I have a great plan! How about this: setup and email server. Have the response to HELO be: Do not send an email to this server. Under the CFAA this will be a violation of blah blah blah. Then use the server to send an email to all of Congress. Wait for the canned intern response and slap them all with violating the CFAA! That would be hilarious. Most definitely would not work, but oh well...
Man, can you imagine how awesome it would be when you bench, the table in front of you and every object in the room is the booming voice of the judge? I mean seriously, I am considering dropping my current career and running off to law-school just so I can have such god-like powers!
Wait, does that mean LucasArt went bankrupt before they allowed George Lucas to mess up episodes 4-6 or have the idea of filming episodes 1-3? That's amazing!
"Read section 46:Slander. Charging someone falsely of a crime, in this instance rape, is slander."
OK. That means for a slander conviction to be obtained one has to prove slander which means proving the crime to be false. It is therefore up to the accuser to show that the woman lied. The woman who said she was raped is not guilty until proven innocent despite what you are trying to say.
"Since it has not been proven that the agent has committed rape, this accusation is legally false."
Actually no. Since the crime has not been proven what that means is the agent is not in jail and is not guilty of rape. It does not mean she has not committed rape. Given that no court has ruled on whether rape has occured or not, the facts of this case are legally in limbo being neither proved true nor false.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
"Really? So if someone accuses you of rape and you say, "No I didn't" and take legal action to put an end to the false (in your eyes) accusation it should just be summarily ignored based entirely on the account of the accuser?"
That's not what I said. What I said is that your accuser has to prove that you were committing defamation (which includes showing that you were lying) in order for you to be guilty of defamation in just the same way as the prosecution has to prove you guilty of rape in order for you to be guilty of rape. A defamation case failing does not in and of itself mean the facts stated by the defenders were true. It just means defamation was not proved.
"So a non-sworn statement of a person accusing someone of rape, who, after being raped, merely took down the name of her attacker without ever filing a police report is considered fact? Seriously?"
Actually yes. It might be an alleged fact only, it might be a false fact. But it is still a fact because that's what we call the subject of factual statements.
"Not contested? Seeking a lawyer on grounds of defamation seems like a pretty good example of contesting."
From reading the letter, it does not appear that she is contesting the facts. It appears she is contesting the woman describing the facts as "rape". That is not contesting the facts. That is contesting the opinion.
"But hey. The TSA agent is a TSA agent. She MUST be guilty. Let's summarily take her rights away because this other woman isn't a TSA agent and therefore her word is FACT."
You know, as much as that is not what I was saying here, that would not bother me too much. The TSA does have official procedures that involve violating people's constitutional rights and overall being pretty awful. So given the fact that the courts are ok with the TSA violating our fundamental rights, I don't see much of a problem with justice coming from outside of the judicial system in the form of TSA agents being universally reviled.
"Your claim that sexually assaulting people is policy is simply an outright falsehood. It's an attempt to characterize a a search as a sexual act. These TSA agents, despite what you want to believe, are not doing this for sexual reasons. And they are only touching those who consent to the search."
Actually, it is possible to sexually assault someone without doing so for sexual reasons. As for consenting to the search, that claim is absurd. Those people have consented to flying on an aircraft. The government has decided that consenting to flying on a commercial aircraft is equivalent to consenting to a search. So no, those people have not actually consented to such a search.
"You can do nothing. We do not have to prove our claims. You used a torrent, you are assumed guilty. Tough luck. You should have known better than to use a torrent."
Actually there is something that I can do. I can prove that what you said was wrong. I can prove that you have no evidence whatsoever that corroborates the facts that you allege.
A more accurate comparison would be: You commit copyright infringement. Hundreds of people see you and you admit to having committed copyright infringement. The RIAA issues a press release calling you a "thief" but never sues because they don't believe they would recover enough to make up for the cost of trial. Are we suing the RIAA for inaccurate use of legal terminology?
This is not something that could be interpreted as a euphemism for being groped.'
Given the fact that rape is used as a euphemism for just about any and all perceived personal violations, that is clearly something that could be interpreted as a euphemism for being groped.
"It was a very clear and distinct accusation of a crime."
Her blog post clearly described the events which she said happened and she called the actions of the TSA agent "rape". As such, she did not make a "very clear and distinct accusation of a crime" any more than liberals make a "very clear and distinct accusation of a crime" when they say Republicans are "raping" Obama. The only thing that matters here is not whether "rape" was legally constituted and proved in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt. What matters for the purposes of the defamation lawsuit is whether the specific acts that the woman accused the TSA agent of are shown to be false or not.
"If I am accused of rape I do not have to prove I didn't rape someone in order to prove defamation. In the U.S. innocence is assumed until guilt is proven."
You are contradicting yourself. If what you said was true, then the person saying that you raped them would be guilty of defamation until they proved themselves to be innocent by proving your guilt. That would of course be an absurd and unconstitutional situation and that is thankfully not how the justice system works.
"It wouldn't matter if the TSA agent actually didn't even touch them."
Actually that's not true. If you are actually lying about the facts, that is in fact defamation. If you are calling "rape" what the law calls something else, that is not defamation.
"If the person does not have to to prove anything truly happened to them, then they could just accuse everyone they wanted to of rape."
You know, just because the crime of which you are accused is accusing someone else of a crime does not reverse the presumption of innocence. If I am prosecuted for defaming a TSA agent and accusing them of rape, I am also presumed innocent during the proceeding and it is up to the prosecutor to prove that I did not tell the truth. Think about how silly what you are proposing is: If I take the stand and say that someone did something illegal and that person is not convicted, I would then have to prove that I did not lie on the stand.
'"A woman who is undergoing a TSA screening does not have the ability to tell the other party to stop."
Citation needed.'
Yeap, she has same ability to tell the other party to stop as the secretary has the ability to tell her boss to stop when he starts groping her. Rape is clearly a commonly accepted description of the events that woman is describing. It's not the legal description and so the agent will probably not be convicted, but that doesn't make what that woman said slander. Please consider what you are saying for an instant. According to what you are saying, if a woman says somebody raped her, she files charges and the rapist is not convicted due to insufficient evidence, she would then be guilty of both slander and libel. There is no way that passes the First Amendment sniff test.
"Making accusations against the specific agent publicly is not the right way to make a stand. It changes nothing, and will likely put yourself in legal troubles."
Of course it changes something. That agent's life is most likely quite shaken up as it should be.
"It also means she too can be accused of a crime, slander. And it also means she can be taken to court. And it also means she could be convicted of slander."
Of course. Anything can happen. But we are not discussing the wild hypotheticals that the universe might provide. We are talking about the merits of the defamation case. And in this case, it is quite likely that the case does not have much merit.
So can she be accused of slander? Absolutely. Is her action likely to result in her being convicted for slander? Pretty darn unlikely. That woman did not disseminate false information because in common parlance, what she went through can indeed be called rape. Because of that it is pretty darn unlikely that a defamation suit will go anywhere. Whether she presses charges or not and whether the agent is convicted or not is irrelevant.
"Yes I read the lawyer's take. However that is not a conviction."
That's entirely besides the point. The lawyer was pointing out precedent where someone had called something rape even though it was not legally rape. The point being made is not that the agent raped someone as it is defined by the law. The whole point is that you can indeed use the word rape outside of the context of a rape as the law defines it. Conviction is not necessary.
"Where does this understanding that TSA agents can do whatever they want no matter how dispicable those actions are come from? Is there some sort of evidence that this is the case?"
Well, that's not what I said. What I said is that most likely in this case, that agent will not be sanctioned in any way and that if the victim's description is accurate, the TSA agent's actions were despicable. The reaction of the TSA to previous scandals is what leads me to believe that the TSA agent will not suffer any consequences.
"Despite what others say, I don't believe that all TSA agents are pervs and pedophiles either."
Of course they are not pervs and pedophiles. They are just following orders and going on power trips. Not pervs and pedophiles but still bad people.
That's a bit of a different situation than what we have here because the facts don't appear to be contested. The agent apparently did not contest that she touched that woman's genitals. What the agent is contesting is that it was "rape". As it turns out when it comes to defamation, that is irrelevant because defamation is concerned with false facts, not legally inaccurate language.
When the RIAA says that people are guilty of "content theft", that is not true because it is instead copyright infringement. When unions or politicians say that immigrants are "stealing" jobs, that is not true in the legal sense. However, none of these people are guilty of defamation.
If it turns out that the victim was lying all along and that the TSA agent gave her an appropriate pat-down which did not involve repeated touching of the vagina in a particularly distasteful way, then the TSA agent would have a case. But if all the TSA agent is complaining about is that "rape" is not the technical and legal definition of what she did, then she has no defamation case.
Have you read the precedent her lawyer cited? Apparently, some minor property rights violation can be called rape in public discourse with no consequences. Someone touching your genitals without your consent is definitely closer to actually being rape than minor property rights violations.
Hm... Innocent until proven guilty is a rule for evidence and conviction in criminal cases. All that it means is that the burden of proof in a criminal trial rests upon the prosecution. It does not mean you can't be accused of committing a crime until proven in a court of law.
I'm flying Friday night for the first time since the TSA started its mandatory sexual assault program. I'm suddenly wondering what I can do that won't get me arrested or won't make me miss my flight. I'm wondering what apparently innocuous subject of conversation would make the agent the most uncomfortable. Perhaps discussing his wife and kids. Perhaps a comment along the lines of: "I think people are complaining so much about these searches because they feel insecure in their sexuality. I don't have such a problem and really don't mind a guy touching my genitals. I mean, you're not getting aroused are you? And even if you did, you're a fairly good looking guy... haha."
"So now every time I grind with a woman on the dance floor at a club should I be concerned that she might accuse me of raping her?"
Let's see. Was the woman in question consenting to said grinding? If no, they yes, you are probably guilty of sexual assault. If she is consenting, then you are fine.
On the post: Congress Debating If Putting A Fake Name On Facebook Should Be A Felony
On the post: Federal Courts Making It More Expensive To Access Records, Even As They're Swimming In Cash
Man, can you imagine how awesome it would be when you bench, the table in front of you and every object in the room is the booming voice of the judge? I mean seriously, I am considering dropping my current career and running off to law-school just so I can have such god-like powers!
On the post: Federal Courts Making It More Expensive To Access Records, Even As They're Swimming In Cash
Re:
On the post: Hollywood Accounting: Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
OK. That means for a slander conviction to be obtained one has to prove slander which means proving the crime to be false. It is therefore up to the accuser to show that the woman lied. The woman who said she was raped is not guilty until proven innocent despite what you are trying to say.
"Since it has not been proven that the agent has committed rape, this accusation is legally false."
Actually no. Since the crime has not been proven what that means is the agent is not in jail and is not guilty of rape. It does not mean she has not committed rape. Given that no court has ruled on whether rape has occured or not, the facts of this case are legally in limbo being neither proved true nor false.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
That's not what I said. What I said is that your accuser has to prove that you were committing defamation (which includes showing that you were lying) in order for you to be guilty of defamation in just the same way as the prosecution has to prove you guilty of rape in order for you to be guilty of rape. A defamation case failing does not in and of itself mean the facts stated by the defenders were true. It just means defamation was not proved.
"So a non-sworn statement of a person accusing someone of rape, who, after being raped, merely took down the name of her attacker without ever filing a police report is considered fact? Seriously?"
Actually yes. It might be an alleged fact only, it might be a false fact. But it is still a fact because that's what we call the subject of factual statements.
"Not contested? Seeking a lawyer on grounds of defamation seems like a pretty good example of contesting."
From reading the letter, it does not appear that she is contesting the facts. It appears she is contesting the woman describing the facts as "rape". That is not contesting the facts. That is contesting the opinion.
"But hey. The TSA agent is a TSA agent. She MUST be guilty. Let's summarily take her rights away because this other woman isn't a TSA agent and therefore her word is FACT."
You know, as much as that is not what I was saying here, that would not bother me too much. The TSA does have official procedures that involve violating people's constitutional rights and overall being pretty awful. So given the fact that the courts are ok with the TSA violating our fundamental rights, I don't see much of a problem with justice coming from outside of the judicial system in the form of TSA agents being universally reviled.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
Actually, it is possible to sexually assault someone without doing so for sexual reasons. As for consenting to the search, that claim is absurd. Those people have consented to flying on an aircraft. The government has decided that consenting to flying on a commercial aircraft is equivalent to consenting to a search. So no, those people have not actually consented to such a search.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
Actually there is something that I can do. I can prove that what you said was wrong. I can prove that you have no evidence whatsoever that corroborates the facts that you allege.
A more accurate comparison would be: You commit copyright infringement. Hundreds of people see you and you admit to having committed copyright infringement. The RIAA issues a press release calling you a "thief" but never sues because they don't believe they would recover enough to make up for the cost of trial. Are we suing the RIAA for inaccurate use of legal terminology?
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Defense is Grasping
This is not something that could be interpreted as a euphemism for being groped.'
Given the fact that rape is used as a euphemism for just about any and all perceived personal violations, that is clearly something that could be interpreted as a euphemism for being groped.
"It was a very clear and distinct accusation of a crime."
Her blog post clearly described the events which she said happened and she called the actions of the TSA agent "rape". As such, she did not make a "very clear and distinct accusation of a crime" any more than liberals make a "very clear and distinct accusation of a crime" when they say Republicans are "raping" Obama. The only thing that matters here is not whether "rape" was legally constituted and proved in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt. What matters for the purposes of the defamation lawsuit is whether the specific acts that the woman accused the TSA agent of are shown to be false or not.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are contradicting yourself. If what you said was true, then the person saying that you raped them would be guilty of defamation until they proved themselves to be innocent by proving your guilt. That would of course be an absurd and unconstitutional situation and that is thankfully not how the justice system works.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re:
Actually that's not true. If you are actually lying about the facts, that is in fact defamation. If you are calling "rape" what the law calls something else, that is not defamation.
"If the person does not have to to prove anything truly happened to them, then they could just accuse everyone they wanted to of rape."
You know, just because the crime of which you are accused is accusing someone else of a crime does not reverse the presumption of innocence. If I am prosecuted for defaming a TSA agent and accusing them of rape, I am also presumed innocent during the proceeding and it is up to the prosecutor to prove that I did not tell the truth. Think about how silly what you are proposing is: If I take the stand and say that someone did something illegal and that person is not convicted, I would then have to prove that I did not lie on the stand.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed.'
Yeap, she has same ability to tell the other party to stop as the secretary has the ability to tell her boss to stop when he starts groping her. Rape is clearly a commonly accepted description of the events that woman is describing. It's not the legal description and so the agent will probably not be convicted, but that doesn't make what that woman said slander. Please consider what you are saying for an instant. According to what you are saying, if a woman says somebody raped her, she files charges and the rapist is not convicted due to insufficient evidence, she would then be guilty of both slander and libel. There is no way that passes the First Amendment sniff test.
"Making accusations against the specific agent publicly is not the right way to make a stand. It changes nothing, and will likely put yourself in legal troubles."
Of course it changes something. That agent's life is most likely quite shaken up as it should be.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Of course. Anything can happen. But we are not discussing the wild hypotheticals that the universe might provide. We are talking about the merits of the defamation case. And in this case, it is quite likely that the case does not have much merit.
So can she be accused of slander? Absolutely. Is her action likely to result in her being convicted for slander? Pretty darn unlikely. That woman did not disseminate false information because in common parlance, what she went through can indeed be called rape. Because of that it is pretty darn unlikely that a defamation suit will go anywhere. Whether she presses charges or not and whether the agent is convicted or not is irrelevant.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
That's entirely besides the point. The lawyer was pointing out precedent where someone had called something rape even though it was not legally rape. The point being made is not that the agent raped someone as it is defined by the law. The whole point is that you can indeed use the word rape outside of the context of a rape as the law defines it. Conviction is not necessary.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Well, that's not what I said. What I said is that most likely in this case, that agent will not be sanctioned in any way and that if the victim's description is accurate, the TSA agent's actions were despicable. The reaction of the TSA to previous scandals is what leads me to believe that the TSA agent will not suffer any consequences.
"Despite what others say, I don't believe that all TSA agents are pervs and pedophiles either."
Of course they are not pervs and pedophiles. They are just following orders and going on power trips. Not pervs and pedophiles but still bad people.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
When the RIAA says that people are guilty of "content theft", that is not true because it is instead copyright infringement. When unions or politicians say that immigrants are "stealing" jobs, that is not true in the legal sense. However, none of these people are guilty of defamation.
If it turns out that the victim was lying all along and that the TSA agent gave her an appropriate pat-down which did not involve repeated touching of the vagina in a particularly distasteful way, then the TSA agent would have a case. But if all the TSA agent is complaining about is that "rape" is not the technical and legal definition of what she did, then she has no defamation case.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re:
Let's see. Was the woman in question consenting to said grinding? If no, they yes, you are probably guilty of sexual assault. If she is consenting, then you are fine.
Next >>