smear the Left has tried to push forward to gain and sustain political power.
And, I hope all this comes out in the wash in Court:)
There's an old Jewish saying that the definition of chutzpah is murdering your parents & then asking the court for leniency because you're an orphan.
Those poor rabbis hadn't seen nothin' yet! Just wait until our SJW are done with chutzpah!
Rolling Stone, Tawana Brawley and Jackie are just congenital lairs. The University of Virginia is a corrupt institution. Patricia J. Williams is just a moron.
"Since she has no assets it's better to leave her out of it, lessening her motivation to lie or omit events."
I wonder, though--we don't really know much about her and it's possible as a UVA graduate she may have some significant future income (unless of course she decided to major in "not getting a job") or some family money coming to her. Might be worth getting a judgment attaching her future income, and donating those proceeds to a legal fund to help other wrongfully accused people.
Anyone who thinks Tawana Brawley lacks moral agency and is thus not human is a vile racist. The real kind.
Man. Reading that old post I was reminded of how much better the comments section here was back then. That whole "bigot" tantrum fucked everything up. The smartest, funniest and most interesting people left!
I wish we could decide together where "fake but accurate" is acceptable or not.
I vote no, but let's at least go on record.
The Media, by the way, uses a weak version of this any time they use framing or place a story in "context" to illustrate some larger point. That's what "comes at time when" and the related weasel phrases are doing--they're arguing that the story they're presenting (really their characterization of that story) should be used as evidence of some bigger story or opinion or argument. The truth or falsity of the actual story (really of their characterization of that story) is in that sense only partially relevant to their actual purpose. Thus faking footage of a gas tank detonating or running obviously-forged papers to smear a candidate for President...those are just the details and the Media cares about the STORY, not the accuracy of the details they present.
Farmer said...The smartest, funniest and most interesting people left!
I'm sorry were left with just each other, Farmer.
Brando said...
as a UVA graduate
She left school, and if she hadn't she likely would have been expelled for her Honor Code violations. She's never going to be a UVA grad. Further the case with Eramo stems from her using the invented assault as a justification for being placed on academic probation, so she couldn't handle college work at all. In all likelihood she'll never graduate from any university.
As to family money if she has a major judgement against her the grandparents / parents will leave it to other family members with the private proviso that they take care of her.
"She left school, and if she hadn't she likely would have been expelled for her Honor Code violations."
I didn't know that--I thought she'd graduated.
Though if I was one of the people smeared by her lies, I would consider suing if only to get my name cleared (though in this case the publicity surrounding her story falling apart may have done that).
@Farmer
I do miss the Crack Emcee.
Not so much Shouting Thomas' rants against our hostess.
Define emotional trauma. Now assert that everyone has a right to be protected from emotional trauma. Now pass laws and regulations that nominally protect people from emotional trauma. Ok. What does your society look like after that?
Using a tried-and-true quasi-legal system (with proper respect for rights all around and for due process) isn't allowed by Universities when judging sexual assault accusations. Why not? Well, the process would traumatize accusers. We can't allow that trauma, so the rules say the accused can't confront the accuser, can't cross examine, etc.
Free expression might offend some people. Some ideas are offensive. A University therefore can't permit free expression since it might offend (and thereby traumatize) some people. Restrict speech, cancel speakers, disallow chalking, shut it down. Oh and trigger warnings! And make sure whatever's taught doesn't offend the groups who are likely to take offense...and you know who those are.
So. You set "protection from emotional trauma" as the requirement and everything else follows from there. You allow the definition of emotional trauma to be made by people with ideological goals/ends (that is to say, the Left and the Feminist Left) and declare that you are legally bound to adopt that definition and goal. From that all the rest logically (and inevitably) follows.
Only Jackie can say if she's emotionally traumatized. Harming a woman (to include inflicting emotional trauma/distress) is never permitted, no matter how much it may harm others. Thus the complaint that "making" her testify (really just saying she's subject to the same rules re: subpoenas that everyone else is) is objectionable.
Women are different, and the rules (including rules regarding self-defined emotional trauma) must treat them differently. That is what is meant by the word "equality."
Feminism = equality.
Megyn Kelly. Is that journalism when she can't take the blowback?
That's a lot of words for "lied".
This girl has foolishly wrecked her life. The notoriety will follow her for decades. Not to mention a judgment. The RS will wind up taking a big financial hit and that will start sending a message that the SWJ's are no longer exempt from the damage they cause. The agitprop writer a/k/a 'reporter' for the RS is also going down. She will be required to testify and most likely be one of the losing defendants. Going to look great on her resume and not as a career enhancer for her.
Hoodlum nails it. PBS ran with the narrative in the Erdley/Woodruff interview.
Here's the last few Q & A's:
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, finally, what is your sense of what other schools, how other schools are dealing with this? Is this — did you see this as a way of letting the world know that this is going on in more than one campus?
SABRINA RUBIN ERDELY: I mean, part of the reason why I chose the University of Virginia is because I felt that it was really representative of what was going on at campuses across the country.
When I spoke to experts, they told me that this — the — really, the scary truth is that, if you dig deep enough really in any campus, this is probably what you will find, that what happens at University of Virginia is probably not the exception. It’s probably — this is the norm.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, on that very sobering note, we will thank you, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, contributing editor at “Rolling Stone.” Thank you.
SABRINA RUBIN ERDELY: Thank you.
Rolling Stone should stick to covering movie stars and pop musicians, its circle of competence.
"Since she has no assets it's better to leave her out of it, lessening her motivation to lie or omit events." They could go after her Obama phone.
Bay Area Guy said...
I suspect Jackie is a liar, I suspect that the author of Jackie's story, Sabrina Erdely, is a liar too.
Erdley seems to have a fetish for con artists. FWIW, she has two other RS articles dealing with rape that have come under fire:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rape-of-petty-officer-blumer-20130214
and
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-catholic-churchs-secret-sex-crime-files-20110906
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/01/29/billy-doe-altar-boy-sends-four-men-prison-philadelphia-rape-case-417565.html
I've not seen where anyone's done any serious investigating of the Navy story, but discrepancies have been pointed out. The Billy Doe story was a huge scandal in Philly when he was proven to have fabricated his abuse.
@Farmer
I was here BEFORE it was cool.
Amazing that in UVA and Duke cases supposedly intelligent people had no trouble believing that a concentrated number of upper class privileged frat guys (or lacrosse players) were capable of a cold-blooded gang-rape in the fashion described. Gang rapes happen, but not at this socio-economic level or in these environments. Maybe that is what really galls some feminists; that the same environments they are trying to paint as misogynistic hell-holes are actually some of the safest (and respectful) environments for young women the world has ever seen. Its like people screaming about racism at HLS - one of the least racist places on the planet.
It's just being chivalrous. The code actually continues.
@Comanche Voter, part of Jackie's story had Dean Eramo dealing with her in a dismissive fashion, acting to protect the university and the fraternities. It appears that there is documentation that Dean Eramo was supportive of Jackie, that she did attempt to get the city police involved in the case, and she tried to get Jackie appropriate medical and psychological help, all of which Jackie rejected (we now know why).
Had Dean Eramo acted as the "Rolling Stone" article alleged, she would have and should have lost her job and been effectively blackballed from any future academic position. She is right to sue.
SABRINA RUBIN ERDELY: I mean, part of the reason why I chose the University of Virginia is because I felt that it was really representative of what was going on at campuses across the country.
When I spoke to experts, they told me that this — the — really, the scary truth is that, if you dig deep enough really in any campus, this is probably what you will find, that what happens at University of Virginia is probably not the exception. It’s probably — this is the norm.
Yep, gang-rapes are representative of fraternity initiation rituals across America. Not one of the male invitees had qualms about such a rite and reported it. Brave Jackie and Sabrina are fighting every dozens of millions of men who support this.
A system which turns out and lauds nuts like this should be examining itself not others. It's clearly incapable of that.
Baby trials.
"Gang rapes happen, but not at this socio-economic level or in these environments. "
The story would have set off fewer alarm bells if it was told in the more "gray area rape" ("grape"?) narrative--maybe she was drunk and so in a haze while it happened, maybe it had started as consensual and went too far, etc.
The reason it stank was she claimed she was totally sober, at least one of the guys knew she could identify him (and the house they were in) and they still decided to rape her in a large group, with no chance any of them could have convinced themselves it wasn't rape. The idea that these guys all could be so brazen and reckless and cruel but mostly reckless--especially considering these weren't escaped convicts but young men with a lot to lose--made everyone give this a lot more scrutiny.
That whole "bigot" tantrum fucked everything up. The smartest, funniest and most interesting people left!
I miss both Chips, KentuckyLiz, and Palladian.
"The rules don't apply to me, I'm a victim!"
What is interesting to me in this is not the lawyers' claims. Of course those claims are a farce, but what else do the lawyers have to raise? It is their job to be the best advocates for "Jackie's" interests that they may be, and it is obviously not in her interest to testify under oath about any of this.
No, what interests ME about this is that establishing the degree of RS's and Erdely's culpability/negligence will ultimately depend substantially on the word of a known liar.
The Dean's lawyer will want to establish that "Jackie" was treated in a way that the article does not reflect. RS's and Erdely's lawyers will want to establish that "Jackie" lied to the reporter, and that "Jackie" demanded conditions for speaking that prevented more fact-checking.
This will turn out to be interesting. If "Jackie" lies now, the various parties may have notes that will tend to discredit her. Further there is the issue of the rape support community people who supposedly referred the reporter to "Jackie". They may find themselves drawn in, if Jackie's credibility becomes a legal issue in this trial, and how can it not?
There's a lot of poetic justice here, but my hunch is that "Jackie" will lie her head off, and if I were on a civil jury and the issue came down to believing her or believing the journalistic side, I would probably opt for the journalistic side.
I would, however, assign the RS side from blame. The article was simply not believable up front, and journalists and editors have to know of the occupational hazard of liars, and have a professional responsibility to fact check. But that means that the RS camp has to impugn "Jackie" in every way they can.
Farmer said...The smartest, funniest and most interesting people left!
Only to be replaced with smarter, funnier, and more interesting.
This blog and comments is still full of comedians, and experts on a variety of subjects..
Brando said...The story would have set off fewer alarm bells if it was told in the more "gray area rape" ("grape"?) narrative--maybe she was drunk and so in a haze while it happened, maybe it had started as consensual and went too far, etc.
Ooh, sorry, "grapist" is already taken.
One of the most evil ideas in politics is this idea that narrative and ideology are more important than reality. We see this in our abortion wars all the time. Our media censors all photographs of abortion, the reality of it. Only by denying this reality, hiding it, looking away from it, are we then free to engage in the ideological fantasy. We can now pretend that it is all up to the pregnant woman to decide if she is pregnant or not-pregnant. That's why abortion advocates, and the Supreme Court, focus so much on the woman's choice, and give so little attention to the baby's reality, or even the reality of the medical surgery.
Consider the New York Times reporter who is doing a story on an abortion doctor, Dr. Brian Finkel. The narrative that she has in her mind is that abortion doctors are heroic people. Why are his patients filing malpractice lawsuits against him? It's propaganda. She dismisses the possibility that these women are telling the truth.
4 years later, Amy Silverman of the Phoenix New Times does an article on Dr. Finkel. This article is called The Terminator. Silverman decided not to hide Finkel, not to air brush him for political purposes. As she puts it, "Brian Finkel is his own worst enemy--and that's saying a lot, considering his enemies list."
Several years later, Dr. Finkel was arrested for multiple counts of sexually assaulting his patients. He would grab their breasts while they were under twilight sedation and shake them awake.
The rather astounding thing was that Finkel did this in front of the nurses. He had no sense that this was wrong. And the people in the clinic just went along with it. Much like the killing of newborns that happened in Dr. Gosnell's clinic. It's almost as if reality shifts inside the abortion clinic. What is unthinkable in ordinary medical practice becomes acceptable.
Sorry, Amy Silverman's article is here
A system which turns out and lauds nuts like this should be examining itself not others. It's clearly incapable of that.
That Washington Post paid for this article!
When you file taxes with the IRS there should be a checkbox that lets you self declare yourself a victim. Then the feds visit and interview you and place you into a victim protection status category. But cap out the amount of supported victims allowed to 33 percent of the population. About the number of liberals in the US. Put the rest in "victim pending" category.
@Saint Croix,
One of the most evil ideas in politics is this idea that narrative and ideology are more important than reality.
Bingo!
And, this idea is -- in the modern era -- mostly promoted in the domain of the Left. "False, but accurate" is a war-cry designed to pummel their opponents.
Now, I'm not saying the Conservatives haven't engaged in this. No Siree. There have been many myths promoted in the past by the right to accomplish certain desired ends.
I'm saying, here, now in 2016, the Left has fabricated a "War on Women" in college (which is relatively safe) and a "Black Lives Matter" mob to combat police brutality (which is the exception not the rule.) These have been fabricated to achieve political ends.
Your example of abortion in America is spot on too. But the Left has already mostly won that cultural battle.
Couldn't be happening to more deserving people.
Excitement yesterday. 5-10 years ago, the fraternity chapter that I belonged to had been suspended (no - it wasn't for gang rape, but, as I understand it, drinking). I thought that they were gone. Dead. But, then, I got a fraternity newsletter yesterday, and they have a record pledge class, and likely will have more members than they have had for quite awhile - back to when I belonged.
Saint Croix:
It's almost as if reality shifts inside the abortion clinic. What is unthinkable in ordinary medical practice becomes acceptable.
It's similar to the cognitive dissonance that occurs during war. However, the prevailing narrative is false. This is not a war on women, but rather a war on babies, men, science, religion/morality, a traditional order, and, despite the female chauvinist protests, a war on women, too. The collateral damage caused by progressive liberalism has been staggering and in many ways unprecedented in quality, quantity, and scope.
Bay Area Guy:
abortion ... But the Left has already mostly won that cultural battle
No, they haven't. There is a bias intrinsic to each of us that is either expressed or suppressed by a community's religion (e.g. Christianity, pro-choice). This is why as the victims and scope of reactive and planned parenthood are exposed a la "final solution", that people, despite the established church (i.e. secular, liberal), are still capable of choosing the right outcome. Unfortunately, most people are "good Germans" who will go along to get along, and the support from outside has been corrupted through illegal entry and redistributive opiates. The war will not be easily won, as if it ever is.
Your example of abortion in America is spot on too. But the Left has already mostly won that cultural battle.
Just a couple of days ago Hillary Clinton made an abortion gaffe that upset some people.
Chuck Todd: "When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights?'
Hillary Clinton: "Well, under our laws, currently, that is not something that exists. Uh, the, uh, the unborn, uh, person does not have constitutional rights."
That word, "currently" suggests that the door is still open, yes?
I think she was a bit surprised by Todd's use of the "unborn child" language, and she did not want to use the "fetus" word for some reason. Maybe because many people already think she is mean and cold. Basically she described what the Supreme Court has done, the state of our laws, and tried to change the subject as quickly as possible.
Abortion scares her, as it does many liberals. It's particularly scary if the media ever turns on them. If, for example, the media starts running photographs of abortion? The Democrat party would be doomed. It would be a rupture in our politics, as the reality of the violence exposes the lie of the rhetoric.
Can we stop calling her "Jackie"? Her name is Jackie Coakley. Women who lie about being raped don't get to hide behind policies designed to protect rape victims.
MaxedOutMama said...The Dean's lawyer will want to establish that "Jackie" was treated in a way that the article does not reflect. RS's and Erdely's lawyers will want to establish that "Jackie" lied to the reporter, and that "Jackie" demanded conditions for speaking that prevented more fact-checking.
I thought about that too, but surely there exists some (discover-able) evidence of internal RS deliberations/conversations around this, right? Like between editor and reporter approving or pushing back on Jackie's requests or talking about the degree of anonymity to grant or whether or not to approach the accused for a rebuttal--that kind of thing has to exist in an email somewhere, don't you think?
Much like the killing of newborns that happened in Dr. Gosnell's clinic. It's almost as if reality shifts inside the abortion clinic. What is unthinkable in ordinary medical practice becomes acceptable.
Abortion, done all the time, must be very dehumanizing. People get used to the damnedest things. Some of my medical students get woozy in an autopsy room. I can remember medical students in my class eating lunch in the gross anatomy lab. They had to remember to keep their hands clean which eating the sandwich. The cadavers were all around.
I did a couple of abortions when I was a surgery resident on GYN back in 1969. Everybody hated it but it was legal and the girls had been run by a psychiatrist for approval. That was California law in 1969. Roe v Wade was several years later and opened the floodgates.
The County finally hired a couple of young doctors to do abortions full time. One of my classmates who had flunked the year and dropped back a class, ran an abortion clinic a few years later and he was convicted of killing this girlfriend who worked in the clinic
He was the guy we might have voted "Most likely to commit murder." He was weird. I doubt normal people go into an abortion practice. I cannot imagine doing that all day and staying sane.
I have treated some astonishingly disgusting conditions. One guy was squashed by a huge stamping press.
Abortions are another level.
Can we stop calling her "Jackie"? Her name is Jackie Coakley.
I'll take this opportunity to put the name Jackie Coakley into this webpage again.
Whenever anyone Googles the name Jackie Coakley, they should find lots of webpages about her libel of an innocent fraternity and of a university adviser.
And the California AG has now sent DOJ thugs to raid a film maker's apartment and confiscate his computers.
Agents seized all video footage from his apartment, along with his personal information, David Daleiden said in a Facebook post. Daleiden, the founder of a group called the Center for Medical Progress, said agents left behind documents that he contends implicate Planned Parenthood in illegal behavior related to the handling of fetal tissue.
Texs, of all places, has also indicted him.
Texas authorities initially began a grand jury investigation of Planned Parenthood after the undercover videos were released in August.
But the grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of misusing fetal tissue and indicted Daleiden and a colleague, Sandra Merritt, in January on charges including using fake driver's licenses to get into a Houston clinic.
A good thing he didn't buy alcohol with it.
If Daleiden and Merritt were smart, they would have grossly mishandled extremely sensitive national security data -- apparently that may not be a crime.
""Jackie" — who told the discredited fraternity gang rape story published in Rolling Stone — is forced to testify in the defamation lawsuit."
Jackie is just one of many. We have all sorts of women out there that tell lies to become victims at every level. Bosses are getting sued for firing them. Universities are getting sued because they don't "listen" to them. Men are getting kicked out of college based on numerous documented false allegations. This is a scourge that is damaging the very fabric of our society. The question is What do you do with them?
The problem is they are always attacking someone, and there are people that are more interested in tearing someone else down than standing up for justice.
I am looking at you Cruz supporters right now. Even poor Megan Kelly is SCARED of Trump now. SCARED I TELL YOU! She is on Entertainment tonight telling stupid people everywhere how awful Trump supporters are. And the Cruz supporters can't get enough. Corey Lewandowski is battering women everywhere! The horror!
The GOPe are going to be politically expedient in every case and their goal is to screw us. But Cruz supporters better figure out whose side they are on quickly because you are just going to get eaten by the alligator last if you don't figure this one out.
"Its like people screaming about racism at HLS - one of the least racist places on the planet." The left uses accusations of racism to guilt-trip well-meaning liberals into buying the left's political agenda, which is all about State-enforced equality.
Hoodlum Doodlum - I would think there would be internal work notes, etc. Both the dean and the publisher should have them.
If Jackie doesn't tell the truth, she is likely to be caught in at least some of her lies. The parties now have an incentive to detect and expose them.
Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley Jacqueline Coakley
Jacqueline Coakley can run but she can no longer hide.
So women are a 'victim' if they are raped, a 'victim' if they lied about the rape that never happened, a 'victim' if they have bad sex, a 'victim' if they think they might have bad sex, a 'victim' if she somehow feels bad about having sex...
But the man is guilty if he raped her, guilty if he didn't rape her, guilty if they have bad sex, no sex, to fast, to slow....
I think men should vote with their pocket books and move to conservative states. The women can go lesbian for all I care.
Texs, of all places, has also indicted him.
There are some nutty left places in Texas. Look at the indictments that came out of Travis County, particularly the last one where Perry was indicted for doing his job as governor.
"One guy was squashed by a huge stamping press."
I'm pretty sure the only treatment for that is a very large envelope.
"One guy was squashed by a huge stamping press."
For several decades, we had a male bonding backcountry ski group, and one of the core members was an ER doc from a large city hospital, and he often brought along one of his residents. So, this cadre of ER docs would inevitably regail us with stories of the sort of things that they deal with on a regular basis. I think that you probably need a bit of black humor to survive that job, so it was often quite humorous. For example, how do you get a light bulb out of some guy's rectum, without breaking it, or having to do significant surgery? Which, of course, intentionally ignores the question of how it got there in the first place. Apparently, this was a fad, as were small animals (often dead by the time they had to remove them).
I couldn't have done their job, nor Michael K's, which is why I never aspired to go to medical school. And, why I very much appreciate what they do for a living. If I had been faced with what he dealt with there, I would probably have had nightmares for months. Too vivid of an imagination.
If there's justification to not publish the real name of a rape accuser (to protect them from harassment and not discourage other possible victims to come forward) then clearly that same justification extends to those accused of rape (as they would face just as much, if not more harassment). Ask yourself--in any social or business setting, what is worse for a person--to be known as "that person who may have been raped" or "that person who may have been a rapist"? The answer is obvious.
And in a case like this where it is clear beyond a doubt to anyone who is not willfully obtuse (e.g., the writers at Jezebel) that this accuser was not actually raped and made this whole thing up, there is no reason to protect her name. It does not discourage actual rape victims from coming forward, as this person only gets exposed after it's clear she lied. We don't want to protect or encourage liars! And obviously she was no victim either, so there's no worry that she'll be traumatized. Except maybe traumatized by her self-inflicted lies.
So why again are we keeping her identity secret? I'm not endorsing actual harassment against her, but her name should be out there so that anyone who encounters her in the future will know enough not to trust her word on anything.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন