6 ms·

Twitter in this case is being used as a platform to make information public, as letters (including anonymous ones) to newspapers for hundreds of years. I don't

Twitter in this case is being used as a platform to make information public, as letters (including anonymous ones) to newspapers for hundreds of years. I don't see the difference that makes one less legitimate than the other, could you explain it? If you can do so with slurring women further perhaps.

dogma1138 12y ago
I don't see sending letters to a newspaper any better in such circumstances. An accused has a right to face their accuser, this should be done in court or in case of such disputes in a disciplinary hearing. In such cases in which the public actually has the right to know there might be some merit of using the media to pursue such action when all other avenues have been exhausted. However when you do use proper media (which is an oxymoron of some sorts today) you gain something very important, an "unbiased" journalistic view of the events which can judge if the case is of an sufficient interest to the public and if it is they can investigate the events on their own and publish their findings. Calling some one on twitter is libel pure and simple, true or not it doesn't matter.
- detcader 12y ago
  Libel is a legal term. Can you point to a specific instance of speech from Ellis that you are talking about? I think the truth of a statement matters in libel laws in the U.S., but I'm not a lawyer. You disregard the possiblity that Ellis is trying to warn other women more than she is trying to make an accusation that would lead to the appropriate action against him.
  - dogma1138 12y ago
    Libel is also a dictionary term. "Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession." I'm not qualified to turn this into a legal discussion, and i don't think many of us on these site are either, but heck. I don't disregard anything i just don't think she has any right to do so, and neither does anyone else. Being accused in such cases especially when sexual assault of one type or another is involved is just as harmful as being found guilty of that. Accusing someone without actually going to court is even worse because it doesn't give them the platform to clear their name. When the only thing you have is "she said, he said" it tends to create a "guilty by default" situation, if nothing else than just because most people would rather err on the side of caution.
    - graeme 12y ago
      I don't know which dictionary you used, but any dictionary I checked says libel is a false statement. I checked oxford and merriam webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel The definition you cited appears to come from Cornell's Wex legal dictionary. The libel page says libel is a form of defamation, and the defamation page says defamation involves falsehood. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation You said, in an earlier comment "Calling some one on twitter is libel pure and simple, true or not it doesn't matter." That's just not correct, you're using the word libel wrong.
      - dogma1138 12y ago
        Well since we had a "legal" discussion, i thought i would use a legal terms dictionary, so is the one i used ;) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel Apparently based on actual court cases the falseness of a statement is not a necessity what is tho is the malicious intent to cause damages. So not sure where you got that it has to be false, not from that link for sure.
        graeme 12y ago
        As I said above, libel is a form of defamation; that's on the libel page. And if you click through to defamation, it says a defamation case (such as libel or slander) must prove four elements: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation The comments about malice on the libel page relate to punitive damages. That has nothing to do with the elements of libel itself.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- x0x0 12y ago
  This is a pretty incredible comment -- if I accuse someone of behavior, I'm obligated to give them a platform to defend themselves? Is there some rationale to this besides to protect the powerful, or a single place in the law besides in your head where this is written? Rod has plentiful methods of defense, up to and including a lawsuit for libel. Which you also don't understand; in the united states, a necessary condition of libel or slander is falsehood. See, eg, wiki [1] Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States, meaning true statements cannot be defamatory. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

dogma1138 12y ago

I don't see sending letters to a newspaper any better in such circumstances. An accused has a right to face their accuser, this should be done in court or in case of such disputes in a disciplinary hearing. In such cases in which the public actually has the right to know there might be some merit of using the media to pursue such action when all other avenues have been exhausted. However when you do use proper media (which is an oxymoron of some sorts today) you gain something very important, an "unbiased" journalistic view of the events which can judge if the case is of an sufficient interest to the public and if it is they can investigate the events on their own and publish their findings. Calling some one on twitter is libel pure and simple, true or not it doesn't matter.

detcader 12y ago
Libel is a legal term. Can you point to a specific instance of speech from Ellis that you are talking about? I think the truth of a statement matters in libel laws in the U.S., but I'm not a lawyer. You disregard the possiblity that Ellis is trying to warn other women more than she is trying to make an accusation that would lead to the appropriate action against him.
- dogma1138 12y ago
  Libel is also a dictionary term. "Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession." I'm not qualified to turn this into a legal discussion, and i don't think many of us on these site are either, but heck. I don't disregard anything i just don't think she has any right to do so, and neither does anyone else. Being accused in such cases especially when sexual assault of one type or another is involved is just as harmful as being found guilty of that. Accusing someone without actually going to court is even worse because it doesn't give them the platform to clear their name. When the only thing you have is "she said, he said" it tends to create a "guilty by default" situation, if nothing else than just because most people would rather err on the side of caution.
  - graeme 12y ago
    I don't know which dictionary you used, but any dictionary I checked says libel is a false statement. I checked oxford and merriam webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel The definition you cited appears to come from Cornell's Wex legal dictionary. The libel page says libel is a form of defamation, and the defamation page says defamation involves falsehood. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation You said, in an earlier comment "Calling some one on twitter is libel pure and simple, true or not it doesn't matter." That's just not correct, you're using the word libel wrong.
    - dogma1138 12y ago
      Well since we had a "legal" discussion, i thought i would use a legal terms dictionary, so is the one i used ;) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel Apparently based on actual court cases the falseness of a statement is not a necessity what is tho is the malicious intent to cause damages. So not sure where you got that it has to be false, not from that link for sure.
      - graeme 12y ago
        As I said above, libel is a form of defamation; that's on the libel page. And if you click through to defamation, it says a defamation case (such as libel or slander) must prove four elements: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation The comments about malice on the libel page relate to punitive damages. That has nothing to do with the elements of libel itself.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
x0x0 12y ago
This is a pretty incredible comment -- if I accuse someone of behavior, I'm obligated to give them a platform to defend themselves? Is there some rationale to this besides to protect the powerful, or a single place in the law besides in your head where this is written? Rod has plentiful methods of defense, up to and including a lawsuit for libel. Which you also don't understand; in the united states, a necessary condition of libel or slander is falsehood. See, eg, wiki [1] Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States, meaning true statements cannot be defamatory. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law