[solosoyokaze]

It's also a completely false argument since there's libel and slander laws. If the accused was innocent, they would simply sue the false accuser. That they don't says everything.

The barrier and punishment for coming forward as a victim of sexual abuse, rape or harassment is great indeed. Questioning every case is ignorance of existing laws setup to handle any false accusations.

[epicureanideal]

Not trying to sue someone for slander doesn't actually say anything.

There's a lot of factors. How much will it cost? How much publicity will it generate and is that worse than just letting it go? What is the standard of proof that must be met and are they confident they can prove that it's a false statement? What are the consequences if they somehow fail to meet that burden? Etc.

Also, how did the left become the party of "if he's in the courtroom he must be guilty of something"?

[solosoyokaze]

So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word?

If someone wants to clear their name, go to court and sue for slander. If it's two people's word against each other, I'll believe the victim every time since there's such a high cost of coming forward and slander laws exist.

EDIT Since I'm now throttled...

I'm saying that coming forward either means:

1. Something really happened to you.

2. You're breaking the law and can be punished.

High stakes, no? Which is one of the many reasons false accusations are exceedingly rare if not non-existent.

I will always believe the victim unless the perpetrator wins a libel case. It's the legal mechanism for fighting back.

[endominus]

So are you saying that victims (of slander) must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators (of slander) should be taken at their word?

The sword cuts both ways.

Except it doesn't, because if you're in the news for {serious crime} and later clear your name, your reputation is still probably trashed. There is no real mechanism for recovery in the modern panopticon. Lowering standards of evidence required for conviction (to basically nothing, if some people are taken seriously) is such a kludgy, cumbersome hack to solve this problem that it shocks me that people present it seriously. It's utopian thinking.

[pc86]

> So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word?

Not the person to whom you're replying, but the presumption of innocence means this exactly. If you are accused of a crime, you are presumed innocent until it can be proven you're not.

[JPKab]

So in your judgement, a person who is accused is guilty if they don't retaliate with a slander/libel lawsuit? Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, lawyers and filing lawsuits might be expensive, prohibitively so?

The "existing laws setup to handle any false allegations" exist only for accusations made in the court system.

It's amazing to me how little thought people like you have behind your beliefs. You basically just regurgitate what you heard from your college electives with zero mindfulness or introspection.

[joshuamorton]

> The "existing laws setup to handle any false allegations" exist only for accusations made in the court system.

This is wrong though.

> Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, lawyers and filing lawsuits might be expensive, prohibitively so?

Indeed, and reporting a crime, and ensuring it is handled appropriately by a police force is also exceedingly costly, though perhaps not financially.

Significant portions of your post violate the HN guidelines.

[djbebs]

That's not how libel and slander works. You not only have to prove that the statements were false, but that the accuser knew they were false and was deliberately malicious in spreading the falsehoods

[pc86]

If it's hard to demonstrably prove actual cases of sexual assault, doesn't it follow that it would be as hard, if not harder, to prove the negative?