U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-07-2019, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA (Sandy Springs)
5,664 posts, read 2,955,933 times
Reputation: 4202

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
Never heard of it. Deleted twitter from my phone a very long time ago. Highly recommend.
X2 this is one of the reasons I no longer use twitter or Facebook.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-07-2019, 12:48 PM
 
4,587 posts, read 8,347,550 times
Reputation: 1735
DSJJ,
1. The problem is that the attitude inadvertently does provide a justification for harrassment as any one of the harrassers could say "He was never tried in court but it doesn't matter because I think he's guilty' (despite lack of evidence). Saying the court system is not the standard gives them a justification for what they are doing; even if one can say "harrassment is wrong", a mob isn't going to listen as they'll just say "I think he's guilty". If you don't want harrassment, social media needs to hold the court system as the standard and restrict what people say about these things. You have to take away their justifications.

In the pre-social media days I would actually agree with you.

2. Going to court DOES either validate the accusations OR definitively shut the book on the accusations. The harrassers can have their identities harvested and permanently banned from Twitter. The fact that harrassers sometimes ignore court rulings doesn't invalidate my point.

3. Indeed I did not specify that detail in the initial post, but I feel the point stands anyway even if ALL of the accusations were in fact agreed upon by the parties as one may not know what's going on behind the scenes. Think of the Salem witch trials in which there were multiple accusers and collusion among them. Also note the mob mixed up the accusations. The quite understandable nuance that is reflected in your post gets lost with crowds and mobs. That's why "court cases can't be a standard" doesn't work with mass audiences.

Cosby's drama took years to resolve, but it resulted in a conviction and a prison sentence. That's how it should go. (I am aware Epstein did commit suicide before going to trial, but he was criminally charged and actually did have power and privilege)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
1. I dont condone harassment, my argument is that your belief is flawed.

2. As your own example shows, going to court doesnt stop the harassment that you claim caused this mans death.

In short, I dont think going to court changes the outcome here. So this isnt about the public being rational, because in both scenarios, the public finds out and does the same thing.


Your post started out as beliveing he was guilty, but not deserving of the treatment he got, but like I said, that would have happened no matter what.

However, you have no shifted to , "her story doesnt add up, he may be innocent of some of what she said" which you could have just stated from the beginning if that is what you believed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2019, 01:02 PM
 
5,476 posts, read 1,083,913 times
Reputation: 2182
I honestly am not sure whose side I am because I have not looked that much into the case. However, I will say this: If he was guilty of the allegations, he choose the cowardly way out (suicide). If he was innocent of any of the abuse claims against him, then his accusers need to serve prison time (At least 6.5 years).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 09:03 AM
 
4,587 posts, read 8,347,550 times
Reputation: 1735
Realistically I don't know if criminal libel could apply to her or Benson. Canada does have criminal libel codes https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ction-298.html but it seems like they are usually applied towards people working as an employee of a government agency (agent of the Crown) http://web.archive.org/web/201410040...al-speech.html

However:

Quote:
MacKinnon, like almost all Canadians, had never heard of s. 301. It is an obscure section, part of a broader subdivision of the Code that deals with defamatory libel. It states: “Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.” Unlike s. 300, where the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the accused knew what they were saying was false, a defamatory libel under s. 301 doesn’t have to be false. In other words, a person can go to prison under s. 301 even if what they’re publishing is completely true.
I found an article about civil libel law in Canada https://www.cjfe.org/defamation_libe...ree_expression .. https://dialalaw.peopleslawschool.ca/defamation/ says that there is a two year window to bring a defamation lawsuit. Since Twitter is US-based and Benson is US-based, I wonder if there would be jurisdiction in US federal courts.

The one allegation that could have possibly been criminal in that sense was Zoe saying that she didn't enjoy a sexual act he did. (there was Zoe talking about being raped by someone else in some Twitter posts but that got conflated with her claims Holowka was emotionally and physically abusive). But if he had committed a crime against her, she should have immediately gone to the police. I know that it's hard to act against relationship abuse, and sometimes cops are not supportive, but there is no other viable way of getting justice. There is a reason why statute of limitations exists. She had also said he apologized for these things years ago and the alleged acts took place about 10 years ago, so statute of limitations under Canadian law would be an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois View Post
I honestly am not sure whose side I am because I have not looked that much into the case. However, I will say this: If he was guilty of the allegations, he choose the cowardly way out (suicide). If he was innocent of any of the abuse claims against him, then his accusers need to serve prison time (At least 6.5 years).

Last edited by Vicman; 09-08-2019 at 09:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 10:58 AM
 
98 posts, read 15,370 times
Reputation: 70
Zoe Quinn is no saint either. She too also sleeps with game developers and game journalists in order to get positive and rave reviews for her own creativity eventhough lack thereof. With that said. It does not matter what side one is on. Either being pro sjw/feminist or anti sjw/feminist. No justice wont be served in this situation. Alec took his life, and we don't know the details if he sexually abused Zoe Quinn. Also Zoe Quinn took to Twitter to ruin a mans life is wrong. Their are proper channels that Zoe Quinn could have taken to deal with Alec Holowka, like going to the police. I'm not sure if Canadian legal system has similar statue of limitations as the United States. Zoe Quinn should have went to the police if she felt sexually abused when they met in Toronto a few years ago. Also sexually abuse changes. What may not be viewed as sexually harassment and sexually abuse back then, maybe viewed as sexually offensive and abusive now. All I have to say is that Zoe Quinn has blood on her hands, sadly she will walk free, but I hope she learned her lesson in all of this with accusing people over Twitter who have mental illness. Alec Holowka got fired from his job, and shortly after killed himself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,742 posts, read 11,758,658 times
Reputation: 4403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
DSJJ,
1. The problem is that the attitude inadvertently does provide a justification for harrassment as any one of the harrassers could say "He was never tried in court but it doesn't matter because I think he's guilty' (despite lack of evidence). Saying the court system is not the standard gives them a justification for what they are doing; even if one can say "harrassment is wrong", a mob isn't going to listen as they'll just say "I think he's guilty". If you don't want harrassment, social media needs to hold the court system as the standard and restrict what people say about these things. You have to take away their justifications.

In the pre-social media days I would actually agree with you.

2. Going to court DOES either validate the accusations OR definitively shut the book on the accusations. The harrassers can have their identities harvested and permanently banned from Twitter. The fact that harrassers sometimes ignore court rulings doesn't invalidate my point.

3. Indeed I did not specify that detail in the initial post, but I feel the point stands anyway even if ALL of the accusations were in fact agreed upon by the parties as one may not know what's going on behind the scenes. Think of the Salem witch trials in which there were multiple accusers and collusion among them. Also note the mob mixed up the accusations. The quite understandable nuance that is reflected in your post gets lost with crowds and mobs. That's why "court cases can't be a standard" doesn't work with mass audiences.
Lets step back for a second.

We are debating 2 different things

You are advocating for what you want the world to be. And I am simply stating what the world currently is.

What you believe people should do is irrelevant to current state of the world, because as I have said with multiple examples, that isnt what they actually do. Social media harassment happens regardless of if their is a trial or not. That is a fact. So a trial wouldnt have saved this guy(which seemed to be something you were claiming as part of your point)

If he killed himself within 2 days of a post from the girl involved, then he would have done the same long before a trial was over.

Quote:
Cosby's drama took years to resolve, but it resulted in a conviction and a prison sentence. That's how it should go. (I am aware Epstein did commit suicide before going to trial, but he was criminally charged and actually did have power and privilege)
I not stating that im against involving the law, im stating that doing so doesnt stop public embarrassment.

Cosby is a key example of the flaw in the system, the number of women who named him as a rapist is near 70. All 67 didnt take him down, the one case that was still with in the statute of limitations and had already collected evidence is the one that took him down.

You can not ask people to except the judgement of an overly flawed system as the final word, and never voice their own opinions.

In short, you are operationing as if the judgement of the court is always right, thats not even close to true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 02:32 PM
 
52,744 posts, read 42,379,799 times
Reputation: 33048
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
I not stating that im against involving the law, im stating that doing so doesnt stop public embarrassment.
I hear what you are saying...but there are some really crazy people out there.

I had a friend that was once accused of molestation by some kids and was cleared because the people out to get them didn't know there was 24-hour video of the area they claimed it happened.

My other friend is a defense attorney and tells me stories of moms that want sole custody so they coach the kids to say "daddy touched me".

You get canned and that can stick with you, we're talking about white-collar in particular.

Basically, they can convert you from an IT worker, teacher or engineer into a day laborer or lawn mower in the snap of some fingers.

Most accusers are of course honest, but the public pillory and online mob-justice is not a good thing unless the justice system is turning a blind eye.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,742 posts, read 11,758,658 times
Reputation: 4403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I hear what you are saying...but there are some really crazy people out there.

I had a friend that was once accused of molestation by some kids and was cleared because the people out to get them didn't know there was 24-hour video of the area they claimed it happened.

My other friend is a defense attorney and tells me stories of moms that want sole custody so they coach the kids to say "daddy touched me".

You get canned and that can stick with you, we're talking about white-collar in particular.

Basically, they can convert you from an IT worker, teacher or engineer into a day laborer or lawn mower in the snap of some fingers.

Most accusers are of course honest, but the public pillory and online mob-justice is not a good thing unless the justice system is turning a blind eye.
I agree with everything you are saying. False accusations happen.

My point here, more or less, is that if this guy was willing to take his life based on 2 days of social media backlash, then nothing was going to stop his suicide. Going to the police(what the OP suggested) would still mean the company he worked for would have cut ties, still meant everyone found out on social media, and so on and so forth. Nothing changes for this particular case.

All that being said, I feel the OP's argument is very vague and somewhat changing which is a problem when nailing down what we are actually debating.

Are we debating social media mobs ?
Are we debating victim rights and how they cope(is it ok to out someone as an abuser) ?
Are we debating if the allegations are true ?
Are we debating his mental health and what different actions would have changed the outcome ?

At first, The OP came off as, "he is guilty, but deserved his day in court"; I had a problem with this because victims are not in my opinion ever responsible for the actions of their abusers. If you cant live with yourself because you hurt someone else, that is your problem. This does not mean I would ever support or tell someone to commit suicide, only that i would never blame a victim for telling their life story.

But now, its seems like the Op's argument has changed to "She probably lied and caused this guys death." if the latter is the case, then this is a a different argument all together.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
22,003 posts, read 14,721,337 times
Reputation: 16310
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Legal status is not a good barometer. I already stated why, but if you need another example, look at Casey Anthony.

As for the bold, that argument doesnt work here, you arent claiming you believe he is innocent.
I'm not so sure that legality is not a good barometer of guilt.

While this case isn't the same as the criminal case of Michelle Carter, the teen girl who encouraged her mentally ill boyfriend to commit suicide while she texted him on her cell phone, all the way to his death after he wanted to end the attempt, I think there are a lot of similarities.

Carter was charged and convicted of manslaughter afterward by trial. The jury found she was the one controlling life and death, and for whatever reasons of her own, chose death by cell phone for her boyfriend.

Was Carter mentally ill herself? The jury didn't think so, but it was her defense during the trial.

Mob shaming has always been part of the human condition. Mental illness has always been a part too.

When the two collide remotely, on the internet (cell phones are a part of the net), there's no personal responsibility that's accountable for the mob. Anyone can be as brutal as they wish from afar and there is nothing to stop them from the brutality.

Things are pretty cut and dried when some mentally ill person is holding a gun to head and there's someone else sitting across from them saying "Do it. Do it. Just do it." Those people went to prison for manslaughter.

Even when it's a mob standing in the street encouraging that ill person to pull the trigger, there is always someone in the mob who leads the mob. Those leaders have also have gone to prison for manslaughter.

The laws exist now. The distance of the encourager or the mob that separates the ill victim from them should make no difference in the barometer of guilt. That's what a trial by jury is for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 06:05 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,742 posts, read 11,758,658 times
Reputation: 4403
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
I'm not so sure that legality is not a good barometer of guilt.

While this case isn't the same as the criminal case of Michelle Carter, the teen girl who encouraged her mentally ill boyfriend to commit suicide while she texted him on her cell phone, all the way to his death after he wanted to end the attempt, I think there are a lot of similarities.

Carter was charged and convicted of manslaughter afterward by trial. The jury found she was the one controlling life and death, and for whatever reasons of her own, chose death by cell phone for her boyfriend.

Was Carter mentally ill herself? The jury didn't think so, but it was her defense during the trial.

Mob shaming has always been part of the human condition. Mental illness has always been a part too.

When the two collide remotely, on the internet (cell phones are a part of the net), there's no personal responsibility that's accountable for the mob. Anyone can be as brutal as they wish from afar and there is nothing to stop them from the brutality.

Things are pretty cut and dried when some mentally ill person is holding a gun to head and there's someone else sitting across from them saying "Do it. Do it. Just do it." Those people went to prison for manslaughter.

Even when it's a mob standing in the street encouraging that ill person to pull the trigger, there is always someone in the mob who leads the mob. Those leaders have also have gone to prison for manslaughter.

The laws exist now. The distance of the encourager or the mob that separates the ill victim from them should make no difference in the barometer of guilt. That's what a trial by jury is for.
Carter actively encouraged death, this women did not. She simply told the story of what happened to her which she has every right to do.

If she had told the police, the details of the story would have been public knowledge as well so im not seeing where blaming her makes any sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top