5 ms·
Previously: https://medium.com/@yifanxing/my-experience-with-sexual-harassment-in-the-scala-community-9245b4a139de https://medium.com/@yifanxing/my-experience-
by latchkey 3y ago
Previously:
https://medium.com/@yifanxing/my-experience-with-sexual-harassment-in-the-scala-community-9245b4a139de https://medium.com/@yifanxing/my-experience-with-sexual-hara...
https://scala-open-letter.github.io/ https://scala-open-letter.github.io/
- andrelaszlo 3y agoSo if I got this right it's the open letter (second link) that was deemed defamatory, and not the story from the first link? > The Defendants accept that they have never had any evidence to support the allegations apart from the two unverified claims published in coordination with the Open Letter. They were never in a position to make any informed judgement on the truth of the allegations, and did not seek clarification on any of the allegations from the Claimant. How does this vindicate him?
- tristor 3y agoTo be exactly correct, he sued for defamation four (4) of the signatories of the open letter, because the open letter was the explicit call to action to cancel him. He can only file suit against persons within the jurisdiction of his home court in the UK, the majority of the signatories, as well as the two accusers are not UK persons and cannot be sued in that context. Whether or not that vindicates him is an exercise to the reader.
- aeurielesn 3y agoIf four (4) of the signatories can't prove the allegations, how will five (4+1) be able to do so?
- tristor 3y agoI make no claims or judgement either way. I just acknowledge that information asymmetry exists as do jurisdictional limits. It's not possible in this case for him to ever be fully vindicated due to the limits of the legal system, but whether it's enough to vindicate him for you is up to you.
- ph1ll 3y agoNo. A man is innocent until proved guilty. In the absence of a conviction, there is no vindication required. This is true in all countries that have the rule of law, not just the UK.
- gedy 3y agoInnocent until proven guilty?
- ceejayoz 3y agoUnder English defamation law, libel defendants are actually functionally guilty until proven innocent.
- exe34 3y agoBecause the libel defendants are the ones who have pronounced somebody guilty until..... well there was no due process.
- ceejayoz 3y agoYou think there should be due process required to speak?
- exe34 3y agoDid they merely speak, or did they ban him from a community and made him unemployable?
- ceejayoz 3y agoFundamentally, here's the difference. In the US, getting someone convicted of libel or settling for it is pretty solid proof. It means the person being libeled likely could prove that the person making the claims knew they were false and maliciously spread them anyways. In the UK, it's more akin to an allegation. It provides us substantially less information than a similar proceeding in the US would.
- baryphonic 3y ago> In the US, getting someone convicted of libel or settling for it is pretty solid proof. It means the person being libeled likely could prove that the person making the claims knew they were false and maliciously spread them anyways. Proving actual malice is only a requirement if the plaintiff is a public figure per New York Times v Sullivan. People who are not public figures have a lower burden of proof, though it is still substantially more stringent than in the UK.
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoThe first link also links to a second person's first hand experience (both are noted at the bottom of the signed letter): https://killnicole.github.io/statement/ https://killnicole.github.io/statement/