3 ms·

Looking at it from a 3rd party's point of view, the if is very much in question. So, flipping it around, though this may sound cynical, I would caution anyone a

Looking at it from a 3rd party's point of view, the if is very much in question. So, flipping it around, though this may sound cynical, I would caution anyone about making what are essentially public accusations. They had better be prepared for a legal backlash, and they had better have bulletproof evidence. I spoke (politely) with the guy who ran the organization that publicly went after my friend — I think he genuinely considered what he was doing to be legally safe, and I also think he was convinced my friend was guilty. His livelihood is now in tatters.

maxerickson 9y ago
I still don't understand why you felt the need to reply about this to my comment about victims. I wasn't talking about false accusations or third parties, and it isn't a long or complicated comment.
- michaelsbradley 9y ago
  I intended my reply as a pointed cautionary tale — understanding full well you had in mind true victims — for those who may misunderstand what's involved and what's at stake regarding both accused and accuser and so may pursue a regrettable course. Sadly, from a 3rd party's point of view, it's difficult today to distinguish true victims from false accusers.
stale2002 9y ago
> and they had better have bulletproof evidence No you don't need that. The OTHER party needs to have bulletproof evidence, because the accuser is innocent until proven guilty. If something is true, then you should never ever ever be afraid to say the truth. Go public with your true accusations, and then force the other side to sue you. Because if you are telling the truth, then you will win, because the other side can't have evidence that you are lying, because the evidence doesn't exist. It is basically impossible to get in legal trouble for libel, if you know that what you are saying is true. You are innocent of libel and slander until proven guilt.

maxerickson 9y ago

I still don't understand why you felt the need to reply about this to my comment about victims. I wasn't talking about false accusations or third parties, and it isn't a long or complicated comment.

michaelsbradley 9y ago
I intended my reply as a pointed cautionary tale — understanding full well you had in mind true victims — for those who may misunderstand what's involved and what's at stake regarding both accused and accuser and so may pursue a regrettable course. Sadly, from a 3rd party's point of view, it's difficult today to distinguish true victims from false accusers.

stale2002 9y ago

> and they had better have bulletproof evidence No you don't need that. The OTHER party needs to have bulletproof evidence, because the accuser is innocent until proven guilty. If something is true, then you should never ever ever be afraid to say the truth. Go public with your true accusations, and then force the other side to sue you. Because if you are telling the truth, then you will win, because the other side can't have evidence that you are lying, because the evidence doesn't exist. It is basically impossible to get in legal trouble for libel, if you know that what you are saying is true. You are innocent of libel and slander until proven guilt.