mscelinaVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2015
- Messages
- 701
- Likes
- 1,226
I am concerned about the accusations of personal culpability for the procedure (read: "atmosphere") through the naming of CBJ and Dave Hart, and the article is most definitely slanted to foster that belief.
I am concerned about the accusations of personal culpability for the procedure (read: "atmosphere") through the naming of CBJ and Dave Hart, and the article is most definitely slanted to foster that belief.
I agree with this, and here's why. IF this were a criminal case about sexual assault, I feel they should be entitled to anonymity as victims of a crime. But this is a civil case. They are seeking damages against the University. In that case, imo, anonymity is voluntarily surrendered. Now, that said, any jackasses that harass them should be dealt with. That's not okay, imo.
Remember her endless articles on Von?
She had him and the University drug through the mud in a case that was eventually dropped.
I have no expectations of anything less here.
And yet I don't think anyone with the sense God gave a goat believes that those women's lives would be worth a damn if their names are released through the paper. They arent anonymous in the courtroom. Juat in the paper as it should be.
UNLESS THEY PERJURE THEMSELVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. If they do, that's different. But these young women are VOLS, some still attending school since they ask for tuition, and we shouldn't destroy their lives by identifying them publicly.
Yet it's okay for the accused to be named before facing judgement themselves? Not every accusation is real. What happens when the victim turns out to be the accused? His name has already been dragged through the mud.
Because it's not right to expose potential victims of alleged sexualassault to the abuse of people who are more concerned about football than doing the right thing. Blaming the victim is not cool.
Also, they would face their accusers. The newspaper, however, is respecting their privacy and not printing their names. Again--the blame the victim mentality is a very real problem in cases like tjos. Remember the Treon Harris case? His attorneys came out the day after and called his accuser the "sexual aggressor" and the next day she dropped the charges. It's way too easy for some lawyer to say an assault victim was dressed provocatively and therefore somehow ASKED for it.
After generations of rape victims being portrayed as whores by the press and attorneys in order to get scumbags out of trouble?
You bet your sweet ass I do.
BS. Why is it mandatory that the "alleged" victims identities are protected but the identities of the "alleged" perps is fair game? Do their reputations and lives mean less than the "alleged" victims? Hypocrisy and total garbage. Remember the Duke lacrosse case? Remember Brian Banks? No...if these women are going to bring charges, they need to be identified just like the accused.
Pretty much... and I hate to sound like a broken record but it's very telling that this story was broken by Anita. Just a rehashing of baseless junk from the past.
Person goes to a bar, picks up a woman, goes home with her and they have consensual sex. Women accuses man of rape, presses charges or files a civil suit. Man's name is drug through the mud. He loses his job, his friends, families and community thinks he is a rapist. His life gets wrecked. Shouldn't there be recourse and compensation for him when he is found not guilty?