4 ms·

> the accused should have a presumption of guilt That may be how social media work, that's absolutely not how justice should work. Anybody can be accused of se

> the accused should have a presumption of guilt That may be how social media work, that's absolutely not how justice should work. Anybody can be accused of sexual misconduct on social media. It's not justice when one can't defend himself.

vkou 10y ago
It's not justice when we put the victim on trial (As we do in most rape cases), but we do it anyway.
- hueving 10y ago
  So you are implying that makes it okay to assume everyone accused is guilty for all intents and purposes?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I feel like lots of people here are patting each other on the back about a snipey "innocent until proven guilty" argument they've derived by cutting one of this post's sentences in half. No, this post does not say it's "okay to assume everyone accused is guilty for all intents and purposes".
    - PavlovsCat 10y ago
      No, those two comments are simply asking. Which is fair enough, seeing how the comment doesn't say why that is "not justice", or any different from other witnesses/victims in other trials getting asked questions.
- guitarbill 10y ago
  This is flat out wrong. In the US/EU, you can't be put on trial for being a rape victim. What offence would that be? Complete hyperbole.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Read any rape trial transcript, or even an account of someone who took their assault to trial. Read the questions asked the victim. They are invasive and degrading, and they are intended to paint them as scandalous, lying, drunk, promiscuous skank. Your personal and public credibility will be put under intense scrutiny. The accused then takes the stand, and insists that yes, you clearly consented to being assaulted at 2 am behind a dumpster, when you were too drunk to speak. And if, heaven forbid, the case falls apart, you'll likely be sued right back for slander, damaging your attacker's public image, loss of income, etc. That's the defense's job in an adversarial legal system. That doesn't make in any better for victims.
escape_goat 10y ago
I think that there's a bit of a misunderstanding about this section, both amongst people who are disturbed by it and a few of the people seeking to justify it. I don't think that the audience here is intended to be communities at large; I think the intended audience is specifically those people who have an ethical (and perhaps legal) obligation to investigate allegations or rumours of exploitation within their organization. I believe the authors are arguing that they, specifically, have no business issuing anyone with a "presumption of innocence" in leu of a thorough examination of the circumstances, regardless of whether or not they find the whole thing awkward or socially embarrassing. I could be wrong, of course, and in fact I am wrong in my imputations of the intention of others with startling frequency. However, I am usually fairly aggrieved by the sort of apologetics with which feminism becomes an excuse for the arrogation of power, and I am not really getting that feeling in this case.

vkou 10y ago

It's not justice when we put the victim on trial (As we do in most rape cases), but we do it anyway.

hueving 10y ago
So you are implying that makes it okay to assume everyone accused is guilty for all intents and purposes?
- tptacek 10y ago
  I feel like lots of people here are patting each other on the back about a snipey "innocent until proven guilty" argument they've derived by cutting one of this post's sentences in half. No, this post does not say it's "okay to assume everyone accused is guilty for all intents and purposes".
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    No, those two comments are simply asking. Which is fair enough, seeing how the comment doesn't say why that is "not justice", or any different from other witnesses/victims in other trials getting asked questions.
guitarbill 10y ago
This is flat out wrong. In the US/EU, you can't be put on trial for being a rape victim. What offence would that be? Complete hyperbole.
- vkou 10y ago
  Read any rape trial transcript, or even an account of someone who took their assault to trial. Read the questions asked the victim. They are invasive and degrading, and they are intended to paint them as scandalous, lying, drunk, promiscuous skank. Your personal and public credibility will be put under intense scrutiny. The accused then takes the stand, and insists that yes, you clearly consented to being assaulted at 2 am behind a dumpster, when you were too drunk to speak. And if, heaven forbid, the case falls apart, you'll likely be sued right back for slander, damaging your attacker's public image, loss of income, etc. That's the defense's job in an adversarial legal system. That doesn't make in any better for victims.

escape_goat 10y ago

I think that there's a bit of a misunderstanding about this section, both amongst people who are disturbed by it and a few of the people seeking to justify it. I don't think that the audience here is intended to be communities at large; I think the intended audience is specifically those people who have an ethical (and perhaps legal) obligation to investigate allegations or rumours of exploitation within their organization. I believe the authors are arguing that they, specifically, have no business issuing anyone with a "presumption of innocence" in leu of a thorough examination of the circumstances, regardless of whether or not they find the whole thing awkward or socially embarrassing. I could be wrong, of course, and in fact I am wrong in my imputations of the intention of others with startling frequency. However, I am usually fairly aggrieved by the sort of apologetics with which feminism becomes an excuse for the arrogation of power, and I am not really getting that feeling in this case.