Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

it does really bother me, though, that the filmmakers made their film in what appears to be bad faith. (that or they simply lied about doing "fact-checking" on the cases they highlight.)

even the title of the film seems sensationalistic, it calls to mind the opening scene of "halloween" or one of those "slumber party massacre" movies.

oh yeah, i don't think that all these cases turn out to be problematic bc all rape accusations are lies. i think that the focus on sensational stories to dramatize hasn't done activists any favors, especially when one of the primary memes of activists is that false accusations are practically non-existent - it makes it more dramatic when a particular sensational story turns out to be false (or at the very least 'debatable').

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/the-supreme-court-just-made-online-harassment-a-little-bit-easier

People tend to dismiss 'non-sensational' rape out of hand.

It's a catch-22. If it's someone she knew, well, probably not rape. If violence wasn't involved, well, probably not rape. Had both been drinking a bit, well, probably not rape. No drinking, violence, someone unknown, huh, that sounds way too sensational, probably not rape.

Every single rape is 'debatable'. Outside of police shootings, it must be the hardest crime to prove.

police shootings aren't hard to prove

sorry missed your sarcasm. you're right, it's hard to get indictments in police shootings due to procedural norms/police being protected somewhat

This is bullshit:

Consequently, the researchers and activists who have tried have put this figure all over the map, from a fraction of a percent to as high as 40 percent.

Vox had an article on that a few days back: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8687479/lie-rape-statistics The paper that gives 41% is pretty much eviscerated in that article - the small police prescint the study examined put all accusers through a polygraph, something that should not be done with trauma victims, which probably led to data 'flawed' to a fucked up extent. Why would the writer throw out all the 'flawed' data on the prevalence of campus rape, but then say we should look at 'flawed' data on fake rape allegations? Oh, I know, because the article is a worthless piece of crap.

idk if eviscerated is the right word:

One influential study from the 1990s found that in a Midwestern police department, 41 percent of rape claims were found to be false. But the department asked anyone claiming to have been raped to take a polygraph test to prove it — which is strongly discouraged when dealing with potential trauma victims. (The department's policy was to categorize a rape as false only if the accuser recanted, but the threat of the polygraph test could have induced victims to back out.)

oy: http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/783-op-ed-why-is-violence-against-women-excusable-if-its-art/

i've read that kanin study and it seemed to have a bunch of holes in it but it's been a while

like the guy was using it to make a [possibly bad] point about how there's a lot of variance but it doesn't go at all to his point that there are a striking number of public big media cases that have turned out to be false, or disputible. if anything, for that argument, he'd prefer a much lower number since that would make it all the more strange that there are these duke lacrosse, rolling stone "jackie," Willingham, cases. if 41 percent were correct (which is obv isn't) you'd have a good explanation - it's practically 50/50 whether the case you're discussing is true. but he's arguing that false rape accusations /are/ very rare, and they show up more often in these sensationalist stories bc of other factors.

No, he is not arguing they are 'very rare'. He says that it's 'much more common than almost never', which seems to be somewhat more than 2-8% which seems to be the consensus. That is the second worst piece of bullshit. The worst is obviously him saying that witnesses are more trustworthy if they are 'reluctant'. Which is some catch 22 bullshit, ie, the only trustworthy victim is someone who shuts up about it. It's a disgusting article, is what it is.

Also, including the Rolling Stone story as a proof of bad activism? Isn't it more media sensationalism? I remember even the earliest commentary I read on that case had people lamenting that it was bad journalism, even if the story turned out to be true. Which it didn't.

there was a lot of pushback on early critics of the piece, cf http://jezebel.com/is-the-uva-rape-story-a-gigantic-hoax-asks-idiot-1665233387/

i think this reason is the most likely:

A third possibility was suggested by the Columbia School of Journalism’s report on the Rolling Stone story.

Last July 8, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a writer for Rolling Stone, telephoned Emily Renda, a rape survivor working on sexual assault issues as a staff member at the University of Virginia. Erdely said she was searching for a single, emblematic college rape case that would show “what it’s like to be on campus now … where not only is rape so prevalent but also that there’s this pervasive culture of sexual harassment/rape culture,” according to Erdely’s notes of the conversation.

In other words, there’s a strong desire to find the “emblematic” case, one that checks off all the right boxes — a sympathetic victim, a privileged attacker, an indifferent administration, and so on. Real life doesn’t usually produce such clean-cut cases. So there may be an urge to bend stories to make them more sympathetic, more universal and more likely to generate outrage. Probably more to the point, this desire to seek out the perfect poster case may also make activists and their sympathizers in the press more credulous and less willing to ask questions when a story that appears to fit the bill does come along, as Jackie’s story did. For activists and sympathetic journalists alike, there’s a strong incentive to want to see a promising story (i.e. “promising” in terms of its potential to generate change) in the most favorable light, and with that, a proclivity to overlook the red flags.

It's a catch-22. If it's someone she knew, well, probably not rape. If violence wasn't involved, well, probably not rape. Had both been drinking a bit, well, probably not rape. No drinking, violence, someone unknown, huh, that sounds way too sensational, probably not rape.

Every single rape is 'debatable'. Outside of police shootings, it must be the hardest crime to prove.

― Frederik B, Tuesday, June 2, 2015 4:03 PM (53 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's true. the question is: what is your solution to this? it can't be to always believe the alleged victim, because whatever the occurrence of false claims (be it 0.000000001% or 10%) there has to be some standard of evidence and protection of the accused. unless you are willing to throw that out.

the problem raised in the film is that even after both harvard and the police department conducted thorough investigations and a trial (all of which is misrepresented in the film), the alleged victim is unsatisfied. but what new policies does she--or do the filmmakers--want to be put in place that would remedy the situation to their satisfaction?

How many of the cases of campus speech and academic freedom turn out to be different than originally reported? That dude who was thrown out of class for 'questioning rape statistics' then got arrested. The professor who had tenure revoked for 'blogging critically' about a colleague turned out to have received warnings before, and to have started campaigns against colleagues involving death threats. The recent Kipnis story also had pretty significant wrinkles. But does anyone write about this? Does anyone write that we shouldn't believe professors complaining about 'political correctness'? Because, complaining about it so much makes it much harder to get rid of real political correctness.

Fuck no. It's always rape we talk about to much. Or racism. Or harassment. Wonder why the fuck that is?

Bc no one ever goes to jail for infringing freedom of speech

No, they just receive death threats and the like.

Also, wtf at looking on rape vs infringing freedom of speech, and saying the difference is with the experience of the perpetrator?

I prefer lbi can we have lbi back pls

Fred I don't know if this idiom is popular where you are but this formulation is I think broadly agreed upon: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Frederik, people talk about /all/ of the things you're writing about. How do you know about them in the first place?

Also, wtf at looking on rape vs infringing freedom of speech, and saying the difference is with the experience of the perpetrator?

― Frederik B, Tuesday, June 2, 2015 5:24 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i have no idea what you are trying to argue here. clarify?

also, Frederik, you might want to take a step back from this for a moment. you are invoking a lot of straw men. nobody here has said that we talk about rape "too much." or that we talk about racism "too much." (i don't recall this conversation even addressing race issues for quite some time.) i /thought/ we were talking about the process by which accusations of rape are adjudicated (and otherwise handled) on campus.

i should qualify -- rape /and/ sexual assault.

No, amateurist, you take a fucking step back. And read what the fuck we're talking about, instead of insinuating I'm hysterical or some other typical bullshit. The story Mordy posted ends like this: Every high-profile story that crumbles under scrutiny reinforces the perception that false accusations are common. And that only makes it more difficult to hold the real assailants accountable. I would say my post about professor-stories is pretty much like that ending. I've been raging about that piece of shit story for a few posts here, stop attacking me for not talking enough about you.

i actually do not understand what you're writing about -- what you are arguing. so i don't know if you are being "hysterical" (your word, not mine) but what you are not being is clear.

i'm not sure what occasioned the accusatory, profane tone of your recent comments. maybe you have some beef w/ mordy that predates what's been written recently on this thread. i don't want to wade into that. i'll bow out for the time being.

Also, Mordy, we have that idiom in Denmark as well, but that wasn't what I was writing about, I was writing about the horrific experience of victims. So the more precise question would be, how many women do you think should be raped instead of an innocent to suffer? And, wtf, aren't they innocents as well?

But don't answer. It's a bullshit question. But it's a bullshit idiom you invoked in this context.

maybe you have some beef w/ mordy that predates what's been written recently on this thread

hmm ya think

How can I be more clear? Let me try ALLCAPS: THE STORY MORDY POSTED IS A WORTHLESS PIECE OF CRAP AND IT PISSES ME OFF!!!

Clear enough for you? It's not what is being written on this thread, it's what's being linked to.

yelling always improves a situation

"So the more precise question would be, how many women do you think should be raped instead of an innocent to suffer?"

You realize this is insane.

when did you stop beating your wife etc.

i think the issue of the rights of the accused is relevant. i have no problem believing that in 99 out of 100 cases they are guilty, but still, false accusations aren't impossible. legally how do you deal with that dilemma without lowering the burden of proof to the point where the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard isn't violated?

i realize that is a banal way of phrasing this issue because it deals with it like this debate is happening in a "vacuum," but still, what is the way around this dilemma? the university one is to have a lower burden of proof (preponderance of evidence) to justify expulsion, which is less severe than being found criminally responsible. do you think that's the way to go? (i think it might be.) but where does that leave victims who aren't students? should civil damages be awarded more frequently or something like that? how do they deal with this in denmark?

it's basically a sneaky way of saying that some crimes are so heinous that we should ignore the rights of the accused. i don't think you really believe that, but maybe you do. idk.

What I'm saying is this isn't solely a legal issue, so the idiom is invalid.

I ask about a difference between how we talk about rape and infringing on free speech.

You answer: Because people guilty of rape go to jail.

Right, but people who are raped are raped, that's another pretty big difference. Which clearly is less important to you, than that people go to jail.

So how many rape-victims add up to on innocent in jail?

It's still a bullshit question, though.

Sorry 'accused of rape', not 'guilty'.

"So how many rape-victims add up to on innocent in jail?"

So you are actually arguing that we should lower the standard of evidence for the accused because you feel it will add to deterrence?

No.

Or because it'll get more potential future offenders off the streets? I wonder if you've thought about this argument about any other crimes. I can't imagine you would believe that the solution to reducing crime is to jail people w/ less evidence than we already do.

How many murder victims add up to one innocent in jail?

It becomes instantly nonsensical.

Try and engage with what I actually just wrote, Mordy. It might be less nonsensical than just making shit up.

Like, how do you respond to What I'm saying is this isn't solely a legal issue, so the idiom is invalid with I wonder if you've thought about this argument about any other crimes?

how is this not solely a legal issue - certainly it's primarily a legal issue

So what is it that you're arguing for? That society as a public forum becomes more sensitive to rape stories but it leads to no legal changes? So do you think that these university cases are mistakes since they change actual policy to be more balanced against the accused, but in general media shaming is a good thing? I don't understand what your argument is.

fredb its a bit much to expect ppl to mentally c&p the bits of yr erm yr eh yr 'arguments' I guess, that you want treated seriously when theres eh theres well theres a good bit of uh chaff in there and uh you uh you well you dont appear to read anything the ppl you are talking to have posted

Frederik is fundamentally right that the piece is awful. Every case of acquaintance rape that is not investigated properly is going to be debatable, just as every police shooting, which seems to be Balko's main beat, is going to be "debatable". Quite frequently they are "debatable" because they are not properly investigated and the ones that make the media have people lining up to debunk.

Writing an article about why a couple of high profile cases might have been the wrong ones to lead with is one thing, writing it with tossed out speculation on what the number of 'actual' rapes is, what his gut feeling on the number of false allegations is and mischaracterisation of the core arguments of activists is clearly in bad faith.

The objective isn't to fundamentally change the law, it's to ensure that the law saying sex without consent is rape is applied without prejudice to the victim.