# Zak Smith is suing his accusers



## Ancalagon (Dec 1, 2019)

Legal Funds, organized by Amanda Nagy
					

Hi  This is Mandy Morbid, as many of you know my ex Zak Smith is suing me for defamation after I, and a number… Amanda Nagy needs your support for Legal Funds



					www.gofundme.com
				




And they need funds.  I'm not sure if this is "allowed", but I figured some may be interested.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 1, 2019)

At this point, the fund has raised over $7000 and the goal was $1000. Clearly, there are a lot of people willing to underwrite ZakS going down in flames. I approve.


----------



## generic (Dec 1, 2019)

Interesting.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Unless someone is convicted and I can see the evidence I don’t care.  No conviction means I could care less about accusations.


----------



## Eltab (Dec 2, 2019)

This may finally get past the 'slime you' stage and bring out evidence of (mis)behaviors.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Unless someone is convicted and I can see the evidence I don’t care.  No conviction means I could care less about accusations.



This doesn't quite make sense. As I understand it, ZakS is suing people who have accused him of stuff. if he wins, that will count as evidence (not definitive, of course) that the accusations were not true (I think truth is normally a defence in US defamation law, though am happy to be corrected on that). But no one will be convicted - defamation is a civil action and the remedy is damages.

Conversely, if the defendants win by arguing the truth of their allegations that will clearly count as evidence (again, not definitive) of that truth, even though no one will be convicted.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 2, 2019)

Frankly, I'm so tired of accusations, allegations, rumors, insinuations, and alleged incidents, I really couldn't care less. That's not a great attitude, but there it is.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 2, 2019)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Frankly, I'm so tired of accusations, allegations, rumors, insinuations, and alleged incidents, I really couldn't care less. That's not a great attitude, but there it is.




I'm sure his accusers were tired of the alleged incidents as well, which is why they came forward.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I'm sure his accusers were tired of the alleged incidents as well, which is why they came forward.



Did they press charges and convict him? If they did then I wouldn’t hire him either. I would like to see the trial records.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Unless someone is convicted and I can see the evidence I don’t care.  No conviction means I could care less about accusations.



Ironically, I don't think anybody cares what you don't care about. How about finding a thread about something you do care about, rather than threadcrapping in ones you don't?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 2, 2019)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Frankly, I'm so tired of accusations, allegations, rumors, insinuations, and alleged incidents, I really couldn't care less. That's not a great attitude, but there it is.



This seems confused. An allegation by X that Y did such-and-such too her may be true or false. But it's not an _insinuation_. And it's not a _rumour_. It is an _accusation_ or an _allegation_, and I'm not sure why you'd be tired of those given that they're the main way we learn that wrong things have been done to human beings.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Dec 2, 2019)

pemerton said:


> This seems confused. An allegation by X that Y did such-and-such too her may be true or false. But it's not an _insinuation_. And it's not a _rumour_. It is an _accusation_ or an _allegation_, and I'm not sure why you'd be tired of those given that they're the main way we learn that wrong things have been done to human beings.




In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Until that point had been reached there is neither a literal, nor legal, difference between accusation, insinuation, and rumor.

Autopsies are the main way way we learn that wrong things have been done to Human beings.

In any case, I don't care, and I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Jd Smith1 said:


> In any case, I don't care, and I'm done with this thread.



Anybody else want to drop by this thread to tell us all how much they don’t care about it? Will you be doing that with every thread you don’t care about, or is this one special? 

Folks, threadcrapping is obnoxious. If you don’t care about a thread, go find one you do care about.


----------



## cmad1977 (Dec 2, 2019)

Jd Smith1 said:


> In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Until that point had been reached there is neither a literal, nor legal, difference between accusation, insinuation, and rumor.
> 
> Autopsies are the main way way we learn that wrong things have been done to Human beings.
> 
> In any case, I don't care, and I'm done with this thread.




Nobody cares if you don’t care. Odd that people need to say loudly and often ‘they don’t care!’. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 2, 2019)

Jd Smith1 said:


> In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Until that point had been reached there is neither a literal, nor legal, difference between accusation, insinuation, and rumor.
> 
> Autopsies are the main way way we learn that wrong things have been done to Human beings.
> 
> In any case, I don't care, and I'm done with this thread.



This is a logical fallacy. 

If you are accused of sexual harassment at work, you will probably lose your job, even though there is no court case. If an artist makes racist statements, people will stop buying their albums, even though there were no court case.


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 2, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> Nobody cares if you don’t care. Odd that people need to say loudly and often ‘they don’t care!’. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.



People who say "I don't care" actually want to say "these issues are not important ", but they can't quite say it for some reason.


----------



## dragoner (Dec 2, 2019)

Zak I'm sure did everything he's accused of, though being rich, he will be able to walk away without punishment that a normal person would. That is the way the world works.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 2, 2019)

I think it's going to be really hard to get any sort of thoughtful commentary on this issue because the "sides" have been firmly entrenched for or against Zak for decades for reasons completely unrelated to this particular issue.  I.e., people have either defended him to the teeth, or hated his guts, long before these allegations were made, and I suspect those feelings will significantly color any commentary made in regards to this particular issue. 

Either way, I suppose my biggest hope is that whoever the victims are in this case, they can get closure and the perpetrator(s) can get held accountable.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2019)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Autopsies are the main way way we learn that wrong things have been done to Human beings.




If it doesn't outright kill you, it wasn't wrong?


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Dec 2, 2019)

Same.

I feel like this thread is also the opportune place to point out that James Raggi published a book called _Zak Has Nothing to Do With This Book_ that is pretty much a diatribe lamenting (har) about how he can't work with Zak anymore because snakes won't let him and how awesome Zak's stuff was for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. As if the original official statement he made wasn't already a tepid thing. 



billd91 said:


> Clearly, there are a lot of people willing to underwrite ZakS going down in flames. I approve.


----------



## Maestrino (Dec 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> If it doesn't outright kill you, it wasn't wrong?



That seems to be the insinuation.


----------



## dragoner (Dec 2, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Same.
> 
> I feel like this thread is also the opportune place to point out that James Raggi published a book called _Zak Has Nothing to Do With This Book_ that is pretty much a diatribe lamenting (har) about how he can't work with Zak anymore because snakes won't let him and how awesome Zak's stuff was for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. As if the original official statement he made wasn't already a tepid thing.




I saw them chumming it up at Raggi's booth at GenCon, exactly after Raggi had made a giant deal about security there, with there in fact being NO NEED for it, because there wasn't anyone messing with him, and there is already security for the convention center. Except that didn't stop the cries of right wingers of how they NEEDED to take their guns to GenCon, lamenting how wrong it was that GenCon was a gun-free zone; it's like a whole confederacy of giant scumbags.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2019)

*Mod note:*

Folks need to be more vigilant about allowing real-world politics "slipping in" to their posts in this thread.  With the fact that this will already be a touchy subject for some, tolerance of such will be low.

Like... the gun control comment?  Not really appropriate for these boards.

And, if you outright say you need to duck after saying something?  That was probably unwise.  Don't push the line here, please, folks.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## RogueRonin (Dec 2, 2019)

I'm glad to see how much they've exceeded their funding goal. Hopefully the legal fees won't end up costing them a dime when all is said and done.


----------



## Bohandas (Dec 2, 2019)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Frankly, I'm so tired of accusations, allegations, rumors, insinuations, and alleged incidents, I really couldn't care less. That's not a great attitude, but there it is.




I'll drink to that and take it one step further, I'm glad that someone (Smith) is finally doing taking a stand against it. I'm sick of the current trend of every accusation everywhere automatically being assumed true by the public, sight unseen.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 2, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Given the number of separate allegations, the corroboration, and that his behavior was previously known and (charitably) was previously overlooked and/or diminished due to the presence of ...what... an allowance of certain behaviors (unfortunately) in our hobby, it is difficult to say that this is an example of an accusation being assumed true by the public, sight unseen.



I’ll just reiterate from past similar threads that, according to studies and official crime stats in the USA, only between 2-10% of reports of sexual misconduct are actually false.  Those percentages are similar to the ranges for false reporting of other serious crimes, like murder.  Odd, then, that only accusations of sexual misconduct engenders a parade of people concerned about false claims of criminal behavior.

According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, rates of false reporting are frequently inflated, in part because of inconsistent definitions and protocols. 
For example, some law enforcement agencies might label a rape claim as "false" just because there's not enough corroborating evidence to prosecute. (Those cases would be more accurately described as "baseless" or “unprovable” rather than "false.")

So, just based on criminal statistics, one takeaway is that the more accusations against a person there are, the greater the odds are that the person is guilty of at least one of the allegations.


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 2, 2019)

I'm hoping the Canadian judge tosses it for lack of jurisdiction.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

aramis erak said:


> I'm hoping the Canadian judge tosses it for lack of jurisdiction.



Edit -- I got it backwards! The defendant is Canadian, not the claimant! For some reason I got confused about who was suing who!


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 2, 2019)

I couldn't sleep last night for some unknown reason and ended up researching this stuff for 2+ hours.  I didn't really know anything about it.  I had HEARD of the D&D porn girl group but didn't know they had a video blog.  Of course it is unfair to jump on his case as I don't know Zak or anything about him, but the general consensus sounds like he's not a nice person.


----------



## Bohandas (Dec 2, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Given the number of separate allegations, the corroboration, and that his behavior was previously known and (charitably) was previously overlooked and/or diminished due to the presence of ...what... an allowance of certain behaviors (unfortunately) in our hobby, it is difficult to say that this is an example of an accusation being assumed true by the public, sight unseen.
> 
> But, hey, if Zak Smith is the hill people want to die on, then I will be glad to let them muster on it.




It's quite possible he did it. I'd just like to see the question, and others like it, examined in a format that isn't just "nuh-uh" "uh-huh" "nuh-uh!" "uh-huh!" "NUH-UH!" "UH-HUH!" back and forth forever


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> It's quite possible he did it. I'd just like to see the question, and others like it, examined in a format that isn't just "nuh-uh" "uh-huh" "nuh-uh!" "uh-huh!" "NUH-UH!" "UH-HUH!" back and forth forever



You mean no one pressed charges against this guy or had him arrested?


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> You mean no one pressed charges against this guy or had him arrested?



I thought you didn’t care?


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> You mean no one pressed charges against this guy or had him arrested?




There are tons of reasons why sexual harassment and assault is not brought to court - first and foremost being reactions like yours. 

If you (generic, not you, Arnwolf666) are in a bar, and someone comes in with a black eye and in a typical commiserating talk with the bartender revealed that their next door neighbor punched them, I doubt the response of most would be, "Well, I'm sick and tired of all these accusations of punching!  Arrest and convict the guy, or it didn't happen!"  Most of us would provisionally accept the truth of the statement.

The knee-jerk incredulous response to sexual harassment and assault found in our culture gets in the way of actually dealing with the issue.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I thought you didn’t care?



I don’t care about just don’t someone not convicted of anything. This changes everything if he has been arrested, given due process, and convicted by a jury.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> There are tons of reasons why sexual harassment and assault is not brought to court - first and foremost being reactions like yours.
> 
> If you (generic, not you, Arnwolf666) are in a bar, and someone comes in with a black eye and in a typical commiserating talk with the bartender revealed that their next door neighbor punched them, I doubt the response of most would be, "Well, I'm sick and tired of all these accusations of punching!  Arrest and convict the guy, or it didn't happen!"  Most of us would provisionally accept the truth of the statement.
> 
> The knee-jerk incredulous response to sexual harassment and assault found in our culture gets in the way of actually dealing with the issue.



If they were a stranger I would not jump to a conclusion. If they were a friend or family member I would urge them to Press charges and get a restraining order.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> If they were a friend or family member I would urge them to Press charges and get a restraining order.




And, if there were no video evidence of the event, how do you think they'd prove it?


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I don’t care about just don’t someone not convicted of anything.



What?


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> And, if there were no video evidence of the event, how do you think they'd prove it?



Would you want to be judged without due process and just have someone convict you based on their accusations. I think not. I’m terrified of false accusations.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Would you want to be judged without due process and just have someone convict you based on their accusations. I think not. I’m terrified of false accusations.



I’m judging you right now without due process. 

I don’t know what you mean by “convicted” though. Don’t worry, @Arnwolf666, whatever it is you’re afraid somebody is going to accuse you of, you won’t be “convicted” without trial.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Woah. Let's unpack a few basic things, please.
> 
> 1. A person (such as me) doesn't convict you. The government does. I judge you, like I'm doing right now, but I don't convict you.
> 
> ...



Apparently this guy is being deprived of alot. Shunned and losing work. I’m trying to have empathy for people falsely accused.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> _sigh_
> 
> You understand that private people (and companies) are not the government, right?
> 
> Did you read what I wrote?



Yes. And I am not either. I choose to show compassion for the falsely accused.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Apparently this guy is being deprived of alot. Shunned and losing work. I’m trying to have empathy for people falsely accused.






Arnwolf666 said:


> Yes. And I am not either. I choose to show compassion for the falsely accused.




And your evidence that he is falsely accused in this instance is...?


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Gradine said:


> And your evidence that he is falsely accused in this instance is...?



Innocent until proven guilty. I will not treat this man unkindly or smear this man until he is convicted. It is the same courtesy I hope someone would show me if I was accused.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Innocent until proven guilty. I will not treat this man unkindly or smear this man until he is convicted. It is the same courtesy I hope someone would show me if I was accused.



So let me get this straight.

Anybody can do anything. If it isn’t a criminal offence, and that person isn’t put on trial, and convicted of a crime, then it doesn’t matter what anybody does?

Somebody calls your mother horrible names in the street. They aren’t convicted of a crime. You will not judge them at all for it?

Somebody breaks a contract, causing hardship to many families. They aren’t convicted of a criminal offence though, so it’s A-OK in your book?

You find out your babysitter is stealing from you. You can’t prove it, so there is no criminal trial. You continue to employ them?

The only thing you will judge somebody for is a guilty verdict in a criminal trial? Nothing else?

You’re not judging me right now for this post? Not even a little bit?


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> And do you hold this standard for everything, or just for men accused of sexual impropriety?
> 
> For example, if there were multiple, credible allegations of child abuse, would you still let that person watch your kids? Or do you need a conviction first?
> 
> ...




I don’t judge anyone I don’t know as guilty of anything unless I can see the evidence. Just like i hope no one ever does to me. I can completely understand the girls parents siding with her and her friends believing her. And the same for the guys friends and family. I would not want to be judged by these standards. It is terrifying that i would be.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I don’t judge anyone I don’t know as guilty of anything unless I can see the evidence. Just like i hope no one ever does to me. I can completely understand the girls parents siding with her and her friends believing her. And the same for the guys friends and family. I would not want to be judged by these standards. It is terrifying that i would be.



What are you worried about being judged for?


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Morrus said:


> What are you worried about being judged for?



I am worried about being falsely accused of domestic violence and rape and losing my livelihood due to public opinion.  That terrifies me


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I am worried about being falsely accused of domestic violence and rape and losing my livelihood due to public opinion.  That terrifies me



The best defence against that is to make sure you never behave in a way that would make somebody accuse you of domestic violence and rape; namely don’t commit domestic violence or rape. You’ll be fine.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Morrus said:


> The best defence against that is to make sure you never behave in a way that would make somebody accuse you of domestic violence and rape; namely don’t commit domestic violence or rape. You’ll be fine.



So people are never falsely accused. If one of accused it must be true. Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Morrus said:


> The best defence against that is to make sure you never behave in a way that would make somebody accuse you of domestic violence and rape; namely don’t commit domestic violence or rape. You’ll be fine.



Then take it to court. Get him convicted.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Would you want to be judged without due process and just have someone convict you based on their accusations. I think not.




Answer the question. - if there's no video evidence, how will your friend or family member prove assault?

They can't, right?  "Beyond a reasonable doubt," can't be met on evidence here.  So... do you go about telling your friend of family member ot shut up about being punched, because they can't prove it?



> I’m terrified of false accusations.




I know.  So, here's the thing - look up the thread, to the point where Dannyalcatraz notes that false accusations are rare. 

You have to do the hard thing - ignore your fear for a moment.  Your fear is not based on _data_.  It is a feeling that came creeping out of the back of your skull without real foundation.

In reality, if you comport yourself like a person who shouldn't be accused, an accusation is unlikely to happen at all.  If you are good, kind, respectful, and all those things you know you are _supposed to be anyway_, nobody is ever going to falsely accuse you - they'll have no need or desire to do so, because you will have treated them well.  If someone is going to cast about with a false accusation*, they won't do so to someone who they found to be a good person.  They'll find some nozzle to malign.

**Note - *the woman who casts around to make accusations without cause is a myth, too.  Women do not gain anything from making accusations.  Nothing positive happens to women when they make accusations.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> So people are never falsely accused. If one of accused it must be true. Is that what you are saying?



No, I'm saying "The best defence against that is to make sure you never behave in a way that would make somebody accuse you of domestic violence and rape; namely don’t commit domestic violence or rape. You’ll be fine."

You quoted me. I was saying the thing that you quoted.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Answer the question. - if there's no video evidence, how will your friend or family member prove assault?
> 
> They can't, right?  "Beyond a reasonable doubt," can't be met on evidence here.  So... do you go about telling your friend of family member ot shut up about being punched, because they can't prove it?
> 
> ...




Like I said if it was someone I know. But these aren’t people I know. I’m not going to assume he is guilty or treat him like he is guilty. And I hope people do the same for me. People lie. People jump in a band wagon, for various reasons. If they got evidence and convict him I would understand. I hope to god nothing like that ever happens to me.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Innocent until proven guilty.




A fine foundation for a state-run criminal justice system, to be true.

That's not what any of this is, though. I'd say that you'd get that if you actually read a single thing lowkey wrote, for instance, but that's giving you too much credit. I'm fairly certain you do know the difference, but are only willing to accept them under suspiciously specific situations.

Look, we get that this whole shtick is an argument in bad faith, right? The whole "the criminal justice system is the only possible arbiter of truth" gimmick is wrong in so many levels that there's no way anybody actually believes in it, really. I mean, never mind that the criminal justice system, at least here in the U.S., is flawed as hell (trial etiquette tends to obscure truth at times in a vain and largely unsuccessful attempt to avoid bias; twelve randomly selected schmucks are no worse or better at determining the truth of the situation than anyone else and are probably the _least _suited to the task given the aforementioned obfuscation keeping certain details specifically withheld from them, owing in part to a failure rate [and particularly a false positive rate] that ought to be flat out *horrifying* to anyone if they actually bothered to pay attention to it).  Even if we assume that the criminal justice system is anywhere close to as infallible as it aspires to be (and it is not anywhere close to that, just so we're clear), it wouldn't matter because we _know _everybody understands the difference between criminal punishment and social consequences; I refuse to believe that anyone has made it to functional adulthood without understanding that very fundamental societal fact.

It's an argument in bad faith because its only purpose is to advance a specific political agenda (or to stymie a specific political agenda, I guess, but that's largely a case of six-to-one and half-dozen-to-the-other). It doesn't need to be logically untenable; those arguments can be easily and largely ignored, and appropriate calls of hypocricy can be just as easily swept aside with claims to ideological purity that couldn't possibly withstand real-world scrutiny, because it doesn't have to. 

Anything to make it easier to take women less seriously, right?

Such arguments deserve to be as ignored as their practitioners ignore any response that appeals to logic and reason.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Are you terrified that you will be accused of theft?
> Of embezzlement?
> Of child abuse?
> Of child molestation?
> ...



I am terrified of being accused falsely of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, and rape because of how being falsely accused can destroy you. I wake up terrified of that everyday.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Gradine said:


> A fine foundation for a state-run criminal justice system, to be true.




Indeed. It is the legal standard set which must be met before the state fines or imprisons somebody, to protect the public from abuses of authority. It most certainly is _not_ a legal standard required for conversations, the formation of personal opinions, or peoples' decisions about who they want to work with.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> Well, since you can't (or won't) engage with actual reason, I will just say- don't rape.
> 
> ...



Because if you don’t rape you will never be falsely accused. Got it.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Because if you don’t rape you will never be falsely accused. Got it.



You're more likely to be struck by lightning. Don't worry about it. There is no pandemic of packs of roving women plotting the destruction of innocent men. That's not a thing.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 2, 2019)

Reason #436 to never take any of this nonsense seriously or engage with it:

The "victims" in the specific situations in which this thread is about? Objectively speaking and containing our context to _just this situation_, that would be the women who are being falsely accused of slander and being sued.

Notice which direction the "empathy" never seems to flow?


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 2, 2019)

I was going to give a business a bad review on Yelp once, but then I remembered that I can't prove their service was bad in a court of law, so I didn't.

SMH


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> I was going to give a business a bad review on Yelp once, but then I remembered that I can't prove their service was bad in a court of law, so I didn't.
> 
> SMH



I was going to suggest that such an action might be unfair, but then I remembered that you haven't been imprisoned after a lengthy court trial for it, so I didn't.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I was going to suggest that such an action might be unfair, but then I remembered that you haven't been imprisoned after a lengthy court trial for it, so I didn't.



If it’s an accusation it must be true.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> If it’s an accusation it must be true.



Bored now.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 2, 2019)

By the by, reason #437 is that frivolous and false SLAPP suits are *far more common* than false accusations of crime, disproportionally affect those who are most marginalized or without power, all for reasons which @lowkey13 already did a very good job of outlining upthread.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Like I said if it was someone I know. But these aren’t people I know. I’m not going to assume he is guilty or treat him like he is guilty.




Nobody is asking you to treat him like anything.  The world is a big place.  I don't expect you have much chance of ever even interacting with him, much less remembering and recognizing him if you do.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I am terrified of being accused falsely of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, and rape because of how being falsely accused can destroy you. I wake up terrified of that everyday.




I don’t want to dogpile on you....but that’s a really weird thing to wake up terrified of.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2019)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t want to dogpile on you....but that’s a really weird thing to wake up terrified of.



Every day!


----------



## generic (Dec 2, 2019)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t want to dogpile on you....but that’s a really weird thing to wake up terrified of.



Well,_ I_ know I won't be accused of those things. It's impossible to if you stay inside, alone, all day! 

Just kidding.

About the not going outside part.


----------



## DammitVictor (Dec 2, 2019)

The saddest thing about all of these sad, scared little men is that they are statistically more likely to be sexually assaulted themselves than they are to be falsely accused of sexual assault.

And they're working _so hard_ to keep it that way.


----------



## generic (Dec 2, 2019)

FaerieGodfather said:


> The saddest thing about all of these sad, scared little men is that they are statistically more likely to be sexually assaulted themselves than they are to be falsely accused of sexual assault.
> 
> And they're working _so hard_ to keep it that way.



Jeez, political rhetoric much?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Apparently this guy is being deprived of alot. Shunned and losing work. I’m trying to have empathy for people falsely accused.




So, do you assume Zak S is falsely accused?  

He is accused, yes.  But why have empathy for him if you don't know the accusations are false?


----------



## DammitVictor (Dec 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Jeez, political rhetoric much?




Science isn't political. People who don't understand that often confuse their politics for science.


----------



## generic (Dec 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> So, do you assume Zak S is falsely accused?
> 
> He is accused, yes.  But why have empathy for him if you don't know the accusations are false?



Perfect response.

Personally, I have no feelings about Zak either way.  He seems like a jerk to me, but there seems to be no evidence, so I have no qualms about not feeling immense empathy for Mr. Smith.  

If he is falsely accused, that's one thing, otherwise, well... he'll get what he deserves.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## generic (Dec 2, 2019)

FaerieGodfather said:


> Science isn't political. People who don't understand that often confuse their politics for science.



People who don't understand science are statistically more likely to quote statistics using harsh rhetoric, showing that they have no idea how science works.

4th-dimensional move, I must say!


----------



## DammitVictor (Dec 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> If he is falsely accused, that's one thing, otherwise, well... he'll get what he deserves.




Statistically, there is also a very small chance of that ever happening.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 2, 2019)

Many years ago in my early 20s, I was falsely accused of sexual harassment by a coworker.  She wanted to go out with me for the longest time ,and when she finally asked, I declined.  She asked why, and I said it's because she smokes and I don't.  The next day I got brought into HR and was accused of sexual harassment.  I explained my position.  They said it was her word against mine, so I said if that's the case, then they should be aware that her past 2 boyfriends both have restraining orders against her.  One she stabbed, and the other she hit with her car.

they did their investigation, and a week later I was cleared and she suddenly moved out of state.  But that was the only time it's ever happened, and i'm in my upper 40s now.  So it's not something I worry too much about of happening, and I don't think most men should.  If there's any men who have a reason to be genuinely afraid of being falsely accused (not just sexual crimes, but crimes in general), it's black and latino men.  That still happens with unfortunate regularity, relatively speaking.

Really though, with how many women are assaulted and harassed and how our society still treats them, they get it much worse than we men, and they should get benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 2, 2019)

> I’m not going to assume he is guilty or treat him like he is guilty. And I hope people do the same for me. People lie.



Don’t assume.  Play the odds.

Odds are in the 90%+ range that someone accused of sexual misconduct is guilty of sexual misconduct.

IOW, if you want to base your _opinions _on rationality and objective statistical fact, the safety play is to side with the accusers.

By all means, keep your mind open to the possibility that the accusation may be false.  But to take the position that accusations are more likely false than true is not supported by empirical evidence.  It’s not even close.


----------



## generic (Dec 2, 2019)

FaerieGodfather said:


> Statistically, there is also a very small chance of that ever happening.



Where _are_ you getting these statistics?  Do you happen to be a statistician?


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Yes. And I am not either. I choose to show compassion for the falsely accused.



Who is being falsely accused?
I understand that Zach is being accused, but how (and more importantly, why) are you insisting these accusations are false?


----------



## generic (Dec 2, 2019)

FaerieGodfather said:


> Statistically, there is also a very small chance of that ever happening.



Sarcastic response aside, I actually agree with you on this point, because it's true, or so it seems.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 2, 2019)

So is it okay to think Mandy is lying? Isn’t that requiring just as much judgment? 

I don’t really understand the “I don’t want to judge” stance. You’re still judging, just passively rather than actively.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I am terrified of being accused falsely of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, and rape because of how being falsely accused can destroy you. I wake up terrified of that everyday.




Um... with all respect.  If that is really literally true, we cannot help you.  If you really wake up terrified of this every day, you have an irrational fear - maybe a legitimate phobia - and probably should seek out a therapist.  This is not to dismiss you, it is noting that what you describe is not a state you should sit in forever, and can likely be addressed.

I will reiterate - women don't go around accusing men for laughs.  Nothing good happens to a woman when they make an accusation.  They do not get positive attention.  They get threatened, harassed, doxxed, accused of being a slut, or deserving what they got, and so on.  Making an accusation is not a positive experience for them.  There is no good reason for women to make false accusations.


----------



## generic (Dec 2, 2019)

@hawkeyefan?  What was the point of that quote.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## generic (Dec 2, 2019)

FaerieGodfather said:


> The saddest thing about all of these sad, scared little men is that they are statistically more likely to be sexually assaulted themselves than they are to be falsely accused of sexual assault.
> 
> And they're working _so hard_ to keep it that way.



I mainly objected to the dripping rhetoric of "sad, scared little men" and "working so hard", but I guess it doesn't matter.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> @hawkeyefan?  What was the point of that quote.



I assume it was to highlight Morrus' reply to my pointedly hilarious post.

Or a mistyped reply.

I'm sure one of these options is statistically more likely to be true.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> @hawkeyefan?  What was the point of that quote.



It was an error and I’ve now edited it.


----------



## DammitVictor (Dec 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> I mainly objected to the dripping rhetoric of "sad, scared little men" and "working so hard", but I guess it doesn't matter.




Yeah, you're right. My post would've been better without that wordage, and I was already spoiling for a fight.

Though your sudden bout of reasonableness has robbed me of the opportunity to tell you that "facts don't care about your feelings", and I was _really_ looking forward to doing that.

The source of my statistics is the DOJ, though I'll be damned if I could cough up a link without getting way too friendly with Google. I cheated a little... man isn't more likely to be raped than to be _falsely accused_ of rape; technically, he's more likely to be raped than to be _charged with rape_ under any circumstances. So... y'know... it doesn't count false allegations that don't lead to legal action.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 2, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, a slight quibble here.
> 
> Statistics are fine in the aggregate, and, perhaps, to try and illustrate a broader point (that you don't have to be any more terrified of being falsely accused of this than of any other crime), but I prefer not to apply it to much in the specifics.
> 
> ...



True- some claims are more outlandish and less likely to pass the sniff test than others.  That’s why you need to keep an open mind (as I edited in while you posted this).

The more red flags a claim raises, the less I’m going to give it credence.  But I also note that some sexual predators with money and influence have been proven to have done some truly outrageous things.


----------



## Blue (Dec 2, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I don’t judge anyone I don’t know as guilty of anything unless I can see the evidence. Just like i hope no one ever does to me. I can completely understand the girls parents siding with her and her friends believing her. And the same for the guys friends and family. I would not want to be judged by these standards. It is terrifying that i would be.




If your child repeated accused their babysitter of sexual harassment would you continue to hire the babysitter until there was proof one way or the other?


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 2, 2019)

Blue said:


> If your child repeated accused their babysitter of sexual harassment would you continue to hire the babysitter until there was proof one way or the other?



I already answered that question.  If you were the one being accused, how would you want the public to treat you?


----------



## Gradine (Dec 2, 2019)

Gradine said:


> ...and appropriate calls of hypocrisy can be just as easily swept aside with claims to ideological purity that couldn't possibly withstand real-world scrutiny, because it doesn't have to.


----------



## Blue (Dec 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I already answered that question.  If you were the one being accused, how would you want the public to treat you?




That was one question was on a list of many, I wanted to make sure that in cases where you had responsibilities outside yourself if this would still hold true.

We do not live in a world of absolutes and you could be endangering the child you are responsible for via inaction.

If your child is making false accusations against their babysitter, the result of not re-hiring a babysitter is a slight decrease in their pay assuming they can not fill hours elsewhere.

If you child is legitimately getting sexually assaulted and you ignore it, the result is grave.

I do have a follow up question.

You child has repeated said their babysitter sexually assaults them.  While you continue to employ the babysitter, would you also report this to the police so that they can start to investigate?  Or since they are innocent there is no need to report it since there could not be a crime without them?


----------



## cmad1977 (Dec 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I am terrified of being accused falsely of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, and rape because of how being falsely accused can destroy you. I wake up terrified of that everyday.




That’s either cowardice or a guilty conscience.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 3, 2019)

Blue said:


> That was one question was on a list of many, I wanted to make sure that in cases where you had responsibilities outside yourself if this would still hold true.
> 
> We do not live in a world of absolutes and you could be endangering the child you are responsible for via inaction.
> 
> ...




I said if it was my family or friends and I knew the people I would believe them. But with people I don’t know I would be skeptical and keep an open mind and need either real good evidence or a conviction. I don’t see that here.  it could be either way with the articles I have read and the links people here have sent me. He doesn’t seem like a nice person but that does not make him guilty. So I am going to treat him like I hope people would treat me if I was accused of the same thing.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 3, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> That’s either cowardice or a guilty conscience.



So I’m either a coward or guilty of something.  Well if I’m accused it must be true.


----------



## generic (Dec 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> So I’m either a coward or guilty of something.  Well if I’m accused it must be true.



Calm down, dude, no one's accusing you of anything.

This thread has gotten way off track.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 3, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Calm down, dude, no one's accusing you of anything.
> 
> This thread has gotten way off track.



Why not tell the person that said I was either a coward or had a guilty conscience to calm down.


----------



## generic (Dec 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Why not tell the person that said I was either a coward or had a guilty conscience to calm down.



I understand that you're upset, and perhaps what @cmad1977 said was the proverbial "last straw", but what you should understand is that no one really thinks that you're committing awful crimes.

Just calm down, and please don't derail the thread with such petty arguments.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> This thread has gotten way off track.




Funny how that happened


----------



## generic (Dec 3, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Funny how that happened



It was kind of destined for that from the beginning, wasn't it?


----------



## MGibster (Dec 3, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> If you are accused of sexual harassment at work, you will probably lose your job, even though there is no court case. If an artist makes racist statements, people will stop buying their albums, even though there were no court case.




With any luck, the employer will actually investigate and only terminate the accused when a preponderance of evidence suggest he or she has been sexually harassing others.  What's a preponderance of evidence?  50% plus a feather.  But you're right, there's no court case.  And why should there be?  We're not talking criminal charges which is where we get the whole idea of innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Bohandas (Dec 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> So people are never falsely accused. If one of accused it must be true. Is that what you are saying?




That's certainly the way people seem to be thinking. The whole movement in general gives me an unshakable vibe that reminds me of when I read _The Crucible_ back in highschool

EDIT:

"_Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers? I’ll tell you what’s walking Salem - vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law! This warrant is vengeance! I’ll not give my wife to vengeance!" -from The Crucible_

EDIT:

It also reminds me of McCarthyism and of the 1980s/1990's satanic panic witch trials (the McMartin case the Wee Care case, etc)


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Dec 3, 2019)

Of course, McCarthy's list proved to be pretty much bogus; and the witch trials and satanic panics were predicated on mythical nonsense.

Sexual misconduct, on the other hand, is a real thing and quite widespread.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> That's certainly the way people seem to be thinking. The whole movement in general gives me an unshakable vibe that reminds me of when I read _The Crucible_ back in highschool
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...




McCarthyism (and thus The Crucible) were about persecuting people for political beliefs and associations in a supposedly free society, not for sexual assault, harassment, and abuse.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> That's certainly the way people seem to be thinking. The whole movement in general gives me an unshakable vibe that reminds me of when I read _The Crucible_ back in highschool
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...




Nah. Times have changed, and information goes further. So does misinformation, it’s true, and ultimately none of us here actually know if Zak Smith is guilty of abuse or if Mandy and the others are guilty of slander.

But this is different because this is not a case of the government accusing anyone of wrong doing. What’s actually happening here is between individual parties. There’s no risk of jail time or the like.

People are free to side with whichever party they believe. They are free to judge the parties involved for themselves, and then act accordingly. 

Will some of these people be wrong? Sure. But we’ll never actually know. None of us was there, none of us has all the necessary information to render a perfect decision.

And that’s part of the issue. This isn’t a criminal case. There will never be the “guilty” verdict that so many are crying for. In fact, in this case, it’s Mandy that’s being accused of wrong doing, not Zak. Whatever the ruling on this case is, it will not bring some universal sense of closure to the masses. 

You may as well say “I’ll believe Zak was guilty when the moon floats down from orbit and serves me tea” because it’s just as likely to happen. 

So in the absence of that, I think we can all go ahead and feel about him however we’d like. My personal take is that he’s being judged just as much for general awfulness and being a real jagoff to too many people. And I say that as someone who quite liked his work.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> It was kind of destined for that from the beginning, wasn't it?




I like to think one day we'll be able to have these conversations without trolls demanding to be fed and so many still so willing to oblige


----------



## MGibster (Dec 3, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> That’s either cowardice or a guilty conscience.




There are plenty of people who have fears that aren't grounded in reality.  Recent polls show that 60% of male managers don't want to mentor female employees for fear of accusations of harassment.  This is bad for women and this is bad for companies.  I could just throw up my hands and tell those male managers they don't have to worry unless they're a bunch of cowards or have a guilty conscience but you know what's going to happen?  Nothing.  They'll keep on avoiding mentoring women and those women will move on to other companies where they feel like they have a chance for advancement.  That kind of talk just isn't productive.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> It is my understanding that this lawsuit was filed in Canada, not the United States. Typical defamation forum shopping. I do not know enough about Canadian law to opine on the issue much, other than to say that Canadian law is much more plaintiff-friendly in defamation cases



There have been iterations of defamation law in Australia in which truth has not been a full defence - eg if the plaintiff can nevertheless establish a lack of good faith, or malice, on the part of the defendant. (I'm not defamation expert and this is mean to be a general description rather than technical account.)

Perhaps Canada is similar?



lowkey13 said:


> the US follows the American rule- that means that, absent a contract or statutory provision, each side pays their own attorney's fees. So if there is a power or wealth imbalance between parties, one party can simply hammer the other side - even if they lose, it might be worth it to them to inflict pain. After all, if both sides have to pay, say, 100k in attorney's fees, and one side has a billion dollars, and the other side makes 50k a year ....
> 
> So the gist of it is that powerful people can still use defamation law to harass less powerful people. They go in knowing that even if they lose, they win.



This sort of thing also happens in jurisdictions where the loser of litigation can have costs awarded against them.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> That’s either cowardice or a guilty conscience.




*Mod Note:*

This isn't acceptable.  If you wish to take part in this discussion, you need to treat others _WITH RESPECT_.

This rather flagrantly does not..  So, you will be leaving the thread.

Anyone else feel their insults and accusations are worth it?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> I'll drink to that and take it one step further, I'm glad that someone (Smith) is finally doing taking a stand against it. I'm sick of the current trend of every accusation everywhere automatically being assumed true by the public, sight unseen.



I don't get this at all.

He's not "taking a stand" against anything, and certainly not against "every accusation everywhere automatically being assumed true by the public". He's suing those who have accused him. Assuming the matter gets to court, each will present their case and a decision will be reached. Hopefully that decision will track the truth, thought in court processes there's never any absolute guarantee of that.

As I think others have pointed out, by suing them he seems to be implying that they are lying (given the nature of the accusations made against him, it's not easy to see how they could be innocent errors altough given the strangeness of the world I guess that's a possibility). That could be construed as an allegation or accusation. Are you assuming it to be true, sight unseen?


----------



## Bohandas (Dec 3, 2019)

billd91 said:


> McCarthyism (and thus The Crucible) were about persecuting people for political beliefs and associations in a supposedly free society, not for sexual assault, harassment, and abuse.




Yes because generalizing from McCarthyism to this would be as nonsensical as trying to generalize from the Salem witch trials to McCarthyism

Furthermore, I also mentioned the 1987  McMartin preschool trial in that post, which WAS in part about sexual abuse (in addition to being about witchcraft) and which involved dozens of accusers and accusations all of which turned out to be completely unfounded.

EDIT:
McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia
EDIT:
When you believe accusations just because they're about sexual abuse then you get unmitigated travesties like the Daycare sex abuse hysteria of the 1980's





__





						Day-care sex-abuse hysteria - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I don’t care about just don’t someone not convicted of anything. This changes everything if he has been arrested, given due process, and convicted by a jury.





Arnwolf666 said:


> If they were a stranger I would not jump to a conclusion. If they were a friend or family member I would urge them to Press charges and get a restraining order.



Youre position here is incoherent.

A matter will only go to court if a prosecutor decides to bring a case. This requires the prosecutor to form an opinion about the truth of an allegation _prior to _any determination by way of a criminal trial.

Normally a prosecutor will be able to bring a case if the police investigate the matter and collect evidence about it. This requires the police to form an opion about the truth of an allegation _prior_ _to_ any determination by way of a criminal trial.

The function of a criminal trial is to make a ceratin sort of official determination about a certain sort of question (ie criminal guilt and resultant liability to punishment). It's not the only official fact-finding institution in most systems of government, and it's certainy not the only way that officials, let alone ordinary people, decide whether or not certain allegations are true.

Getting a restraining order (at least in jurisdictions I'm familiar with) does not require proving allegations to the criminal standard of proof. If you don't accept that sort of thing, why would you hypocritcally advise someone to get a restraining order?

And why does someone being a friend or relative of yours make you treat them as a reliable source when you wouldn't treat others as such? Friendship is important in many ways, but it's not normally a good way of measuring what is true or false in human affairs.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> It also reminds me of McCarthyism and of the 1980s/1990's satanic panic witch trials (the McMartin case the Wee Care case, etc)




You reaize the basic difference, of course? 

In the McCarthy Era, and during the Satanic panic, nobody had actually done anything wrong.  There were no Communist agents.  There were no Satan worshipers.

Here and now, women get sexually harassed and assaulted all the time.  All.  The.  Time.  Roughly one in six women will be experience at least attempted rape in their lifetime.  

So, the difference is that one was a fake problem, but this one is real.

The increased visibility on the problem has, in the past couple of decades, thankfully had a significant impact - sexual violence is down.  But it is not gone.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I choose to show compassion for the falsely accused.





Arnwolf666 said:


> Innocent until proven guilty. I will not treat this man unkindly or smear this man until he is convicted. It is the same courtesy I hope someone would show me if I was accused.



If someone is accused, and then convicted, it is likely (not certain, given that trials derail from time to time) that s/he was guilty of the conduct of which s/he was accused. Which is to say that s/he was not _falsely accused._

If "innocent until proven guilty" meant what you seem to think it means, then _all accusations would be false_. Which is absurd.

Also, at this very moment there are many many people in prisons on remand, who have never been convicted of any crime and in some cases have never been charged but are being held while the authorities decide whether or not to charge them. I would take your concerns about adverse consquences flowing from accusations more seriously if you were leading a movement for reform of overly-strict bal laws rather than focusing your sympathy on someone who has not lost any liberty and against whom the accusations seem, on the basis of publicly available information, to be well-founded.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> So people are never falsely accused. If one of accused it must be true. Is that what you are saying?





Arnwolf666 said:


> Like I said if it was someone I know. But these aren’t people I know. I’m not going to assume he is guilty or treat him like he is guilty. And I hope people do the same for me. People lie. People jump in a band wagon, for various reasons. If they got evidence and convict him I would understand. I hope to god nothing like that ever happens to me.



You seem to be implying, here, that ZakS has been falsely accused. How do you know that? What is your evidence that the accusations are false? (Besides ZakS's denials, which are not zero evidence but aren't perhaps terribly strong evidence.)


----------



## Bohandas (Dec 3, 2019)

Umbran said:


> You reaize the basic difference, of course?
> 
> In the McCarthy Era, and during the Satanic panic, nobody had actually done anything wrong.  There were no Communist agents.  There were no Satan worshipers.




You didn't have to be a russian agent to get blacklisted, you just had to be a communist sympathizer or a member of the CPUSA, and such people did indeed exist, even though they were decidedly in the minority of people harmed by McCarthyist practices.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> Yes because generalizing from McCarthyism to this would be as nonsensical as trying to generalize from the Salem witch trials to McCarthyism
> 
> Furthermore, I also mentioned the 1987  McMartin preschool trial in that post, which WAS in part about sexual abuse (in addition to being about witchcraft) and which involved dozens of accusers and accusations all of which turned out to be completely unfounded.
> 
> ...




You may notice that ZakS hasn't been accused by children who have been led by questioning into making those accusations. The context of the situation matters, at least to those of us weighing the matter rationally.


----------



## Bohandas (Dec 3, 2019)

pemerton said:


> I don't get this at all.
> 
> He's not "taking a stand" against anything, and certainly not against "every accusation everywhere automatically being assumed true by the public". He's suing those who have accused him. Assuming the matter gets to court, each will present their case and a decision will be reached. Hopefully that decision will track the truth, thought in court processes there's never any absolute guarantee of that.
> 
> As I think others have pointed out, by suing them he seems to be implying that they are lying (given the nature of the accusations made against him, it's not easy to see how they could be innocent errors altough given the strangeness of the world I guess that's a possibility). That could be construed as an allegation or accusation. Are you assuming it to be true, sight unseen?



I'm not saying that he's innocent or that they're lying, I'm just saying that we have no way of knowing which side is telling the truth, yet since the accusation involves sexual misconduct lots of people seem to automatically assume that its true, even though many of them would probably have withheld judgement if he were accused of some other kind of misconduct. Whenever someone is accused of sexual misconduct people seem to automatically assume that its true, when by all rights they ought to demand MORE evidence before passing judgement due to the seriousness of the accusation. Which brings us back around; although I am still withholding final judgement, I nevertheless hold that it would be less innapropriate for someone to assume his accusation of slander to be true sight-unseen than it would be for someone to assume their accusarion of sexual misconduct is true sight unseen because slander is less serious and career-ending of a charge.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 3, 2019)

I wake up every day terrified my wife will be attacked while walking to a hair or eyebrow appointment, or harassed or attacked while walking our dog while I’m at work, or by a cop pulling her over, or that a male acquaintance will manage to manufacture or take advantage of a situation where I am not around. 

The difference is that my fear is founded in how the world actually works.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 3, 2019)

Here’s the deal, @Bohandas: there are several high profile sexual misconduct cases involving false- or at least unprovable- allegations.  Duke.  Tawana Brawley.  Etc.  This list goes on.

But _because_ they are so high profile, a certain portion of the public has adopted this debunked notion that the risk of false accusations of sexual misconduct is much higher than it really is.  _Especially_ if the accused is a white male.

_Furthermore_, there is seldom a correspondingly strong pushback against similar accusations against women or minorities.  How many times this year has a female teacher been accused of sexual contact with a student and it made the evening news?  How many times have people vehemently asserted those women were innocent?  Bonus question: given that male teachers are many times more likely to be arrested for this crime, how many MEN got their names and faces broadcast to the community?









						More female teachers caught having sex with students, experts say
					

The 17-year-old was suiting up for track practice in February 2018 when his gym teacher at Canton McKinley High School reached out to him on Snapchat.    Tiffany Eichler asked the boy to come to her …



					www.dispatch.com
				




Or consider the Central Park 5. Refresher: five black teens were accused, convicted, and then served decades of time before being exonerated by DNA.  Rather than pushback against the accusations, the initial case gave us the term “wilding”, and (then just a private citizen) Donald Trump took out a full page ad to call for the death penalty in their case.  (Note: he has never apologized.)

Moving away from sex crimes, Richard Jewel was famously accused of being the Olympic Park bomber.  Few then were concerned that the accusations were incorrect; the error of law enforcement in his case led to major changes in how they deal with the press.  (White male, yes.  But this was _terrorism_, not a sex crime, so contemporaneous pushback was minimal.)

So, yes, it IS important to be aware of the issue of false accusations and guard against them.  But in doing so, you have to be reasonable and objective when assessing the risks.  Distorting them does a disservice to society and will discredit your in the eyes of those who pay attention to the actual statistics.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> I'm not saying that he's innocent or that they're lying, I'm just saying that we have no way of knowing which side is telling the truth



This is not true. There are all sorts of pieces of evidence that bear on this, a number of which have been mentioned in the thread. These include things like the corroboration provided by mutiple bits of testimony, apparent patterns of behaviour, and the seeming lack of benefit to the accusers in bringing forth their allegations.

The situation is not a blank slate containing nothing but "He did it!" and "I didn't do it!"



Bohandas said:


> Whenever someone is accused of sexual misconduct people seem to automatically assume that its true, when by all rights they ought to demand MORE evidence before passing judgement due to the seriousness of the accusation.



As is the case for many accusations of interpersonal wrongdoing, the evidence here is the testimony of those who say they have been victims. I don't think there's any general evidence that victim testimony is unreliable. Do you have any in mind?

And given your own professed ignorance of the evidence in this matter, how do you know how much evidence others have, and whether or not they have enough of it?



Bohandas said:


> it would be less innapropriate for someone to assume his accusation of slander to be true sight-unseen than it would be for someone to assume their accusarion of sexual misconduct is true sight unseen because slander is less serious and career-ending of a charge.



Fairly recently I read a long list of prominent men who have been accused of sexual misconducgt without it appearing to really impede, let alone end, their careers.

Famously in the case of President Clinton, it was allegations of lying rather than allegations of sexual misconduct that came closest to ending his career.

Frankly I find this your line of reasoning here baseless, and pretty outrageous in its implication that the default response to women's allegations of sexual harassment or assault by men should be to judge the women slanderous rather than the men assailants.


----------



## Bohandas (Dec 3, 2019)

pemerton said:


> Frankly I find this your line of reasoning here baseless, and pretty outrageous in its implication that the default response to women's allegations of sexual harassment or assault by men should be to judge the women slanderous rather than the men assailants.



You're making this about men and women; it's not. It doesn;t have anything to do with that. Imagine, if you will, a similar situation but with a different initial accusation. Person A says that they saw Person B murder a homeless person, Person B says that Person A is lying. Regardless of whether A is a man and B is a woman, or A is a woman and B is a man, or whether they're both women or both men, regardless of all these considerations we would be more remiss to believe A's accusation without concrete proof than we would to believe B's (although ideally we shouldn't believe either without proof)


----------



## Bohandas (Dec 3, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Or consider the Central Park 5. Refresher: five black teens were accused, convicted, and then served decades of time before being exonerated by DNA.  Rather than pushback against the accusations, the initial case gave us the term “wilding”, and (then just a private citizen) Donald Trump took out a full page ad to call for the death penalty in their case.  (Note: he has never apologized.)



Well yeah, he's a moron. And that kind of goes to show my point about people wanting to believe these kind of accusations and being more interested in finding someone to punish than in discovering the truth.



pemerton said:


> As is the case for many accusations of interpersonal wrongdoing, the evidence here is the testimony of those who say they have been victims. I don't think there's any general evidence that victim testimony is unreliable. Do you have any in mind?



IIRC eyewitness testimony in general is pretty unreliable. In any case you're begging the question by assuming that it is victim testimony


----------



## macd21 (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> You're making this about men and women; it's not. It doesn;t have anything to do with that. Imagine, if you will, a similar situation but with a different initial accusation. Person A says that they saw Person B murder a homeless person, Person B says that Person A is lying. Regardless of whether A is a man and B is a woman, or A is a woman and B is a man, or whether they're both women or both men, regardless of all these considerations we would be more remiss to believe A's accusation without concrete proof than we would to believe B's (although ideally we shouldn't believe either without proof)




Not really, no, and not when two other people say the same thing. We would be remiss in locking B up for the crime, but for believing A? Totally acceptable. As would, say, refusing to hire B based on the accusation, or refusing to socialise with them, and advising other people of the same.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> Well yeah, he's a moron. And that kind of goes to show my point about people wanting to believe these kind of accusations and being more interested in finding someone to punish than in discovering the truth.



My point regarding the CP5 in _particular_ was that he and a bunch of other Americans believed it immediately and there was no substantial pushback, largely because they were a group of young black men.  At the time, the default position for a large percentage of Americans was “group of black teens” = “gang”.

Had they been caucasians, no doubt the immediate reaction would have been “no, not THEM!”

See also young black Americans “too poor to know the difference between right and wrong” getting incarcerated and young white Americans “too rich to know the difference between right and wrong” are aquitted because of “affluenza.”

But the point in _general_ is not whether you should believe or disbelieve the allegations in a given case; believe the _probabilities._  IOW, don’t decide one way or the other. but be aware that the odds do not favor the accused.  Skepticism is a valuable tool, but you have to be sure to be skeptical in the right way.

To put it differently, when I hear about allegations like this about someone I don’t know, my attitude is, “Man, I hope it isn’t true, but...”  If more accusations accumulate, ”this doesn’t look good,” looms larger.

If it’s someone I DO know, I wonder if I missed something.  If I don’t think I did, I’ll be a defender.  But again, if there is an accumulation of accusations, the odds tell me that my defense may be unfounded.

in neither case have I _decided._


----------



## John R Davis (Dec 3, 2019)

It's all rather tricky.
Person A is accused of bad things by Persons B to E. They arent pursued for this by either criminal or civil court.
The accusation affects Person A in detrimental ways.
I guess Person A either goes quiet trying to cope with the detrimental things or Person A pushes back. Can't think of anything else they could do?


----------



## macd21 (Dec 3, 2019)

John R Davis said:


> It's all rather tricky.
> Person A is accused of bad things by Persons B to E. They arent pursued for this by either criminal or civil court.
> The accusation affects Person A in detrimental ways.
> I guess Person A either goes quiet trying to cope with the detrimental things or Person A pushes back. Can't think of anything else they could do?




Apologise. Make amends.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> Person A says that they saw Person B murder a homeless person, Person B says that Person A is lying.



That is not parallel to this situation. We have first-hand testimony from multiple people saying that person Z has harassed/assaulted them in various ways. Besides the corroborating tendency of this tendency, we have further evidence that is consistent with and lends some support to these accusations.

If one is going to suspend judgement then one suspends judgement. Cheering on ZakS's lawsuit - "I'll drink to that and take it one step further, I'm glad that someone (Smith) is finally doing taking a stand against it" - isn't doing that.

If one is going to weigh the balance of the evidence here, I don't see how it possibly speaks in favour of ZakS or "false allegations".


----------



## Sadras (Dec 3, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I wake up every day terrified my wife will be attacked while walking to a hair or eyebrow appointment, or harassed or attacked while walking our dog while I’m at work, or by a cop pulling her over, or that a male acquaintance will manage to manufacture or take advantage of a situation where I am not around.
> 
> The difference is that my fear is founded in how the world actually works.




I have similar fears for my wife - as she likes to run and we live in a country far more dangerous than the USA.
But I'm curious - why do you have fears of a cop pulling her over - I mean that is listed within your top fears presumably? Are there many instances of male cops taking advantage?


----------



## DammitVictor (Dec 3, 2019)

Sadras said:


> I have similar fears for my wife - as she like to run and we live in a country far more dangerous than the USA.
> But I'm curious - why do you have fears of a cop pulling her over - I mean that is listed within your top fears presumably? Are there many instances of male cops taking advantage?




Couple of years ago, two NYPD plainclothes detectives arrested a seventeen-year-old on _alleged_ drug charges and then both had sexual intercourse with her while she was handcuffed in the back of their car. Both detectives claimed this sexual conduct was _consensual_, and that they didn't know she was underage.

Bad enough.

While the victim and her mother were in the hospital for treatment, nine of the detectives' coworkers showed up at the victim's hospital room to "convince" her not to file a police report.

The detectives were eventually charged with first-degree rape and kidnapping among other charges, and they voluntarily resigned from the NYPD. They accepted plea deals in which they were convicted of _bribery_ and served no jail time.

The other nine _peace officers_ all still work for the NYPD.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 3, 2019)

I know that case.

I have a lot of friends & family in police departments around the USA.  I love them and respect them.

...but there are _serious_ issues in the law enforcement community.


----------



## Sadras (Dec 3, 2019)

FaerieGodfather said:


> The detectives were eventually charged with first-degree rape and kidnapping among other charges, and they voluntarily resigned from the NYPD. They accepted plea deals in which they were convicted of _bribery_ and served no jail time.




Pretty shocking story. How does it go from rape & kidnapping + other charges to bribery?
I cannot seem to make the connection between what they did and bribery which wouldn't even enter the equation (I think).


----------



## DammitVictor (Dec 3, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Pretty shocking story. How does it go from rape & kidnapping + other charges to bribery?
> I cannot seem to make the connection between what they did and bribery which wouldn't even enter the equation (I think).




There were 50 separate counts on the indictment. My best guess is that the bribery charges stem from them asking her what she'd be willing to do to get out of being arrested before... doing whatever they wanted anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 3, 2019)

FaerieGodfather said:


> There were 50 separate counts on the indictment. My best guess is that the bribery charges stem from them asking her what she'd be willing to do to get out of being arrested before... doing whatever they wanted anyway.



Exactly.

They “accepted” her “bribe” of sexual favors to reduce the charges against her.

Doesn't pass my sniff test, but it’s helping _someone_ sleep easier.


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Yes. And I am not either. I choose to show compassion for the falsely accused.




How do you know he's falsely accused.  

And who's falsely accused?  The person accused of sexual offences, or the personS accused of libel?  Why can't you have compassion for those accused?


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 3, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> I am terrified of being accused falsely of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, and rape because of how being falsely accused can destroy you. I wake up terrified of that everyday.




I hate to say it but...

You should be far more concerned about cancer, heart attacks, car accidents and mental illness.  These destroy WAY MORE PEOPLE than false accusations.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 3, 2019)

I’ve seen too many friends and family members dragged through family courts to judge based on accusations. It destroyed them. So I don’t judge. When one is handcuffed and taken from their homes and children for what they didn’t do one stops assuming.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> You didn't have to be a russian agent to get blacklisted, you just had to be a communist sympathizer or a member of the CPUSA, and such people did indeed exist...




And not a one of them was a Communist agent of any threat to the US.  As I said - nobody had done anything wrong.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

These scenarios are always messy.  Every accuser should be taken seriously, and every accused should be given at least some due process.  And as a society, we do neither.  We entrench on one side or the other, especially when the people involved are so polarizing.  I wonder what Chris Hardwick's opinion on this would be.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

So, please notice that we are now debating the finer points of McCarthyism instead of talking about anything actually related to the issue of Zak Smith's abuses and the further pain (emotional and financial) being caused by this lawsuit. This is not an accident. This was by design.

When you lower yourself to debate arguments that are being made in bad faith you not only give them legitimacy they don't deserve, you allow the conversation to be steered away from what actually matters (which is very much intentional), and, board rules being what they are, far more likely to get shut down entirely, which is exactly what these individuals want in the first place.

The fact that this thread has gone on for eight pages (which are double the length they used to be, mind you) and have more posts discussing the finer points of the red scare than statements of support for the brave women who are being financially harassed for having the audacity to accuse their abuser in public speaks to just how successful these tactics are at controlling the conversation.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

Gradine said:


> So, please notice that we are now debating the finer points of McCarthyism instead of talking about anything actually related to the issue of Zak Smith's abuses and the further pain (emotional and financial) being caused by this lawsuit. This is not an accident. This was by design.




Let me be clear.  I'm not defending Zak.  I personally don't like the guy based on his behavior from more than a decade ago, and certainly haven't been following him since then.  But what else is an accused person supposed to do, if they were falsely accused?  you're arguing that they can't sue for damages?  No matter my personal feelings about Zak, I really disagree with the position that an accused has no legal recourse but to just take the accusation.  If Zak has been falsely accused, this is exactly the recourse he should be taking.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 3, 2019)

Sadras said:


> I have similar fears for my wife - as she likes to run and we live in a country far more dangerous than the USA.
> But I'm curious - why do you have fears of a cop pulling her over - I mean that is listed within your top fears presumably? Are there many instances of male cops taking advantage?



Cops are not the good guys in the US. 

Aside from the story about the NYPD, there is the fight to make it explicitly clear in the law that sex with someone being detained or arrested cannot be consensual. It’s a fight because *police departments campaign against changing the law in this way. *

And the NYPD story is far from singular. I personally know several women who have been harassed or assaulted by cops. 3 separate women tried to report, and were physically intimidated by other cops in the police station until they left without reporting. 

Can’t go any further into it than that, because it’d have less and less to do with sexual assault and thus the thread topic, but yeah, any interacting with police is cause for worry. 

Oh, last thing. The dynamic where women aren’t believed and get nothing but further suffering when they report? That’s even worse when the perpetrator is in law enforcement.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Let me be clear.  I'm not defending Zak.  I personally don't like the guy based on his behavior from more than a decade ago, and certainly haven't been following him since then.  But what else is an accused person supposed to do, if they were falsely accused?  you're arguing that they can't sue for damages?  No matter my personal feelings about Zak, I really disagree with the position that an accused has no legal recourse but to just take the accusation.  If Zak has been falsely accused, this is exactly the recourse he should be taking.




One: The likelihood that Zak has been falsely accused is so small at this point as to not be worth entertaining. You can argue this point, but you'd be wrong.
Two: The point of this kind of lawsuit is not to sue for "damages", it's to cause damage. Win or lose, these women are going to have to pay hand over fist for legal fees that they will not get back. The point is not recoup professional losses; it's to silence them, and anyone else in the future who might consider calling out their more powerful abusers in public.
Three: How do I know point two? Because there is basically zero chance that Zak does not land on his feet very shortly after all this blows over. Even if it never actually does blow over (which would be nice, but is a pipe dream at this point) there are more than enough people who would _more _willing to support Zak by buying his products over this that he isn't going to have to worry about it. Because there are a lot of people who really, really, suck. And whole hell of a lot more people who _just don't care_. Which is almost more tragic.
Four: Meanwhile, SLAPP suits such as these tend to either financially ruin people or force them to back down. Either way they lose. These women are having their lives ruined when there's at least, *charitably*, a 90-95% chance they've been telling the truth the entire time and warning the community about a known abuser. You're telling me you're okay with that?


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 3, 2019)

I believe Mandy.  I believe she told the truth, and now Zak is making sure she gets punished for it.

It's appalling how many people choose to believe that Zak is the real victim here because his terrible reputation and seedy personal history are being tarnished further, instead of believing these victims of alleged abuse at the hands of a man with such a terrible reputation and seedy personal history.

If you are about to go to great lengths to defend him or his actions (Communism, seriously?) you don't really need to.  We get it.  You live in fear of being "falsely accused" of abuse, of having someone else's account being taken over your own.  You need to know that this could never happen to you, and if it ever does you will have a safe means of recourse.  You need your words to outweigh your reputation.  And you have your reasons.

Bit of advice: don't use Zak S to build your argument against "false accusations."  Find someone of higher repute to be your flagship.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

Gradine said:


> One: The likelihood that Zak has been falsely accused is so small at this point as to not be worth entertaining. You can argue this point, but you'd be wrong.
> Two: The point of this kind of lawsuit is not to sue for "damages", it's to cause damage. Win or lose, these women are going to have to pay hand over fist for legal fees that they will not get back. The point is not recoup professional losses; it's to silence them, and anyone else in the future who might consider calling out their more powerful abusers in public.
> Three: How do I know point two? Because there is basically zero chance that Zak does not land on his feet very shortly after all this blows over. Even if it never actually does blow over (which would be nice, but is a pipe dream at this point) there are more than enough people who would _more _willing to support Zak by buying his products over this that he isn't going to have to worry about it. Because there are a lot of people who really, really, suck. And whole hell of a lot more people who _just don't care_. Which is almost more tragic.
> Four: Meanwhile, SLAPP suits such as these tend to either financially ruin people or force them to back down. Either way they lose. These women are having their lives ruined when there's at least, *charitably*, a 90-95% chance they've been telling the truth the entire time and warning the community about a known abuser. You're telling me you're okay with that?




I'm sorry, but this is speculation.  None of us knows for certain what happened.  So you're making an assumption, and arguing that an accused should have no recourse, even if they were falsely accused.  All you're doing is guessing.  Just like the people who were _certain _that Chris Hardwick committed sexual assault when those accusations first game out.

It might be possible Zak did these things.  It might even be probable.  But unless it's certain without a shred of doubt with evidence, you can't deny him (or any accused) the right to legal recourse to defend him/her/themselves.  No matter what your (general you)  personal feelings are.  That's not how the legal system is supposed to work.

_Edit_  and no, I am not OK with victims being attacked again.  I'd ask you to refrain from such accusations about my position or motives.  I actually volunteer work in domestic violence groups, so I take this very seriously, and do not appreciate your implication that  I'm OK with victims being continued to be victimized.  All I'm arguing is that even accused are afforded some legal rights, and unless you were there and saw firsthand yourself, neither you or I know exactly what happened.  And we don't deny rights based on our personal feelings about that person.  These accusations are very serious, and yes, the victims should be given full attention and taken seriously.  But that doesn't mean anyone accused has no rights, or the people you personally don't like shouldn't have rights.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm sorry, but this is speculation.  None of us knows for certain what happened.  So you're making an assumption, and arguing that an accused should have no recourse, even if they were falsely accused.  All you're doing is guessing.  Just like the people who were _certain _that Chris Hardwick committed sexual assault when those accusations first game out.
> 
> It might be possible Zak did these things.  It might even be probable.  But unless it's certain without a shred of doubt with evidence, you can't deny him (or any accused) the right to legal recourse to defend him/her/themselves.  No matter what your (general you)  personal feelings are.  That's not how the legal system is supposed to work.
> 
> _Edit_  and no, I am not OK with victims being attacked again.  I'd ask you to refrain from such accusations about my position or motives.  I actually volunteer work in domestic violence groups, so I take this very seriously, and do not appreciate your implication that  I'm OK with victims being continued to be victimized.  All I'm arguing is that even accused are afforded some legal rights, and unless you were there and saw firsthand yourself, neither you or I know exactly what happened.  And we don't deny rights based on our personal feelings about that person.  These accusations are very serious, and yes, the victims should be given full attention and taken seriously.  But that doesn't mean anyone accused has no rights, or the people you personally don't like shouldn't have rights.



Who is denying him anything? Who is proposing changes to the legal system? 

We all just sitting here judging the piece of garbage.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Who is denying him anything? Who is proposing changes to the legal system?
> 
> We all just sitting here judging the piece of garbage.




Gradine did, with the implication that Zak shouldn't be allowed to file a lawsuit because they just _know _he did it, and therefore any legal attempt by Zak to defend himself is a further attack on the victims.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Gradine did, with the implication that Zak shouldn't be allowed to file a lawsuit because they just _know _he did it.




That's imparting me with a great deal more power than I have or would ever want.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Gradine did, with the implication that Zak shouldn't be allowed to file a lawsuit because they just _know _he did it, and therefore any legal attempt by Zak to defend himself is a further attack on the victims.



No, they judged him for his actions. 

Those are different things.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

In any case, please make sure to donate what you can. We cannot allow the worst members of our community to get away with silencing their victims.

From the OP:








						Legal Funds, organized by Amanda Nagy
					

Hi  This is Mandy Morbid, as many of you know my ex Zak Smith is suing me for defamation after I, and a number… Amanda Nagy needs your support for Legal Funds



					www.gofundme.com


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

Gradine said:


> In any case, please make sure to donate what you can. We cannot allow the worst members of our community to get away with silencing their victims.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thank you for the link.  Donation submitted.  IMO, the best way to handle this isn't to try to prevent or deny or attack an accused from taking legal recourse, but to support the side you find has more credibility.  Also, let Zak take this to court, because then the truth will come out for all to see either way.  And if he's a liar, then Mandy can counter sue


----------



## billd91 (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Gradine did, with the implication that Zak shouldn't be allowed to file a lawsuit because they just _know _he did it, and therefore any legal attempt by Zak to defend himself is a further attack on the victims.




Well that's the thing isn't it? Any attempt by ZakS to defend himself by suing, if he did perpetrate what Mandy and others are accusing him of, is, by definition, a further attack on the victims. And, as you pointed out, since neither we nor any of the (eventually to be picked) jurors were there, there's no way to establish any kind of absolute truth of the matter. The jurors have to weigh exactly what we've been weighing - the testimony of those making the accusation. With all the pearl clutching over (rare) false accusations, you should be able to see exactly why abusers like ZakS get away with their abuse - it's very easy to make it hard for victims to accuse their abuser. 
There's a reasonably good chance ZakS could win a defamation lawsuit in Canada even if the jurors believe the accusations because, unlike in the US, finding of fact doesn't seem to immunize the defendant of defaming the plaintiff. And that probably means he gets what he wants - his pound of flesh from his accusers for daring to stand up and accuse him.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 3, 2019)

For every Cris Hardwick, there are 20 Zak Smiths. 

Yes, false accusations do happen at times. Yes, people deserve a fair chance at being believed. 

Cris Hardwick didn't have a history of abuse accusations. He didn't have the enmity of a good portion of his industry because he was abrasive, rude, and a general dooshbag in all his dealings. 

Zak is very likely being judged just as much for his overall attitude and abrasiveness as he is for the abuse accusations. Perhaps if he hadn't burned every bridge he crossed and hadn't rubbed everyone he dealt with the wrong way, maybe more people would be willing to believe him? 

I mean, he seems to already have been given a good deal of benefit of the doubt since it took multiple accusations for everything to finally catch up to him. The fact that accusations have continued to pile up and he's continued to be a general dick online.....seems like a strong enough reason to doubt him. 

 Again, the problem is that we will never have the GUILTY VERDICT that so many are expecting as a pre-requisite to taking a side. It won't happen. So what we have to do is look at what information is available, and then decide accordingly.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Well that's the thing isn't it? Any attempt by ZakS to defend himself by suing, if he did perpetrate what Mandy and others are accusing him of, is, by definition, a further attack on the victims. And, as you pointed out, since neither we nor any of the (eventually to be picked) jurors were there, there's no way to establish any kind of absolute truth of the matter. The jurors have to weigh exactly what we've been weighing - the testimony of those making the accusation. With all the pearl clutching over (rare) false accusations, you should be able to see exactly why abusers like ZakS get away with their abuse - it's very easy to make it hard for victims to accuse their abuser.
> There's a reasonably good chance ZakS could win a defamation lawsuit in Canada even if the jurors believe the accusations because, unlike in the US, finding of fact doesn't seem to immunize the defendant of defaming the plaintiff. And that probably means he gets what he wants - his pound of flesh from his accusers for daring to stand up and accuse him.




Which is why the victims can counter sue for further emotional damage and suffering.  Just because false allegations are rare, doesn't mean that all accused should be denied their legal rights.  Tell that to Chris Hardwick.  Or Brian Banks.  People were _certain _they committed the crimes they were accused of.  Until they were cleared...

I fully agree that accusers should be taken seriously, and not attacked like Blassey Ford was in the Kavanaugh hearings.  And it's a horrible shame that those types of attacks are way too frequent.  And we absolutely should be protecting victims when we can.  But the reality is that not every single case is a true accusation.  My family is mixed race.  I can tell you with certainty that minories, especially black men, are falsely accused of things all the time.  Often by the police themselves.  Or the parents of a white girl who didn't want her dating a black guy.  Is your argument that those people accused should just shut up and take it, whatever the punishment is up to including prison time, because false accusations are rare?  Hate to break it to you, but that poor black kid doesn't have Loeb and Leob around to do an investigation and clear their name.


----------



## Bardic Dave (Dec 3, 2019)

billd91 said:


> There's a reasonably good chance ZakS could win a defamation lawsuit in Canada even if the jurors believe the accusations because, unlike in the US, finding of fact doesn't seem to immunize the defendant of defaming the plaintiff.




I'm 99% certain you are misstating Canadian law. It's been a few years since law school, but as far as I can recall telling the truth is an absolute defence against defamation.

I believe the real difference between defamation in most Canadian jurisdictions and most American jurisdictions is the reverse onus. In the U.S., the onus to show that a statement is NOT truthful always lies with the plaintiff. In Canada, if the plaintiff can establish the elements of defamation the onus shifts to the defendant to prove that their statement WAS actually truthful.

This reverse onus has been heavily criticized because it brings a whiff of "guilty until proven innocent" into defamation suits. Many people argue that it would be more fair to just make "not truthful or reckless disregard for the truth" an element of the offence. Instead, we've got "truthful, or earnestly believed it to be truthful" as a defence, which is why the onus shifts. It's just a different way of framing the question, but it makes a real difference in outcomes.

EDIT: To add a little more context, it's relatively easy to establish that a statement is prima-facie defamatory. If person A says person B sexually assaulted them, it's an attack on person B's character and thus prima facie defamatory (regardless of whether the statement is true or not). What's much harder to establish is whether the sexual assault actually took place. In a defamation suit in the U.S., the heavy lifting of proving the truth of the matter lies with the alleged sexual assaulter, whereas in Canada it lies with the alleged victim. So in Canada, unless person A can prove that person B sexually assaulted them, they are likely to lose the defamation suit. You can see why many people (myself included) find this problematic.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Which is why the victims can counter sue for further emotional damage and suffering.




The victims are allowed to counter-sue.  

But remember that legal costs are a thing.  If they are going to crowdfunding for defense, they probably don't have the funds for a counter-suit.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

Umbran said:


> The victims are allowed to counter-sue.
> 
> But remember that legal costs are a thing.  If they are going to crowdfunding for defense, they probably don't have the funds for a counter-suit.




True.  Which is why I donated to Mandy.  And why I suspect her fundraising will far outpace Zaks.  If he's going to use crowdsourced funding, so can she.  And I bet she will do better in that regard.  So what I see happening is that Zak drops the suit (showing his true colors), and Mandy gets a decent sum from supporters for having to deal with it.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 3, 2019)

John R Davis said:


> guess Person A either goes quiet trying to cope with the detrimental things or Person A pushes back. Can't think of anything else they could do?



(continuing my analogy from earlier) Do what any small business that gets a undeserved bad review does. Choose to make your brand above reproach. 

Make your interactions with costumers, vendors, partners, peers as honest, transparent, and pleasant as possible so that if your conduct is called into question you have a backlog of others you have interacted with to say "This is not how this person interacted with me" (not in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, social media etc) just like the other ex significant others of Chris Hardwick did.

After all as it has been said many times here already, the system is set up to favor the accused anyway.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> After all as it has been said many times here already, the system is set up to favor the accused anyway.





Unless you're black.  As our DoJ statistics show


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Unless you're black.  As our DoJ statistics show



Oh yes. That is a completely valid caveat.

Edit: Also the problems for women, which are already horrifying, are far worse for women of color too.


----------



## dragoner (Dec 3, 2019)

So what did we learn here today?


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 3, 2019)

Umbran said:


> You reaize the basic difference, of course?
> 
> In the McCarthy Era, and during the Satanic panic, nobody had actually done anything wrong.  There were no Communist agents.  There were no Satan worshipers.



In both cases, there WERE a few. 

Every satanist I've known (about a dozen) played D&D in high school and/or college. Not all of them did so during the height of the "satanic panic"...  because they weren't old enough... but there were Satan-worshippers playing D&D in the period. 

And many communist agents were convicted ... including the Rosenbergs.¹

You chose your exemplars poorly.

¹: https://fas.org/sgp/library/spies.pdf


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

dragoner said:


> So what did we learn here today?




Don't feed the trolls?


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bardic Dave (Dec 3, 2019)

aramis erak said:


> In both cases, there WERE a few.
> 
> Every satanist I've known (about a dozen) played D&D in high school and/or college. Not all of them did so during the height of the "satanic panic"...  because they weren't old enough... but there were Satan-worshippers playing D&D in the period.
> 
> ...




Dude, there are "satan worshippers" (real people who are a member of a "church" of skeptical atheists that don't actually believe in the devil) and there are "satan worshippers" (fictional boogeymen that congregate to drink the blood of virgins at midnight). Real life members of the satanic church have nothing to do with secret blood orgies or human sacrifice—kinda like how real life people with socialist leanings are not secret agents of the Soviet Union. You're drawing a false equivalence here.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Dec 3, 2019)

dragoner said:


> So what did we learn here today?



That some really decent folks here and elsewhere are willing to help a person in need.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

I think this thread was doomed from the start, because of who it is.  The war between Zak and the unnamed other site (and many posters there who also post here) goes back to at least 2001 that I know of.  Probably earlier.  for the past 20 years, people either hate him with a passion, or they defend him tooth and nail.  so I think there is a lot of confirmation bias here.  Those that hate him, upon hearing accusations, will automatically convict him with malice.  It feels good to hear that someone you hate might do down in flames.  And the more flames, the better.  As someone who had a bit of a rift with him a decade or so ago, I feel those same feelings.  But we have to recognize confirmation bias when we see it.


----------



## Raunalyn (Dec 3, 2019)

We are, as a society, too quick to believe accusations/allegations without reviewing all of the evidence. Today, too many people are able to point the finger at someone, accuse them of doing something atrocious with little or no evidence, and have that person's livelihood damaged permanently by that allegation. We need to be more careful and cognizant of this before we jump to judgement. There is a reason why most courts are built upon the presumption of innocence.

That being said; I am not saying that Zak is innocent. It is a well known tactic of people who are likely guilty of said atrocious behavior to sue the accuser(s) of slander/libel in an attempt to silence them. I don't know the whole story, though.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I think this thread was doomed from the start, because of who it is.  The war between Zak and the unnamed other site (and many posters there who also post here) goes back to at least 2001 that I know of.  Probably earlier.  for the past 20 years, people either hate him with a passion, or they defend him tooth and nail.  so I think there is a lot of confirmation bias here.  Those that hate him, upon hearing accusations, will automatically convict him with malice.  It feels good to hear that someone you hate might do down in flames.  And the more flames, the better.  As someone who had a bit of a rift with him a decade or so ago, I feel those same feelings.  But we have to recognize confirmation bias when we see it.




I was blissfully ignorant of all of this until maybe a year ago or so. I only became aware of Zak Smith a couple years ago, when I came across the Maze of the Blue Medusa. I thought it was a great product....innovative, evocative, simple to use....and I started following his work. Vornheim and Red and Pleasant Land were also works of his that impressed me.

Without knowing of the larger issues, I noticed that when I would mention his work in online conversations, sometimes people would react in a way I thought was odd. I chalked it up to online interactions lacking nuance and being easily misconstrued. 

Obviously, there was more to it. When I found out about this, I looked into it a bit. It doesn't take a lot of digging to find enough information to take a stance on the guy. So that's what I did....I won't buy any more of his work, and I'm not going to use the materials of his that I have.

I mean.....it's easy to ignore all the evidence and call for impartiality when there's no risk to us personally. But what if Zak showed up at your house on Christmas because he's dating your sister? 

Who in their right mind would remain impartial in that case? I don't think anyone would. We'd all act on what we know.....we'd warn our sister in some way, even if we did so with the caveat "I don't know for sure this is 100% true, but....." 

Simple as that.


----------



## Beleriphon (Dec 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So, a few observations.
> 
> It is my understanding that this lawsuit was filed in Canada, not the United States. Typical defamation forum shopping. I do not know enough about Canadian law to opine on the issue much, other than to say that Canadian law is much more plaintiff-friendly in defamation cases; from what I generally understand, Canada is considered one of the least speech-protective jurisdictions of the major commonlaw countries. The only reason you don't normally see this type of forum shopping by Americans is because you can't generally collect on a Canadian defamation judgement in America without re-proving it (SPEECH Act).
> 
> ...




That's interesting, in that there's a distinct dis-incentive for filing suit in Canada: if you lose you pay the other side's fees up to a point.

Truth is still a defense, there's no really logical reason to file suit in Canada either if all of the parties are in the USA. The only reason is might happen is if a party involved initially had the reports made via a Canadian news agency. The CBC has been sued, and won, on the basis that they made a good faith effort to validate facts before publishing.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

hawkeyefan said:


> I was blissfully ignorant of all of this until maybe a year ago or so. I only became aware of Zak Smith a couple years ago, when I came across the Maze of the Blue Medusa. I thought it was a great product....innovative, evocative, simple to use....and I started following his work. Vornheim and Red and Pleasant Land were also works of his that impressed me.
> 
> Without knowing of the larger issues, I noticed that when I would mention his work in online conversations, sometimes people would react in a way I thought was odd. I chalked it up to online interactions lacking nuance and being easily misconstrued.
> 
> ...




I don't disagree.  And like I said, I had a bit of a riff about a decade or so ago.  Enough for me to make my own opinions.  I'll just say this.  I find it entirely believable that these allegations might be true (many of the red flags are there: his attitude, Mandy being in a vulnerable and dependent state due to her condition (abusers often look for people like that), etc).  But I think he still should be afforded the opportunity to take proper legal recourse, because it's not unheard of that people were sure someone did something, only to find out they didn't.  And even if a person is overall horrible, that doesn't mean they are guilty of every crime.  None of us were there.  None of us truly know.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

aramis erak said:


> And many communist agents were convicted ... including the Rosenbergs.¹




With respect - McCarthy's investigations found nobody guilty of anything.


----------



## Bohandas (Dec 3, 2019)

Bardic Dave said:


> Dude, there are "satan worshippers" (real people who are a member of a "church" of skeptical atheists that don't actually believe in the devil) and there are "satan worshippers" (fictional boogeymen that congregate to drink the blood of virgins at midnight). Real life members of the satanic church have nothing to do with secret blood orgies or human sacrifice



What about David Berkowitz


----------



## Bardic Dave (Dec 3, 2019)

Bohandas said:


> What about David Berkowitz




Did David Berkowitz play D&D?

Edit: But ok. There are deranged and depraved people out there who will commit heinous crimes, ostensibly in the name of satan. I don't think that really changes my point: just because a few "satanists" may have played D&D, that doesn't lend any credence to the satanic panic. David Berkowitz doesn't really have anything to do with it.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I don't disagree.  And like I said, I had a bit of a riff about a decade or so ago.  Enough for me to make my own opinions.  I'll just say this.  I find it entirely believable that these allegations might be true (many of the red flags are there: his attitude, Mandy being in a vulnerable and dependent state due to her condition (abusers often look for people like that), etc).  But I think he still should be afforded the opportunity to take proper legal recourse, because it's not unheard of that people were sure someone did something, only to find out they didn't.  And even if a person is overall horrible, that doesn't mean they are guilty of every crime.  None of us were there.  None of us truly know.




I'm not saying he shouldn't be afforded whatever legal right is available to him. The system seems a bit stacked in his favor in this regard, but that's a criticism of the system rather than him.

What I find odd is how many people are calling for impartiality. Why? I've decided I don't like the guy for a number of reasons despite previously liking his work. Why shouldn't I choose to not be a customer of his? Why do I need to give him the benefit of the doubt? It's been said by many here....but why?

And how many of us wouldn't take all this into consideration if it actually came up for us personally? My example of Zak dating my sister is a bit silly, but I think it makes the point. Who here would think to themselves "Hmmm...I should probably warn my sister about his reputation of abuse.....but on the other hand, that wouldn't be fair to him since he's never been found guilty of abuse"? 

No one. We all make these kinds of judgments about people all the time. And we should, even though we may be wrong from time to time.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 3, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Beleriphon (Dec 3, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So, I did a little looking (couldn't help myself) and this is what I think is the case. Take all of this with a grain of salt, given that Canada is not ... my wheelhouse.
> 
> 1. Defamation claims tend to involve a lot of forum shopping. For a libel claim in the modern age, you can often pick and choose various jurisdictions (states) within the US to bring a claim, trying to find the one most favorable to you. However, given that the Defendant resides in Canada, I believe that I was incorrect in calling this forum shopping _per se. _It is always reasonable to bring a lawsuit in the jurisdiction where the Defendant resides and/or the material was written (if not "published" - internet!).




Big problem is Defamation is a provincial jurisdiction. So it depends heavily on the province.



> 2. My understanding is that Canada has a modified version of "loser pays." In essence, at the end of litigation, the court makes a determination as to which party should pay, and how much, based upon various factors (and this can even include the winner paying in some circumstances, depending, again, on factors). I don't know how this works in Canada in practice, but these types of jurisdictions have been known to favor the wealthier party in some cases due to the _in terrorem _effect; in essence, even if you know you have a very strong case, the idea that you might have to pay the other side's fees can force you to settle.  Again, perhaps someone with more familiarity would know this.




Correct. From McMillan (a big law firm in Toronto): "n other words, the prevailing party at trial or on appeal can expect the opposing party to be ordered to pay anywhere from fifty to ninety percent of the prevailing party's actual _legal_ costs. _Attorneys_' _fees_ can also be _awarded_ to the prevailing party on a motion."

So, if you lose you can be in for a world of financial pain.



> 3. Despite (1) and (2), and although truth can be a defense in Canada, Canada is widely considered the most plaintiff-friendly of all the common-law countries to bring a defamation lawsuit, for such reasons as not having to prove damages for libel (all libel is libel _per se_) to shifting the burden to the defendant (which, to be honest, I was somewhat surprised by).




It has a few interesting effects. A reverse scorched Earth tactic can come up. Say Lowkey13 sues me because I insist he loves gnome paladins dual wielding rapiers, he told me last week doncha know. But along the way in the court case I dump all of the actual true, horrible things about him and its all on a public record he's going to have a hard time suppressing. It tends to work better for big media entities that can and do collect all kinds of interesting facts. Note though it can backfire spectacularly if they lose.

Anyway, once a case commences the only defenses are (list courtesy of CJFE):

1. You can claim that the statement was true; *a true statement cannot be defamatory.*
2. You can claim *“absolute privilege,”* which means that the communication was made in a venue where people ought to have absolute privilege to speak freely; this includes Parliament or giving evidence in a trial.
3. You can claim *“qualified privilege,”* which means that the communication was given in a non-malicious and well-intentioned context and therefore ought to be excused: for example, giving an honest but negative reference for a former employee.
4. You can claim *“fair comment,”* which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest: for example, an editorial in a newspaper about a politician.
5. You can claim *“responsible communication on matters of public importance,”* which allows journalists to report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if the statement is false, the public has an interest in this type of discussion being legally permissible


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Thank you for the link. Donation submitted. IMO, the best way to handle this isn't to try to prevent or deny or attack an accused from taking legal recourse, but to support the side you find has more credibility. Also, let Zak take this to court, because then the truth will come out for all to see either way. And if he's a liar, then Mandy can counter sue



The link was in the OP...


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> The link was in the OP...




Indeed, that is where I copied and pasted it from. I just thought it would be useful, given the ridiculous turns the conversation was taking, to remind everyone what's actually at stake here.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Dec 3, 2019)

But McCarthy!!!!!


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

hawkeyefan said:


> But McCarthy!!!!!


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 3, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Indeed, that is where I copied and pasted it from. I just thought it would be useful, given the ridiculous turns the conversation was taking, to remind everyone what's actually at stake here.



Oh I'm fine with you reposting it, but the replied hinted that they had missed it initially, which was a tad disappointing. 

My goal in starting the thread was showing said link so people could offer real support. If that meant feeding a few trolls along the way... I'm not sure what else we can do?


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> Oh I'm fine with you reposting it, but the replied hinted that they had missed it initially, which was a tad disappointing.
> 
> My goal in starting the thread was showing said link so people could offer real support. If that meant feeding a few trolls along the way... I'm not sure what else we can do?




Just keep keeping on.

In any case, thanks for bringing this to our attention in the first place!


----------



## billd91 (Dec 3, 2019)

Gradine said:


> In any case, thanks for bringing this to our attention in the first place!




Yeah, I appreciate it too. Good to be reminded just how much a lowlife ZakS is.


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 3, 2019)

Bardic Dave said:


> Dude, there are "satan worshippers" (real people who are a member of a "church" of skeptical atheists that don't actually believe in the devil) and there are "satan worshippers" (fictional boogeymen that congregate to drink the blood of virgins at midnight). Real life members of the satanic church have nothing to do with secret blood orgies or human sacrifice—kinda like how real life people with socialist leanings are not secret agents of the Soviet Union. You're drawing a false equivalence here.



Considering that one is doing life for rape (over 100 counts he wont even be eligible for parole until he's 130...).  Have your nice (but probably delusional) view that no real evil folks played D&D. 

And while the American Church of Satan is pretty much a hedonist agnosticism with shock factor ritual, I've never met any of them (to my knowledge). 

And there are even murderous gang-bangers who play D&D.

D&D draws (and has since inception) a lot more minority/outlier types than is representative of the overall population.

In the 90's Mike Stackpole wrote an excellent essay.... which has an interesting quote from a murderous satanist (who was not a member of the ACS) (Michael A. Stackpole: The Pulling Report )


			
				Sean Sellers as quoth by Mike Stackpole said:
			
		

> When I was playing D&D I was not a satanist, and in fact would probably have punched any Satanist I met right in the mouth. I was interested in witchcraft and Zen however. In doing some research at the library for a D&D adventure I was leading I happened upon the other books that led to my study of occultism.
> 
> ...to be fair to TSR [the manufacturer of D&D] and in the spirit of honesty I must concede that D&D contributed to my involvement in Satanism like an interest in electronics can contribute to building a bomb. Like the decision to build a bomb, I had already made decisions of a destructive nature before I incorporated D&D materials into my coven projects, and it was Satanism not D&D that had a decisive role in my crimes.




Very real, murderous, satan-worshiping, _former_ D&D player.
See also Sean Richard Sellers #512


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 3, 2019)

I don't know what I expected from 11 pages of Internet discourse on this subject, but it wasn't this.
Good day.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

Deflect and distract. 60% of the time it works _every _time.


----------



## generic (Dec 3, 2019)

Justice will be done.

I've refrained from commenting here too much, but, I feel that I should say something.

My personal bias is that I think that Zak was a good designer with serious and glaring character flaws and a... somewhat twisted sense of morality.

Okay, he seemed like kind of a jerk, to be honest.

What we must remember is that it's not wrong to fund an effort for a citizen to defend themselves against what are pretty petty reasons to sue, I daresay it's the right thing to do.

If Zack did in fact commit the acts he stands accused of (which I have no doubt he did), then he should be punished for them.

Why blame the potential victim?  All she's trying to due is raise funds to defend herself.


----------



## aramis erak (Dec 3, 2019)

Umbran said:


> With respect - McCarthy's investigations found nobody guilty of anything.



You claimed there were no communist spies, not that the HUAC (House Unamerican Affairs Committee) convicted people. Which they could not, and still cannot. They can, however, refer for prosecution, and such a referral is equivalent to an indictment.

And, for reference, they did refer several for prosecution - more than 10 convicts..  Their investigation was low value, but the threat was real, and as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg prove, a real threat. 

The HUAC did more damage than good, but it was fighting a real issue...  in a very inept way.  Same for the later senate investigations by Sen. McCarthy.

Alger Hiss, by the way, was convicted of Perjury in re his testimony before the HUAC. 

Oh, and you should probably be aware that the SCOTUS upheld 10 convictions based upon HUAC hearings referrals for prosecution. (Dennis v. US, 1951)


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 3, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, I appreciate it too. Good to be reminded just how much a lowlife ZakS is.



Well, the real intent is not to poo poo Zak but to bring assistance to his victims.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 3, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> Well, the real intent is not to poo poo Zak but to bring assistance to his victims.




They go hand in hand like pork chops and applesauce, like peanut butter and Nutella, like Canadian bacon and pineapple on pizza...


----------



## pemerton (Dec 3, 2019)

Gradine said:


> there is basically zero chance that Zak does not land on his feet very shortly after all this blows over. Even if it never actually does blow over (which would be nice, but is a pipe dream at this point) there are more than enough people who would _more _willing to support Zak by buying his products over this that he isn't going to have to worry about it.



This is why I can't really take seriously some posters' concerns about "career-ending false allegations".


----------



## Ancalagon (Dec 3, 2019)

pemerton said:


> This is why I can't really take seriously some posters' concerns about "career-ending false allegations".




I can tell you that in the OSR circle I run in, he is _not_ well regarded anymore.


----------



## dragoner (Dec 3, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> If Zack did in fact commit the acts he stands accused of (which I have no doubt he did), then he should be punished for them.




I've know him for years, we were friends on G+, and even then I couldn't stand his ... whatever you want to call this, being a giant douche nozzle. I blocked him then, just not wanting to hear it anymore. He won't be punished by us, RPG's are just a social thing for him, iirc, he comes from money, and is a six figure a year artist with works hanging in major art museums.

Edit: Pretty sure he is guilty of everything Mandy said he did, I think he even admitted it at one point before doing a 180.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 3, 2019)

pemerton said:


> This is why I can't really take seriously some posters' concerns about "career-ending false allegations".




I don't know.  Chris Hardwick has his career ended over just accusations.  AMC fired him, and the Nerdist removed him (he actually created the nerdist, so that was even more of a blow).

If AMC didn't hire a law firm to investigate, and subsequently clear him of the allegations, he still very much would not have a career.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I don't know.  Chris Hardwick has his career ended over just accusations.  AMC fired him, and the Nerdist removed him (he actually created the nerdist, so that was even more of a blow).
> 
> If AMC didn't hire a law firm to investigate, and subsequently clear him of the allegations, he still very much would not have a career.




He would almost certainly have bounced back, whether he was found  to be guilty or not. Nick Robinson still has a career in the games industry and he admitted to stuff way scummier than what Hardwick was accused of.


----------



## dragoner (Dec 3, 2019)

Gradine said:


> He would almost certainly have bounced back, whether he was found to be guilty or not.




He is married to a Hearst after all.


----------



## Gradine (Dec 3, 2019)

Gradine said:


> He would almost certainly have bounced back, whether he was found  to be guilty or not. Nick Robinson still has a career in the games industry and he admitted to stuff way scummier than what Hardwick was accused of.




I'll note that this is not take false accusations lightly or that Hardwick deserved what happened to him; just that the "their career will be ruined!" hysterics are very overblown and do not match up what has actually happened in reality in the least bit


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2019)

aramis erak said:


> You claimed there were no communist spies, not that the HUAC (House Unamerican Affairs Committee) convicted people.




Dude.  The HUAC _wasn't McCarthy_.

And, in the places McCarthy suggested there were spies... there were none.  Actual spies, are... like false accusations of rape and sexual assault - yes, they exist, but they are rare enough that fearing them in every corner is nonsensical.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 4, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I'll note that this is not take false accusations lightly or that Hardwick deserved what happened to him; just that the "their career will be ruined!" hysterics are very overblown and do not match up what has actually happened in reality in the least bit




His career WAS ruined, until he was cleared.  If he wasn't cleared, he still wouldn't be hired by AMC and he still would be removed from the Nerdist.  And Brian Banks lost his career to, while he sat in jail for 5 years on a false rape accusation.  And as a pro athlete prospect, after his release, it was too late to recoup after that because his window has passed.

I agree that most of the comments above by them about being scared silly about false accusations are way out of proportion.  But it's also not true that false accusations don't result in ruined careers.  Because they do.

And as I mentioned above, my family is mixed race.  Your comments about false accusations not really having a serious effect, or that they are way overblown and not a reflection of reality, are comments that most black people in the states would find...bizarre to say the least.


----------



## dragoner (Dec 4, 2019)

Rosenbergs were taken down by Venona: NOVA Online | Secrets, Lies, and Atomic Spies | Read Venona Intercepts: September 21, 1944


----------



## Gradine (Dec 4, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> And as I mentioned above, my family is mixed race.  Your comments about false accusations not really having a serious effect, or that they are way overblown and not a reflection of reality, are comments that most black people in the states would find...bizarre to say the least.




This is a very fair point, and one reflects on my own privilege. I will revise my previous statement:

_Cishet white male celebrities* _basically never face consequences beyond a momentary derailment of their career over either accusations or admissions of sexual misconduct. 

*for a given quality of celebrity, based entirely around their field (so folks like Chris Hardwick and Zak Smith apply.)


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 4, 2019)

Gradine said:


> This is a very fair point, and one reflects on my own privilege. I will revise my previous statement:
> 
> _Cishet white male celebrities* _basically never face consequences beyond a momentary derailment of their career over either accusations or admissions of sexual misconduct.
> 
> *for a given quality of celebrity, based entirely around their field (so folks like Chris Hardwick and Zak Smith apply.)




This I agree more with. Although, if you look at cis white men who did lose careers in disgrace, and one who didn’t suffer any negative affects and was even supported, there seems to be a strong correlation with political affiliation. But I’m not going to explain in detail because we’ve already been crossing into politics and I don’t want to make it worse. I’m sure you can figure it out though.


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 4, 2019)

Gradine said:


> This is a very fair point, and one reflects on my own privilege. I will revise my previous statement:
> 
> _Cishet white male celebrities* _basically never face consequences beyond a momentary derailment of their career over either accusations or admissions of sexual misconduct.
> 
> *for a given quality of celebrity, based entirely around their field (so folks like Chris Hardwick and Zak Smith apply.)



We have a mainstream media that wakes up everyday praying to god they can pin something on a white male. That’s why there are so many false accusations that get caught and embarrass the media.


----------



## generic (Dec 4, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> We have a mainstream media that wakes up everyday praying to god they can pin something on a white male. That’s why there are so many false accusations that get caught and embarrass the media.



What even is this point?  What is your point exactly, and how does it relate to Mr. Smith?


----------



## Gradine (Dec 4, 2019)

Gradine said:


>


----------



## Arnwolf666 (Dec 4, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> What even is this point?  What is your point exactly, and how does it relate to Mr. Smith?



Just responding to the person that I was quoting that made race an issue.


----------



## generic (Dec 4, 2019)

Arnwolf666 said:


> Just responding to the person that I was quoting that made race an issue.



As they say on certain forums:

"Gr8 b8 m8".


----------



## arcadia7366 (Dec 4, 2019)

dragoner said:


> Zak I'm sure did everything he's accused of, though being rich, he will be able to walk away without punishment that a normal person would. That is the way the world works.



Were you there?
the guys rich? From what i’ve seen both him & her were cheap pornstar. His income from RPG isn’t near enough to get to middle class.
this Thing  is mainly voyeurism


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 4, 2019)

This thing is done.


----------

