5 ms·

I wonder what US defamation law has to say about publicly accusing someone of being a rapist when: a) They're not a convicted rapist, and b) The reason they'r

by afafsd 12y ago

I wonder what US defamation law has to say about publicly accusing someone of being a rapist when: a) They're not a convicted rapist, and b) The reason they're not a convicted rapist is because you, personally, decided you couldn't be bothered pressing charges Take it to court or stfu, dude.

JohnBooty 12y ago
It's incredibly difficult for survivors to prove the sex wasn't consensual in cases of rape where they know the rapists. Your attitude is part of the reason people are raped: their rapists know they can likely get away with it because their victims face this kind of abuse and doubt. You are literally part of the problem. > I wonder what US defamation law has to say about > publicly accusing someone of being a rapist It varies from state to state, but one thing is pretty constant: it's only libel/defamation/etc if the claim is false. If you're going to sue somebody for defamation you need to be able to prove the statements are false.
- afafsd 12y ago
  Which is why my advice to anyone about to be raped is this: fucking fight back. You might not win, but you should at least ensure there's some injuries one way or the other. Make sure there's some injuries, so that the lack of consent is obvious when you go to the police, which you of course should do immediately afterwards with a black eye or a broken arm or whatever. It's much better to get a broken arm than to let your rapist get away with it. My estimate of this case based on the complete lack of evidence either way is... I dunno, fifty percent that she was actually raped, fifty percent that she consented and later lied about it. Maybe leaning towards the latter scenario.
  - rosser 12y ago
    Did you miss the bit where the victim was black-out drunk? In pretty much every jurisdiction I'm aware of, you can't legally consent in that state. EDIT: Nevada statute § 200.366 ¶ 1, emphasis added, "A person who subjects another person to sexual penetration, or who forces another person to make a sexual penetration on himself or herself or another, or on a beast, against the will of the victim or under conditions in which the perpetrator knows or should know that the victim is mentally or physically incapable of resisting or understanding the nature of his or her conduct, is guilty of sexual assault." http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec366 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec366
    - afafsd 12y ago
      In which case how are we supposed to know that she did not consent?
      - JohnBooty 12y ago
        If you have sex with somebody who's passed out or otherwise unable to give consent, that's rape. If you've done this, you're a rapist.
  - JohnBooty 12y ago
    So you think there are times when it's okay to have sex with somebody after they've passed out? Which is why my advice to anyone about to be raped is this: fucking fight back. You shouldn't give people advice. Some people should, but not you.
- ars 12y ago
  > It's incredibly difficult for survivors to prove the sex wasn't consensual in cases of rape where they know the rapists. It's bad that this is how the world is, but telling someone "Your attitude is part of the reason people are raped" is just as bad. You are basically saying anyone can be accused of rape and automatically be considered guilty. That is arguably worse that the alternative of being unable to prove rape. > but one thing is pretty constant: it's only libel/defamation/etc if the claim is false. That is not true. If you can prove it was true that it's not defamation, but the reverse is not the case. > If you're going to sue somebody for defamation you need to be able to prove the statements are false. That is not true either. You just have to prove they made the statement and that it was defamatory.
_delirium 12y ago
There isn't any duty to press charges when accusing someone of having committed a crime, at least in the U.S., so (b) is unrelated. As for (a), it's obviously the case that if they were convicted of a crime, it couldn't possibly be defamatory to accuse them of it; but it doesn't follow that if they haven't been convicted, the accusation is defamatory, because a lack of conviction is not the same as a finding of innocence (even an acquittal is not a finding of innocence, since it can come simply due to lack of sufficient evidence). A person alleging that accusations of their criminal behavior are defamatory cannot allege merely that they have not been convicted, but must show that they also did not commit the crime. There is no legal presumption of innocence when attempting to suppress third-party speech on the question of your innocence: if you want to sue someone for defamation, you now carry the burden of proof to show that what they claimed is false. (The only place a presumption of innocence comes in is when the government attempts to jail or fine you; then, the burden of proof falls on them.) It's quite possible, due to lacking or conflicting evidence, for the question of someone's guilt to be basically "uncertain", in which case they probably can't be convicted, but they also probably can't win a defamation suit. See, e.g. O.J. Simpson, where being acquitted of murder didn't stop anyone from continuing to accuse him publicly of it.
danso 12y ago
In U.S. libel cases, truth is always a defense. For the accused to win a defamation suit, he would have to be confident that he could conclusively prove that he did not rape the OP's wife. Whether he was convicted or not does not matter, just like someone could call OJ Simpson a murderer (though in Simpson's case, he has much less standing ground because the U.S. court system treats public figures/celebrities as having fewer protections against libel...the accused in the OP's post would likely not be considered a "public figure")

by afafsd 12y ago

JohnBooty 12y ago

It's incredibly difficult for survivors to prove the sex wasn't consensual in cases of rape where they know the rapists. Your attitude is part of the reason people are raped: their rapists know they can likely get away with it because their victims face this kind of abuse and doubt. You are literally part of the problem. > I wonder what US defamation law has to say about > publicly accusing someone of being a rapist It varies from state to state, but one thing is pretty constant: it's only libel/defamation/etc if the claim is false. If you're going to sue somebody for defamation you need to be able to prove the statements are false.

afafsd 12y ago
Which is why my advice to anyone about to be raped is this: fucking fight back. You might not win, but you should at least ensure there's some injuries one way or the other. Make sure there's some injuries, so that the lack of consent is obvious when you go to the police, which you of course should do immediately afterwards with a black eye or a broken arm or whatever. It's much better to get a broken arm than to let your rapist get away with it. My estimate of this case based on the complete lack of evidence either way is... I dunno, fifty percent that she was actually raped, fifty percent that she consented and later lied about it. Maybe leaning towards the latter scenario.
- rosser 12y ago
  Did you miss the bit where the victim was black-out drunk? In pretty much every jurisdiction I'm aware of, you can't legally consent in that state. EDIT: Nevada statute § 200.366 ¶ 1, emphasis added, "A person who subjects another person to sexual penetration, or who forces another person to make a sexual penetration on himself or herself or another, or on a beast, against the will of the victim or under conditions in which the perpetrator knows or should know that the victim is mentally or physically incapable of resisting or understanding the nature of his or her conduct, is guilty of sexual assault." http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec366 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec366
  - afafsd 12y ago
    In which case how are we supposed to know that she did not consent?
    - JohnBooty 12y ago
      If you have sex with somebody who's passed out or otherwise unable to give consent, that's rape. If you've done this, you're a rapist.
- JohnBooty 12y ago
  So you think there are times when it's okay to have sex with somebody after they've passed out? Which is why my advice to anyone about to be raped is this: fucking fight back. You shouldn't give people advice. Some people should, but not you.
ars 12y ago
> It's incredibly difficult for survivors to prove the sex wasn't consensual in cases of rape where they know the rapists. It's bad that this is how the world is, but telling someone "Your attitude is part of the reason people are raped" is just as bad. You are basically saying anyone can be accused of rape and automatically be considered guilty. That is arguably worse that the alternative of being unable to prove rape. > but one thing is pretty constant: it's only libel/defamation/etc if the claim is false. That is not true. If you can prove it was true that it's not defamation, but the reverse is not the case. > If you're going to sue somebody for defamation you need to be able to prove the statements are false. That is not true either. You just have to prove they made the statement and that it was defamatory.

_delirium 12y ago

There isn't any duty to press charges when accusing someone of having committed a crime, at least in the U.S., so (b) is unrelated. As for (a), it's obviously the case that if they were convicted of a crime, it couldn't possibly be defamatory to accuse them of it; but it doesn't follow that if they haven't been convicted, the accusation is defamatory, because a lack of conviction is not the same as a finding of innocence (even an acquittal is not a finding of innocence, since it can come simply due to lack of sufficient evidence). A person alleging that accusations of their criminal behavior are defamatory cannot allege merely that they have not been convicted, but must show that they also did not commit the crime. There is no legal presumption of innocence when attempting to suppress third-party speech on the question of your innocence: if you want to sue someone for defamation, you now carry the burden of proof to show that what they claimed is false. (The only place a presumption of innocence comes in is when the government attempts to jail or fine you; then, the burden of proof falls on them.) It's quite possible, due to lacking or conflicting evidence, for the question of someone's guilt to be basically "uncertain", in which case they probably can't be convicted, but they also probably can't win a defamation suit. See, e.g. O.J. Simpson, where being acquitted of murder didn't stop anyone from continuing to accuse him publicly of it.

danso 12y ago

In U.S. libel cases, truth is always a defense. For the accused to win a defamation suit, he would have to be confident that he could conclusively prove that he did not rape the OP's wife. Whether he was convicted or not does not matter, just like someone could call OJ Simpson a murderer (though in Simpson's case, he has much less standing ground because the U.S. court system treats public figures/celebrities as having fewer protections against libel...the accused in the OP's post would likely not be considered a "public figure")