I read the article about the man who refused once it began. An agent tried to coerce him with a threat of a civil suit. From his blog:
"I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, "then I'm leaving". He replied, "then we'll bring a civil suit against you", to which I said, "you bring that suit" and walked out of the airport."
I am unable to find policy that states if you refuse to undergo the screening and choose to leave you will be arrested. The TSA agent in the example asserted claims that were untrue. I could not find a report where the man was sued either.
I have never stated I support the searches. In fact I have repeatedly stated the opposite. I have been a strong civil libertarian for most of my life. If people are being forced against their will to be searched, these people need to be filing civil rights violation lawsuits.
My point related to your post is the TSA agent also has rights. The woman accusing her of rape has done so in a defamatory way. She should file criminal charges, submit her evidence and allow the TSA agent her defense.
But spreading lies that she is a rapist despite never even being charged with rape, and then suggesting that she has no rights to sue the accuser is ludicrous.
This is a destructive road. The stance you take because it seems on the surface to be against the TSA and their agents is actually a stance against your own rights. The ones you deny the agent will eventually denied to you.
You do not fight the destruction of the Constitution by tearing off your own piece of it in retaliation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
"This woman did not lie as far as we know, and no one is saying she is."
By claiming she is being defamed, that is pretty much saying the agent is calling the woman a liar. She hasn't answered to anything more specific because, get this...she hasn't been charged with a crime.
If she hasn't even been charged with rape, calling her a rapist is defamatory. The accusation affects her job. It affects her safety.
Do you really believe that stripping the TSA agent's rights based on unverified, unquestioned accusations of someone won't one day come back to haunt you? Isn't your stance of stripping the rights of the agent no better than what the TSA is doing to us with the illegal searches in the first place?
Do you not see that your view only further erodes your own rights? Or are you so blinded by the accusation and your own dislike of the TSA that you are willing to help them along by throwing away more citizen's rights?
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?
Forget your day in court. What she said happened exactly as she said it. It doesn't matter that she didn't have any evidence other than her testimony.
That's a bit of a different situation than what we have here because the facts don't appear to be contested
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?
Not contested? Seeking a lawyer on grounds of defamation seems like a pretty good example of contesting.
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.
Our country is is where it is because people like you believe the rights of others can be suspended and superseded for the rights of someone else.
But remember, when that day comes and you are accused of a crime falsely, it doesn't matter. You did it because you were accused.
In Gold v. Harrison, 962 P.2d 353 (Haw. 1998), cert denied, 526 U.S. 1018 (1999), the Hawai’i Supreme Court held that a defendant’s characterization of his neighbors’ seeking an easement in his backyard as “raping [the defendant]” was not defamatory. This speech was protected as rhetorical hyperbole
The problem with this, is there was no rhetorical hyperbole in this statement. She accused the defendant with a direct crime. No "literary license" was taken here. It's a straight up accusation of sexual rape. This is covered clearly in California civil code:
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 46: Slander
46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,convicted, or punished for crime;
2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,
profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits
She is falsely charging the agent with a crime. She isn't using metaphor, she isn't being poetic. This is not free speech, this is slander. Slander is not protected speech and is prohibited in California.
I say falsely because the agent has not been proven guilty. She hasn't even been legally charged with a crime. Making an accusation, even if you believe that accusation to be true personally, does not make it true for the rest of the world.
You simply cannot try to destroy the life of someone because you "feel" like you have been wronged. If you are raped or assaulted, you take them to court, present the evidence and seek a conviction.
If this is not considered slander, then any person can accuse someone else of rape with absolutely no proof whatsoever. Should someone who is unhappy with you be allowed to spread lies about you? Should they be able to tell everyone you are a rapist. Should they be allowed to publish accusations that you are a rapist online where everyone can read them?
Without slander laws holding people accountable for what they state as fact, you cannot stop them. You have no choice but to let your reputation and your career be destroyed.
Remember the Duke Lacrosse team? Do you remember all the torment they went through before it was finally revealed that they were falsely accused?
Every person deserves the right to defend themselves in court.
I believe the woman who claimed she was raped has the same rights. But her rights do not trump the agent's rights. If the agent committed a crime, she should be held accountable.
If the accuser has committed slander, she too, should be held accountable. I see a lot of bias against TSA agents and a lot of unsupported claims. I really expect more from the Techdirt community to be honest.
I do not believe the searches are legal. If you don't, then do not consent. If that means you don't fly, then don't fly. Nobody ever said that standing up for your rights was easy.
I don't think most of the TSA agents are bad people. Certainly there are some on power trips and certainly there are some that go beyond what they should. Those who do should have their actions prosecuted. If you just cop out and say "well it won't work, the courts suck" etc. then you are responsible for allowing it to continue just as much as the TSA agents are for just "dong their jobs". You both accept it and refuse to question.
Authority is not some magical force. Authority is given by the people. YOU. You as citizens bestow authority and you as citizens can revoke it.
Stop electing people to office that choose to violate your rights. Stop electing people to office that want to trample on the Constitution. Stop accepting that you have to just go along. Stand up. Speak out. Educate people. Let them know they do have a say in their government.
I apologize for repeating myself so much :) I just hate seeing smart people with a mob mentality. I hate seeing people willing to strip the rights of others in order to give them to someone else. When the truth is, we ALL have the same rights. Taking rights away from anyone, even someone you don't like only hurts us all.
"because in common parlance, what she went through can indeed be called rape"
Correction
because in common parlance, what she claims she went through can indeed be called rape
You do understand that an accusation has to be proven to be considered true, right? I can make all sorts of wild claims and call someone a rapist but that doesn't make it true.
However the woman stated that she was raped by the agent. This is fact. The agent has not been proven guilty of the crime. This is fact. California civil code declares this slander. Read section 46.
Fact. The only thing that is questionable in this case so far is the accusation of rape. If she was raped, file charges. Without that, statements that the agent committed this crime are clearly slander by the California civil code.
Read section 46:Slander. Charging someone falsely of a crime, in this instance rape, is slander. Since it has not been proven that the agent has committed rape, this accusation is legally false. Therefore the agent has grounds for a defamation case against the woman.
I think the settlement letter sent asking for $500k is excessive however. I hope Mike keeps us posted on the development of this story. I think it should go to court personally.
I don't doubt it. But every populace has a breaking point. Sadly, history tells us that breaking point can go much further than checkpoints and illegal searches. How far will Americans go before they take action to end it? That depends on people like you and many others here who are not blinded and who are willing to educate those who are. :)
Federally, no there are no criminal defamation statutes. However 17 states have criminal defamation laws. However the civil law in California clearly states:
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 46: Slander
46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
The woman admitted to slander. She declared the agent raped her despite the agent not having been indicted, convicted or punished for said crime.
I agree, you can be accused of committing a crime without being proven. This woman demonstrated that.
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.
Yes I read the lawyer's take. However that is not a conviction. No rape has yet been proven so a public account calling her a rapist could be considered slander.
Could you give some news links verifying this? Where people were not allowed to leave and were physically searched against their will through restraint of threat of arrest?
I have seen lots of videos on YouTube where people refuse to be searched and they were simply not allowed through the checkpoint.
I would be most interested in reading the several accounts you mentioned.
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?
I do not believe they are allowed to do whatever they want. I believe that they are trained and there are certain methods they are supposed to use. Despite what others say, I don't believe that all TSA agents are pervs and pedophiles either.
I think those who go beyond the methods outlined should be held accountable for their actions. This is done by filing charges and taking them to court.
"A woman who is undergoing a TSA screening does not have the ability to tell the other party to stop."
Citation needed.
At any time she could say, "STOP. I no longer consent to being touched by you. I wish to leave."
If the agent restrains her, prevents her from leaving the airport or takes any other action that forces her to continue to be searched, even through coercion or intimidation, then the woman should call the police, scream for help, etc.
Air travel is not a "right". Air travel is federally regulated. I do not agree with the regulations requiring me to be (potentially) searched without a warrant. So I don't fly.
Until the illegal searches are deemed so, then if you consent to them, that is your choice. If a specific agent goes beyond what is accepted and detailed in the search methods, then call the police and file charges against that agent right then.
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.
"Actually, choosing another way to travel is ALSO a way to protest the TSA, not an alternative to such. Most people can't afford that."
I couldn't agree more. I used to fly my daughter out to us every Christmas. Now I rent a car and go pick her up. It's not as convenient and it actually costs about the same considering gas and time.
The drive is long (about 12 hours). It's not particularly exciting (Tennessee is a HELL of a long state to drive through, for the record). But I refuse to submit myself or her to an illegal search.
I know everyone cannot do the same, but there are likely enough who could if they were willing to stand up and say No.
"Saying that the agent in question committed rape is a fair comment given what the agent did."
Innocent until proven guilty is still a legal basis in the United States. Just because someone tells an account of an event, does not mean the event happened exactly as the one person said.
Despite what your bias may be against TSA agents, they too have rights. Just as the woman claiming rape has the right to take her to court for it, so does the TSA agent have the right to take the woman to court for defamation. Which sounds like what she plans to do.
How do you determine it's true? Just because she said so? We don't need courts anymore then. If someone said you did something, you must have done it, right?
You go out with a girl on a date. You are a perfect gentleman. As the date ends, you don't even touch or kiss her goodnight.
The next day she has called your boss, and told them you raped her. She posts on all the social networks that you raped her. You have mutual friends and they are all told that you raped the woman.
You lose your job. You lose your friends. You find it difficult to get another job because there are publicly available accounts that you raped her online for anyone to read.
You don't want your name associated with this but she has the right to make accusations without pressing charges. Everyone will believe her because she said it happened and her account is all that matters.
This is your reality. It is not, however, how things work in the United States.
What her lawyer states is not a ruling. :) Has the TSA Agent been charged and convicted of rape? Yes or no? Did the woman verbally state and post a written statement available publicly on the Internet declaring that this specific woman raped her? Yes or no?
"An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation."
The woman didn't contact the police. From her blog:
"Upon leaving, still sobbing, I yelled to the woman, "YOU RAPED ME." And I took her name to see if I could file sexual assault charges on my return."
WHAT? She took her name down to see if she could file sexual assault charges? If she was RAPED, why was she not on the phone with police on the spot? Who did she finally contact? A lawyer.
"I was waiting for a reply from a lawyer about the possibility of filing sexual assault charges. It turns out that filing charges is probably a no-go."
One lawyer said he didn't think sexual assault charges would stick. Why did she never contact the police? If a crime is committed, you don't "take down the name" of your rapist and call a lawyer later.
She handled this the wrong way. No charges were filed. All we have is her story written on a blog, naming a woman who has not had the opportunity to refute the accusation.
Was the woman violated? I believe she was? Rape or sexual assault? I do not have the legal knowledge to make that declaration. Were her civil liberties violated? Yes, since I believe the searches are illegal in the first place.
Has she defamed the TSA agent. In my eyes, yes. Again, I am not a legal expert, but it appears to be a pretty strong case.
Just because you feel you are wronged, does NOT give you the right to go out and wrong that person. You have the right, no, the RESPONSIBILITY to bring them to court and face your accusation.
If she was raped, she should file charges of rape. I'm not in a position to do more than speculate, which is what we are all doing here.
However, without a rape conviction, her publicly naming the TSA agent as a rapist is defamation. Unless the TSA agent is convicted of a crime, you cannot communicate that the person is guilty of the crime without the possibility of being held accountable for that claim.
This discussion isn't really about whether or not the woman was raped or assaulted. It's about the woman defaming the TSA Agent who has not been convicted of rape by declaring she did in fact rape her.
To allow someone to make an accusation of rape with no need to actually prove it is not a precedent that will be useful. Every single person who goes through a TSA patdown could get the name of the TSA agent and go around publishing their name and calling them a rapist. It wouldn't matter if the TSA agent actually didn't even touch them. 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.
With civil liberty, comes civil responsibility. You cannot separate the two.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, "then I'm leaving". He replied, "then we'll bring a civil suit against you", to which I said, "you bring that suit" and walked out of the airport."
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html
I am unable to find policy that states if you refuse to undergo the screening and choose to leave you will be arrested. The TSA agent in the example asserted claims that were untrue. I could not find a report where the man was sued either.
I have never stated I support the searches. In fact I have repeatedly stated the opposite. I have been a strong civil libertarian for most of my life. If people are being forced against their will to be searched, these people need to be filing civil rights violation lawsuits.
My point related to your post is the TSA agent also has rights. The woman accusing her of rape has done so in a defamatory way. She should file criminal charges, submit her evidence and allow the TSA agent her defense.
But spreading lies that she is a rapist despite never even being charged with rape, and then suggesting that she has no rights to sue the accuser is ludicrous.
This is a destructive road. The stance you take because it seems on the surface to be against the TSA and their agents is actually a stance against your own rights. The ones you deny the agent will eventually denied to you.
You do not fight the destruction of the Constitution by tearing off your own piece of it in retaliation.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
By claiming she is being defamed, that is pretty much saying the agent is calling the woman a liar. She hasn't answered to anything more specific because, get this...she hasn't been charged with a crime.
If she hasn't even been charged with rape, calling her a rapist is defamatory. The accusation affects her job. It affects her safety.
Do you really believe that stripping the TSA agent's rights based on unverified, unquestioned accusations of someone won't one day come back to haunt you? Isn't your stance of stripping the rights of the agent no better than what the TSA is doing to us with the illegal searches in the first place?
Do you not see that your view only further erodes your own rights? Or are you so blinded by the accusation and your own dislike of the TSA that you are willing to help them along by throwing away more citizen's rights?
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
Forget your day in court. What she said happened exactly as she said it. It doesn't matter that she didn't have any evidence other than her testimony.
That's a bit of a different situation than what we have here because the facts don't appear to be contested
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?
Not contested? Seeking a lawyer on grounds of defamation seems like a pretty good example of contesting.
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.
Our country is is where it is because people like you believe the rights of others can be suspended and superseded for the rights of someone else.
But remember, when that day comes and you are accused of a crime falsely, it doesn't matter. You did it because you were accused.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Defense is Grasping
The problem with this, is there was no rhetorical hyperbole in this statement. She accused the defendant with a direct crime. No "literary license" was taken here. It's a straight up accusation of sexual rape. This is covered clearly in California civil code:
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 46: Slander
46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,convicted, or punished for crime;
2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,
profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits
She is falsely charging the agent with a crime. She isn't using metaphor, she isn't being poetic. This is not free speech, this is slander. Slander is not protected speech and is prohibited in California.
I say falsely because the agent has not been proven guilty. She hasn't even been legally charged with a crime. Making an accusation, even if you believe that accusation to be true personally, does not make it true for the rest of the world.
You simply cannot try to destroy the life of someone because you "feel" like you have been wronged. If you are raped or assaulted, you take them to court, present the evidence and seek a conviction.
If this is not considered slander, then any person can accuse someone else of rape with absolutely no proof whatsoever. Should someone who is unhappy with you be allowed to spread lies about you? Should they be able to tell everyone you are a rapist. Should they be allowed to publish accusations that you are a rapist online where everyone can read them?
Without slander laws holding people accountable for what they state as fact, you cannot stop them. You have no choice but to let your reputation and your career be destroyed.
Remember the Duke Lacrosse team? Do you remember all the torment they went through before it was finally revealed that they were falsely accused?
Every person deserves the right to defend themselves in court.
I believe the woman who claimed she was raped has the same rights. But her rights do not trump the agent's rights. If the agent committed a crime, she should be held accountable.
If the accuser has committed slander, she too, should be held accountable. I see a lot of bias against TSA agents and a lot of unsupported claims. I really expect more from the Techdirt community to be honest.
I do not believe the searches are legal. If you don't, then do not consent. If that means you don't fly, then don't fly. Nobody ever said that standing up for your rights was easy.
I don't think most of the TSA agents are bad people. Certainly there are some on power trips and certainly there are some that go beyond what they should. Those who do should have their actions prosecuted. If you just cop out and say "well it won't work, the courts suck" etc. then you are responsible for allowing it to continue just as much as the TSA agents are for just "dong their jobs". You both accept it and refuse to question.
Authority is not some magical force. Authority is given by the people. YOU. You as citizens bestow authority and you as citizens can revoke it.
Stop electing people to office that choose to violate your rights. Stop electing people to office that want to trample on the Constitution. Stop accepting that you have to just go along. Stand up. Speak out. Educate people. Let them know they do have a say in their government.
I apologize for repeating myself so much :) I just hate seeing smart people with a mob mentality. I hate seeing people willing to strip the rights of others in order to give them to someone else. When the truth is, we ALL have the same rights. Taking rights away from anyone, even someone you don't like only hurts us all.
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: Technical definition
Correction
because in common parlance, what she claims she went through can indeed be called rape
You do understand that an accusation has to be proven to be considered true, right? I can make all sorts of wild claims and call someone a rapist but that doesn't make it true.
However the woman stated that she was raped by the agent. This is fact. The agent has not been proven guilty of the crime. This is fact. California civil code declares this slander. Read section 46.
http://digitaldefamation.com/california_defamation_law.htm
Fact. The only thing that is questionable in this case so far is the accusation of rape. If she was raped, file charges. Without that, statements that the agent committed this crime are clearly slander by the California civil code.
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: Technical definition
http://digitaldefamation.com/california_defamation_law.htm
Read section 46:Slander. Charging someone falsely of a crime, in this instance rape, is slander. Since it has not been proven that the agent has committed rape, this accusation is legally false. Therefore the agent has grounds for a defamation case against the woman.
I think the settlement letter sent asking for $500k is excessive however. I hope Mike keeps us posted on the development of this story. I think it should go to court personally.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 46: Slander
46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
The woman admitted to slander. She declared the agent raped her despite the agent not having been indicted, convicted or punished for said crime.
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: Technical definition
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.
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: 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: Technical definition
I have seen lots of videos on YouTube where people refuse to be searched and they were simply not allowed through the checkpoint.
I would be most interested in reading the several accounts you mentioned.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
I do not believe they are allowed to do whatever they want. I believe that they are trained and there are certain methods they are supposed to use. Despite what others say, I don't believe that all TSA agents are pervs and pedophiles either.
I think those who go beyond the methods outlined should be held accountable for their actions. This is done by filing charges and taking them to court.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re:
Citation needed.
At any time she could say, "STOP. I no longer consent to being touched by you. I wish to leave."
If the agent restrains her, prevents her from leaving the airport or takes any other action that forces her to continue to be searched, even through coercion or intimidation, then the woman should call the police, scream for help, etc.
Air travel is not a "right". Air travel is federally regulated. I do not agree with the regulations requiring me to be (potentially) searched without a warrant. So I don't fly.
Until the illegal searches are deemed so, then if you consent to them, that is your choice. If a specific agent goes beyond what is accepted and detailed in the search methods, then call the police and file charges against that agent right then.
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.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re:
I couldn't agree more. I used to fly my daughter out to us every Christmas. Now I rent a car and go pick her up. It's not as convenient and it actually costs about the same considering gas and time.
The drive is long (about 12 hours). It's not particularly exciting (Tennessee is a HELL of a long state to drive through, for the record). But I refuse to submit myself or her to an illegal search.
I know everyone cannot do the same, but there are likely enough who could if they were willing to stand up and say No.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
Innocent until proven guilty is still a legal basis in the United States. Just because someone tells an account of an event, does not mean the event happened exactly as the one person said.
Despite what your bias may be against TSA agents, they too have rights. Just as the woman claiming rape has the right to take her to court for it, so does the TSA agent have the right to take the woman to court for defamation. Which sounds like what she plans to do.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
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: Anybody see the bottom...
The next day she has called your boss, and told them you raped her. She posts on all the social networks that you raped her. You have mutual friends and they are all told that you raped the woman.
You lose your job. You lose your friends. You find it difficult to get another job because there are publicly available accounts that you raped her online for anyone to read.
You don't want your name associated with this but she has the right to make accusations without pressing charges. Everyone will believe her because she said it happened and her account is all that matters.
This is your reality. It is not, however, how things work in the United States.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d021.htm
"An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation."
The woman didn't contact the police. From her blog:
"Upon leaving, still sobbing, I yelled to the woman, "YOU RAPED ME." And I took her name to see if I could file sexual assault charges on my return."
WHAT? She took her name down to see if she could file sexual assault charges? If she was RAPED, why was she not on the phone with police on the spot? Who did she finally contact? A lawyer.
"I was waiting for a reply from a lawyer about the possibility of filing sexual assault charges. It turns out that filing charges is probably a no-go."
One lawyer said he didn't think sexual assault charges would stick. Why did she never contact the police? If a crime is committed, you don't "take down the name" of your rapist and call a lawyer later.
She handled this the wrong way. No charges were filed. All we have is her story written on a blog, naming a woman who has not had the opportunity to refute the accusation.
Was the woman violated? I believe she was? Rape or sexual assault? I do not have the legal knowledge to make that declaration. Were her civil liberties violated? Yes, since I believe the searches are illegal in the first place.
Has she defamed the TSA agent. In my eyes, yes. Again, I am not a legal expert, but it appears to be a pretty strong case.
Just because you feel you are wronged, does NOT give you the right to go out and wrong that person. You have the right, no, the RESPONSIBILITY to bring them to court and face your accusation.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
However, without a rape conviction, her publicly naming the TSA agent as a rapist is defamation. Unless the TSA agent is convicted of a crime, you cannot communicate that the person is guilty of the crime without the possibility of being held accountable for that claim.
This discussion isn't really about whether or not the woman was raped or assaulted. It's about the woman defaming the TSA Agent who has not been convicted of rape by declaring she did in fact rape her.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re:
With civil liberty, comes civil responsibility. You cannot separate the two.
Next >>