PZ Myers accuses Michael Shermer of rape.

[Calin Leafshade]

By saying that he's innocent until proven guilty, you're also saying that the woman accusing him is an evil liar, and you're dismissing her account and the accounts of the other women who came forward as not being evidence.

I am quite literally stunned that you've said that. Do you know nothing of justice?

I'm not saying he is in actual fact innocent, only the 2 involved and God know that for sure, but until he is found guilty in a court of law either by a group of his peers (or the judiciary depending on where you live) then we treat him as innocent. This is like Western Civilisation 101. I'm not implying the woman is lying I am merely assuming the default position under the law.

And the main thing that irks me is that whenever it comes to rape, some (most?) men seem to pretty much assume from the start that the allegation is false.

With a criminal offence (as opposed to a civil one) the burden of proof is upon the accuser. The allegation is false until shown otherwise. I don't care if there are rumours about shermer being a sleaze. That's not how we do things in civilised society. Why should rape be any different to any other crime?

Yes, there are some women who falsely accuse men of rape on a whim. But when absolutely nothing at all suggests that this is the case, why should we err on his side?

Because that's how western justice works. Innocent until proven guilty. I'm not on anyone's side, I'm merely suggesting the totally radical view that someone should be allowed to face their accuser in a court of law and be deemed innocent until proven otherwise. I know it's crazy! It's like I don't want to live under a medieval justice system or something.

It's easy to say "I wish things were different". Yes, the system isn't perfect. Does that mean we have to let people like Shermer get away with it (assuming for the sake of argument, that he is in fact guilty)? I don't think so.
There's always the risk of wronging someone, and sure, the US for instance has executed a lot of innocent people by now. But we can't keep letting rapists get away with it just because there wasn't a HD camera around.

What do you propose then? We start guessing? We could maybe do away with "beyond all reasonable doubt" and start going with "as long as it sort of looks plausible".

[qptain Nemo]

Your lack of logic is baffling, Khris. I don't even know where to start. The irrelevance of someone being an "evil liar" or not in the face of very real possibility of people being liars, which certainly isn't any less than the possibility of people being ("evil"?) rapists? Saying that "just because" someone wasn't proven to be guilty we shouldn't let them "get away" with it? Your intent to culturally fight rape by semi-knowingly accepting (or almost encouraging by the sound of it?) the injustice over other innocent people as some kind of noble sacrifice for the raped people? Wanting to discourage rapists and encourage liars? The idea of fighting the culture of injustice and violation by some more injustice and violation is the most baffling. This is a trainwreck of an argument. There don't have to be any compromises between liars and rapists. There must be as much justice for all as possible. And it sure as hell begins with innocent until proven guilty for all involved parties no matter what they are suspected of doing.

[Khris]

Maybe I should have made this clear from the start, but I kind of assumed it to be obvious: I am not talking of actually convicting Shermer or throwing him in prison. Of course I'm not suggesting the justice system switch to "guilty until proven innocent" when trying rape cases.

We are all aware that Shermer is never going to see an actual court room from the inside over this, so I thought it was clear that I'm talking solely about the "court of public opinion". I'm talking about the fact that if somebody asked me whether Shermer did it, I'd say without hesitation "yes, of course he did it".
Calin started this thread by asking "should women use other tactics such as potential libel and slander in order to protect themselves and others?"
And I'm answering "yes, and here's why", at least as long as he's referring to actual victims and non-libel.

Edit:
He also said, that even if PZ Myers had evidence, he shouldn't have gone public with this.
And I'm saying: bullshit, she was right to go public.

[Yeppoh]

It surely created a reaction by going public; for motivating something like discussions and - let's hope - an thorough investigation to get the bottom of that case, and to put justice where justice is due.
On the other hand the public is not the best judge out there. I might even say it's the less fair kind of judge to date.

[Myinah]

Nefasto re your censorship post I have to disagree and say asking someone to consider another view point is not censoring them, even politly.

Telling someone to shut up, or stop is an attempt at censoring, absolutely. Explaining your viewpoint to someone and asking them to take it into consideration before choosing their words is absolutely in no way censoring. The person might choose other language in the future, they were able to make an informed choice about it. That isnt censorship, no one forced anyone to change anything, the person simply took on board the view of another and chose for themselves. The person could equally take on board the information and ignore it. How has calmly explaining something become the same as censoring? 

If I took you guys to court, or started a petition or said "You can't say that or I will complain or make reports" or whatever, then yes I think that would be an attempt at censorship. But if you are saying I can't explain another viewpoint to someone because it will censor them, surely I'm being censored no? When I am not even slightly attempting that! Communication might affect a positive change in the way I hope, but that isn't censorship. Most people have the option to choose to filter their words based on their own standards of morality (which has been pointed out as flexible itt) and so if another viewpoint affects a person then they might choose to include an extra word on the think twice list. They are not obligated too, no one is forcing them, so again how is that censorship? How is someone making their own mind up not to say something based on new information censorship? I think my explanations have been calm and fair and not in the slightest aimed at censoring anyone or forcing anyone to agree with me so again it baffles me this is still being treated as such.

Seems to be a bit of a feminist/censorship strawperson in this thread.

[Yeppoh]

If I took you guys to court, or started a petition or said "You can't say that or I will complain or make reports" or whatever, then yes I think that would be an attempt at censorship. But if you are saying I can't explain another viewpoint to someone because it will censor them, surely I'm being censored no?

I believe that's one of the point I was trying to make.

Also, that post was neutral. It was general to every sides, not only one.

[Myinah]

But you said explaining my side and offering a suggestion was censorship. Unless I misunderstood. I'm asking how is it censorship? I explained why I believe it is not.

[Yeppoh]

Well, I did indeed say...

Asking for someone to be more careful to how they speak is a polite way to say to censor themselves and their emotion so they don't hurt someone else.

Which is about, for example, your side to suggest that people should be careful in choosing their words in consideration of your viewpoint.
But then I directly went to...

And asking anybody for not asking for others to be careful with their words is also censorship.

Which is about the other people's side that, for example, they don't want you to make that suggestion.
And I then went on...

And telling people who went through an hurtful/traumatic event that they have to keep it to themselves and not to share their pain/concern/etc... is also censorship.

Which is about another kind of people who simply, for example, wants you to shut up for bothering them with your problems.

That whole paragraph was describing a dilemma - about censorship and in extent free speech - by looking at three possible sides (I could go on and on with many possible other ones). It was very generallistic, also to avoid pointing fingers to anyone. Also it was a response to Khris's post where censorship was brought up; it being an easy excuse claimed by the 'dudebros' which is sadly also true. A truth that taints people who genuinely wants to bring up the topic of censorship and free speech which both also have very strong role in the debate.

As to why I consider "asking/suggesting to be careful to how someone has to speak" is a form of polite way to censor, well... How can I illustrate this?... It's like openly cursing in public. It's liberating for the guy who cursed, let's say, out of frustration. It's funny for a bunch of people. Some won't bat an eye. And it's shocking for the rest. Because I saw these offended ones I go to the guy and calmly tell him he shouldn't have done that. I'll go on and suggest that he should have thought of another way to verbally express his frustration to avoid offending the people out there. And it's a perfectly good reason at that!! One has just to be more contained for the better and happiness for the majority of the people. The intention was relatively good. But if I think about it, I've somewhat asked him to never curse like that again in public. I wasn't really considering the guy freedom to express himself the way he wanted. I only considered what he did was wrong by only looking at the offended people, at my experience and at my moral standpoint; which is my right as well. But I can't entirely say I wasn't trying to censor him with my suggestion. No matter if he was still free to listen to me or not.

And this a dilemma I try to put a spotlight on as well.

[Myinah]

So do you feel that one person is more important than the majority, even though they are still free to do as they like? I should not offer an alternative point of view just in case he changes his future actions because even though more people were upset than not upset, we can't risk the concept of one person potentially being stifled in the future for causing offence?

The rape comparison was not borne out of frustration which you use in your comparison. It was somebody sat at a computer, typing a response. I don't believe we can control emotive outbursts, but we can control what we write online because we have the time to sit here and think about what we are writing. I look at an emotive outburst and a considered response differently. If I went and corrected a person in some distress tbh I would think I was a bit of an ass. There is a time and a place to correct people on their language, when they are having a distressing emotion that elicits cursing it's not the time. I would be too concerned about what had them upset in the first place.

Also curse words are offensive to some, but are they likely to trigger a PTSD episode? Does saying "Fuck" or "Shit" trivialise the experience of a group of trauma survivors? If someone shouted the n word it would be more in line with what I was suggesting. If someone white shouted that word in public, there would be no emotive reason behind it aside from racism and so I would probably challenge him on the use of the word. I dont care if he stubbed his toe and it was the first thing that popped to mind. He can still think about it and maybe just say "FUCK"! next time. He doesn't have to do it, but he should be asked to think about it. We are talking about words upsetting to an oppressed or marginalized group for a particular reason, not just because some people find them crass.

Honestly I think this attitude is why we have seen such entitled, navel gazing turn in society with a sometimes shocking lack of empathy. It's almost like we cant possible expect people to be selfless once in a while and exert a bit of self control. Everyone is a special snowflake and it only matters if individuals are happy and saying every asinine thought that pops into their heads. An effective community does involve considering the reasonable feelings of others and sometimes compromising. Society functions better when we all agree on a certain set of rules to make life easier and more pleasant such as standing to the right on the escalators on the underground. Maybe I feel like standing on the left, but I don't because that would make me an asshole and upset a bunch of people. I could stand there, dig my heels in and piss everyone off, but I don't because it doesn't horribly inconvenience me not to do it, as it would the commuters in a hurry who would end up behind me.

Again I support anyone's right to say whatever they like, but you know I don't see expressing a response to it as censorship unless they are literally saying "You can't say that!"

I'm not suggesting we all live life under a huge list of rules, but being considerate of others is a pretty good one I think. Especially if it isn't going to really fuck up your own day. Is not comparing things to rape that are clearly nothing like rape going to totally damage someone psychologically and emotionally? I doubt it. Asking someone to think about it going to make them more aware of the choices they make and rape culture in general? I hope so because becoming more self aware is hardly a bad thing in life. Censorship is wrong, asking others to think about their actions in a thoughtful and polite way isn't wrong and in my opinion not the same.

I guess I'll just agree to disagree and leave it there. I understand you feel it is a dilemma, but to me I just don't see it. People are free to make up their own minds and say whatever they want in my book, but if thinking things through and being considerate is wrong then frankly I don't want to be right.

[Yeppoh]

Hum... The cursing guy story was an example. Not a comparison. And in no way it is related to the rape topic.
I would have said so if it was, but it wasn't. Thus I didn't. That would have been silly.

Also: One person is AS important AS the majority. The same goes that a minority is AS important AS the majority. Not more, not less. Which was my point, concerning free speech.

But thank you for your overall interpretation. That was interesting. =D

[Jared]

We are all aware that Shermer is never going to see an actual court room from the inside over this,

Actually, it's likely that he is. He's pursuing legal actions against Myers for defamation of character and I think he has a pretty good case.

Calin started this thread by asking "should women use other tactics such as potential libel and slander in order to protect themselves and others?"
And I'm answering "yes, and here's why", at least as long as he's referring to actual victims and non-libel.

This doesn't really make any sense, though. If they are an 'actual victim' can only be determined through evidence. Likewise a damaging accusation is libel unless it has facts, admissible in a court of law, to back it up. If you mean to say that this is okay as long as, as you apparently have decided in this case, the guy being accused is probably guilty I can appreciate (but not agree with) the sentiment, but surely you can see that this is totally unworkable?

It really is a good example of why our system works the way it does. Absolutism of the law has its own problems (most prominently on display in rape cases) but if you are to have a system where people are, in the eyes of the law, gauged differently under a reasoned probability of their guilt it would entrench and worsen all the prejudices that affect the justice system.

This case made me think a bit about the problem of rape and the view expressed by some that the treatment of rape cases is down to patriarchy and misogyny. They certainly rear their heads (particularly in cases here in Australia involving footballers and in the horrific Steubenville case) But I think far more so from the media and often the vox pops than anyone in an official position. I think the unfortunate nature of rape trials is down to a few factors that, if not impossible to remedy, are down to one important factor - witnesses.

The key piece of evidence in most trials are testimonies of independent witnesses. In most rape cases, they due to the nature of the crime and where it takes place. This means that we will have the testimony of the accuser and the testimony of the defendant. The contested point is generally not that sex took place (rendering DNA evidence moot) but that consent was given. This means in the majority of cases defence lawyers will tear apart the accusers testimony and portray them as a liar in court.

It is indeed unfortunate, but I think it ultimately has very little to do with sexism - it appears to because rape is generally a crime where a female is the victim due to physical differences between the sexes that should go without saying. I imagine male rape victims receive very similar treatment on the rare occasions that the case is reported and followed through to the courtroom.

[Khris]

When I said Shermer isn't going to court over this, I was referring to the rape, not the "libel".

Now, to make clear what I'm saying: if a person is the victim of a sex crime, it is a good thing to go public. There might be no witnesses, the evidence might be long gone, it might have been decades ago, but it doesn't matter. Sexual predators should be outed as such, so other potential victims are warned.
The only reason I can imagine why people would object to this: an innocent guy might get accused that way. Sure, that's a possibility. But this can always happen, and somebody who wants to falsely portrait someone else as a rapist isn't going to be stopped by people who think you shouldn't go public without evidence, right?
So what you and Calin are saying basically amounts to "dear raped people, keep your mouth shut unless you can prove it". And of the people who are going to keep shutting up because of this hostile attitude, pretty much 100% are actual victims.

Shermer's victim went public because she had kept quiet for years but had heard that other women were speaking out about open misogyny and harassment. And she used PZ to do it because his voice carries much weight, and people will rightly assume that he isn't going to do this on a whim.

[Calin Leafshade]

Let's just do away with due process altogether then shall we?
As you said, pretty much 100% are actual victims so we should probably just do away with western justice altogether.

If this were *any other* crime you'd be on our side. But the emotional component of rape is clouding your usually objective mind.

I would like to amend your inflammatory quote though to something like

"Dear everyone, don't make damaging accusations against other people unless you have evidence and are willing to defend your claims in a court of law."

To be clear, I'm not saying that false claims of rape are rampant or even common. Most studies suggest the figure to be between 2% and 10%.
However that doesn't mean we abandon our principles.

As for all the stuff about calling the alleged victim a "liar", that's simply how an adversarial legal systems works and it is like that for a very good reason.

[Khris]

I don't know why you keep misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not talking about a court of law, or due process, or innocent until proven guilty.
All I'm saying is that rape victims should not keep silent because they don't have evidence.
Note that I'm not saying "alleged rape victims". Note that I'm not saying we should believe every single rape claim and hunt down the accused. You seem to keep confusing what I'm saying with things I'm clearly not saying.

Let me put it this way: if a close friend of mine approached me, told me they were raped by person X and asked me whether they should post it on the internet to warn other potential victims, I'd tell them "yes, do it". I hope that's clear enough.
Granted, there's a very slim chance that this close friend is actually deceiving me, that there wasn't any rape, and that they're asking me just to play some sick game or whatever. In fact, a German TV personality got wrongly accused of rape years ago, immediately lost their job over it and is only now making a slow comeback with small presentation jobs. He did have a reputation as a bit of a womanizing pig though, but the girl had psychological issues and apparently it wasn't the first time she did this. So no clouds at all here, I'm aware of the risks.

But just to reiterate: I'm saying "dear rape victims, please don't keep silent, even if you can't prove what happened".
(A pedantic person might even point out that there's no possible way this could go wrong, because I'm only addressing actual victims.)

I also suggest to reread the two images on the first page.

[dactylopus]

Let me put it this way: if a close friend of mine approached me, told me they were raped by person X and asked me whether they should post it on the internet to warn other potential victims, I'd tell them "yes, do it". I hope that's clear enough.
Granted, there's a very slim chance that this close friend is actually deceiving me, that there wasn't any rape, and that they're asking me just to play some sick game or whatever.

There's also the possibility that this close friend could be taken to court for defamation of character and convicted based on their lack of evidence of the rape, which in turn does harm to them.

What we need to do is somehow remove the stigma that prevents rape victims from pursuing legal action immediately after the rape, when there is the best chance for conviction of the offender.  Acting too late, while done with the best of intentions, could result in more harm to the accuser.

I guess what I'm saying is similar to what Jared says.  I can appreciate that the intent is to warn others of a possible rape situation, but doing so openly and publicly without evidence puts you at risk of being on the wrong end of legal action.

[Calin Leafshade]

In my mind, innocent until proven guilty applies to the court of public opinion. If you aren't willing to abide by that then you should be willing to accept a defamation/libel suit in response.

As to what rape victims should do, they should speak out and go to the police.
I have exactly zero issue with women speaking out. They absolutely should but they should make formal complaints to law enforcement. This stuff is illegal and perpetrators should be brought to justice.

What is also illegal however is publishing unproven hearsay.

If a friend of mine said they had been raped by person X I would go with them to the police to file a police report rather than resorting to a popular blog. I hope that's clear enough.
Rape cases have been prosecuted *years* after the fact so it's always worth going to the police.

EDIT:

BTW the same applies to those receiving threatening communication online. Death threats are *very* illegal and it's very easy to trace a youtube comment or a blog comment. If someone fears for their safety then they should go to law enforcement.

[Jared]

When I said Shermer isn't going to court over this, I was referring to the rape, not the "libel".

The only possible defense Myers has is to successfully prosecute a case against Shermer that is deemed sufficient proof that he is a sexual predator. Unless there is a settlement outside of court it's going to get uglier than it already was.

Now, to make clear what I'm saying: if a person is the victim of a sex crime, it is a good thing to go public.

I agree. It is important that there is awareness of sexual assault and the circumstances in which it can happen.

There might be no witnesses, the evidence might be long gone, it might have been decades ago, but it doesn't matter. Sexual predators should be outed as such, so other potential victims are warned.

And this where I disagree. In principle, there is nothing objectionable about the idea but, again, it relies on somehow having 100% certainty of the veracity of a testimony.

As Calin says, false rape claims are not common. If we go with the low end of that estimate - 2%. BUT there are 250,000 cases of rape per year. That would make 2% 5,000 which is not, in my opinion, an insignificant number.

You might say - "So what? If they're innocent they can prove it!" Actually, not really. The reason we have a system of innocence-until-proven-guilty is because PROVING innocence is far more difficult than proving guilt. Think about what a presumption of guilt really means. A lack of witnesses is irrelevant. Inconsistencies of motive or testimony are also irrelevant. Evidence of the presence of somebody else on the scene is not evidence of innocence either, as that could simply be a hypothetical accomplice. Basically the only to actually PROVE innocence is if you have an iron-clad alibi.. and THAT relise on a precise time for when the crime took place.

So what you and Calin are saying basically amounts to "dear raped people, keep your mouth shut unless you can prove it". And of the people who are going to keep shutting up because of this hostile attitude, pretty much 100% are actual victims.

Not at all. I have seen several people (in other fora, not here, obviously) accuse the story emailed to Myers of sounding fishy, using weasel words, etc. I dislike this point of view because just as Michael Shermer is entitled to a presumption of innocence this anonymous lady is entitled a fair, neutral hearing of her account. The best way of handling everything, though, was to go through the proper authorities and due process - if it happened as described it was abominable that conference organizers ignored her account, but it should have been reported to police right away. If the accusations were found to have basis those same organizers would be in the firing lines to get sued to Hell and back and I think that would have sent a much more palpable message about rape culture than this blog post has so far.

Obviously, this did not happen. But this doesn't mean she isn't allowed to speak up - she has the right to discreetly advise those of her contacts she feels need to know about Shermer's behaviour. This may have been why she contacted Myers in fact, and may have trusted him to handle things more discreetly himself.

Shermer's victim went public because she had kept quiet for years but had heard that other women were speaking out about open misogyny and harassment. And she used PZ to do it because his voice carries much weight, and people will rightly assume that he isn't going to do this on a whim.

What I have read suggests that he has done this out of gut instinct rather than any true certainty involving the details of the alleged sexual assault. Whether that's better or worse than doing so on a whim is up to the beholder, I guess.

[WHAM]

[Snarky]

I haven't weighed in on this before, but my take is that if someone has been raped by a known individual, they have a moral right (and perhaps even a moral duty to potential future victims) to publicly make that accusation, even if they cannot prove it. Of course, the public must then weigh the lack of evidence and the overall credibility of the claims, and should adhere to the principle of innocent until proven guilty in their official treatment of the accused (though anyone can of course take whatever attitude they want in private and in social contexts).

However, I think it's much more problematic if an accuser makes the accusations anonymously, or has someone else (who wasn't a first-hand witness and therefore cannot have complete certainty in the claims) go forward with them. The principle of an accused having a right to face their accuser is more relevant here than innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't necessarily mean a right to a personal confrontation, but that accusations be made detailed, specific and definite enough that there's a chance of disproving them, which has to include the identity of the alleged victim.

Anonymous accusations are an odious thing: easy to make with, impossible to refute, impossible to convince others to ignore, and trapping the accused in a Kafkaesque maze of suspicion and guilt (we all have something to feel guilty about). And false anonymous accusations are made, regularly, because there's no cost and almost no risk to the accuser. (The author James Lasdun has written a book about his experience with a stalker who spread anonymous/pseudonymous poison pen letters all over the internet, as well as to his colleagues and friends; he vividly describes it in this article.)

[SSH]

There's also the possibility that this close friend could be taken to court for defamation of character and convicted based on their lack of evidence of the rape, which in turn does harm to them.

Of course, civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal. So the whole "innocent until proven guilty" can be replaced by "on the balance of probabilities".