3 ms·

Wow, this is... well both unbelievable and sadly believable at the same time. It is pretty amazing the alleged culprit has also been named, It makes me wonder

Wow, this is... well both unbelievable and sadly believable at the same time. It is pretty amazing the alleged culprit has also been named, It makes me wonder what, if any, sort of resulting fallout will follow this.

MediaSquirrel 16y ago
This kind of shit happens to women often. They just normally don't talk about it in public.
cowpewter 16y ago
I believe it. I hate that I do, but...I do. Also, site seems to have been hit pretty hard, but google cache to the rescue http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://blog.nerdchic.net/archives/418/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
rue 16y ago
Yes. Report it to the police and certainly write a blog post to bring attention to the matter! I assume sexual violence is a problem at any gathering with a large (intoxicated) mixed crowd. Perhaps the thought was that it was not as common in tech conferences as it might be elsewhere? But naming a person before they are even a police suspect, that I do not agree with. Plus…as evidenced by myself…it may draw attention from the real problem at hand. Edit: I disagree with naming names at this stage of events because it sets a precedent that will lead to irreparable damage at some point. Given the police has all the necessary details, the potential downsides of publicly naming a person outweigh the potential benefits. I will leave it at that.
- rdl 16y ago
  If someone assaulted me, and I wasn't at all unclear about what happened or his identity, I would absolutely name him. You don't need to convince a court to convict first -- that's absurd. Third parties may or may not believe or take action unless otherwise convinced. I would be highly suspicious of someone who has been credibly called out for something like this (and would probably not invite him to drink with me, especially if I were female), but would need more evidence before taking much more action. Even in the UK, it's not slander or libel if it's true.
  - shadowspar 16y ago
    This. If some guy cornered me at the bar and punched me in the face, damn straight I'd name him on my blog if I recognized who he was. Somehow I doubt anyone would accuse me of starting a witch hunt, or tell me that I needed to take better precautions for my own safety, too.
  - natrius 16y ago
    Sexual assault is a special crime in our society. If newspapers find it prudent to avoid publishing the names of victims of sexual assault, I don't see why the suspects can't be afforded the same courtesy. The potential damage is far higher for the suspect, anyway.
- wtracy 16y ago
  "it may draw attention from the real problem at hand." This man (allegedly, to lawyer it up) sexually assaulted a woman. If that's not the problem at hand, what is?
  - rue 16y ago
    That is the problem. It is somewhat being obscured by arguments about her having named the alleged assailant, as now evidenced by some 1/3 of this thread. Edit: The currently top-rated comments would likely be nonexistent or with very low scores if the alleged assailant had not been named.

MediaSquirrel 16y ago

This kind of shit happens to women often. They just normally don't talk about it in public.

cowpewter 16y ago

I believe it. I hate that I do, but...I do. Also, site seems to have been hit pretty hard, but google cache to the rescue http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://blog.nerdchic.net/archives/418/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

rue 16y ago

Yes. Report it to the police and certainly write a blog post to bring attention to the matter! I assume sexual violence is a problem at any gathering with a large (intoxicated) mixed crowd. Perhaps the thought was that it was not as common in tech conferences as it might be elsewhere? But naming a person before they are even a police suspect, that I do not agree with. Plus…as evidenced by myself…it may draw attention from the real problem at hand. Edit: I disagree with naming names at this stage of events because it sets a precedent that will lead to irreparable damage at some point. Given the police has all the necessary details, the potential downsides of publicly naming a person outweigh the potential benefits. I will leave it at that.

rdl 16y ago
If someone assaulted me, and I wasn't at all unclear about what happened or his identity, I would absolutely name him. You don't need to convince a court to convict first -- that's absurd. Third parties may or may not believe or take action unless otherwise convinced. I would be highly suspicious of someone who has been credibly called out for something like this (and would probably not invite him to drink with me, especially if I were female), but would need more evidence before taking much more action. Even in the UK, it's not slander or libel if it's true.
- shadowspar 16y ago
  This. If some guy cornered me at the bar and punched me in the face, damn straight I'd name him on my blog if I recognized who he was. Somehow I doubt anyone would accuse me of starting a witch hunt, or tell me that I needed to take better precautions for my own safety, too.
- natrius 16y ago
  Sexual assault is a special crime in our society. If newspapers find it prudent to avoid publishing the names of victims of sexual assault, I don't see why the suspects can't be afforded the same courtesy. The potential damage is far higher for the suspect, anyway.
wtracy 16y ago
"it may draw attention from the real problem at hand." This man (allegedly, to lawyer it up) sexually assaulted a woman. If that's not the problem at hand, what is?
- rue 16y ago
  That is the problem. It is somewhat being obscured by arguments about her having named the alleged assailant, as now evidenced by some 1/3 of this thread. Edit: The currently top-rated comments would likely be nonexistent or with very low scores if the alleged assailant had not been named.