That’s just the sort of misinformation conspiracy theorists always put about. I have it on good authority that the 40-foot statue of the unclean owl-god Moloch is actually a cheap plastic knock-off, and not stone at all.
Does the US even have libel laws ? 
Of course there are libel laws in the United States. What’s so confusing? In a well-known case, Carol Burnett won a million dollar judgment for defamation against the National Enquirer.
Not really confusion, I just figured any attempt at claiming libel or even passing libel laws in the first place would run afoul of the First, that’s all.
Defamation law is certainly subject to the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean that defamation law doesn’t exist.
Nope. There are obvious limits on free speech (you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, most famously), and certain defamatory statements are part of those limits. Questioning a woman’s chastity is one category of statement that in New York is considered defamatory “per se” (no need to prove that it hurt her reputation, it is assumed).
The one caveat to this (as to all libel/slander in the U.S.) is that if the assertion is true, it is an absolute defense to any defamation claim.
If she is considered a public figure, wouldn’t they also have to prove malice?
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
Of course, we are talking about the same woman who was recorded saying, “Don’t worry. I know what I’m doing.”
Yes, a public figure has to prove actual malice. It would be an interesting question whether someone like this hotel maid is considered a public figure for the purposes of a defamation claim.
The link I provided explained the concept of an involuntary public figure, which seems to apply here.
This implies to that by making a criminal accusation against DSK she became a public figure herself.
And at $8.75 million a pop, ya just don’t use 'em on a whim!
CMC fnord!
For those that don’t remember all about the NYPD and shit sticks and shit.
Ignorance fought, thanks.
She might have become a public figure herself. That’s why I say it’s an interesting question.
So… based on the claim of a single anonymous source, the NY Post declared that the nameless Chambermaid was a prostitute, in graphic language and 2 inch front page headlines. They did not have corroboration. They did not seek comment from the Chambermaid’s team before running the story. That’s 2 lapses of journalistic ethics.
Depending upon the reliability or economic interests of this anonymous source, I’d say that their claims were malicious and reflected an execrable disregard for the truth.
More:
Here’s where the later articles (allegedly with anonymous sources close to the prosecution) are discussed:
Don’t get me wrong. I have no opinion on how the chambermaid earned her living: I don’t know her. I’m just saying that the NY Post appeared to be engaging in journalistic malpractice.
I generally don’t like to resurrect old pit threads, but a woman has been accused of illegal behavior based upon a single anonymous source, without being given the courtesy of a response in the original front page article. More evidence of journalistic malpractice has surfaced.
The NY Post alleged that the union placed the woman in the Sofitel Hotel, because they knew that she would “bring in big bucks.” Some thirty paragraphs into the article is a vehement denial by the union. So far, so unexpected.
What the NY Post didn’t report was the union’s substantiation of their claim. The union forwarded employment packages to Murdoch’s employees: the chambermaid did not even land the job at the hotel via the union.
Hey more evidence might surface. But when the union denies the allegation by a single anonymous source and the union can back up its claims, then readers should be alerted to such evidence. This is looking more and more like a malicious front page smear. IMHO.
I think you misunderstood an argument somewhere. There’s nothing special or holy or magical about a woman’s body for the abortion debate, except that they can get pregnant. The same argument would apply to men just the same.
It all depends on the exact details of the crimes, what the final charges were, and where it happened, but this sounds really wrong. AFAIK attempted murder in the first can lead to life in prison in some places. Rape can be less than 10 years.
This hurt my head a little. Does it loop back into the “the hookers are dead on the inside anyway” trope? Or is it literally that since they have so much sex they won’t mind as much. And if it’s that, does that include a continuum from hookers to easy girls all the way to a nun? Even though they all share the condition of never having been raped.
Now maybe if you would’ve said prostitution is rape already then I could follow. Being raped a second time may not be as bad, all else being equal, as the first time. So if prostitution is one continuous rape then another rape wouldn’t be as bad. I guess…
BBC is reporting prosecuters have asked the judge in the case that they want all charges against DSK dropped, because they are no longer sure they can guarantee no reasonable doubt. DSK will still be subject to a civil lawsuit but will presumably now be allowed to leave the state and maybe even the country.
You have to remember that up until the 1970s, a husband could not legally rape his wife. That is, he could have sex with his wife without her consent, and it would not be rape. I think it was the 1990s before the last state government rewrote their laws to allow marital rape.
I guess the theory was that wives had given implied consent to their husbands for sex generally by marrying them, and hookers gave consent to men for sex generally, by being hookers. I’m not saying it’s a rational position. But it was the law.
[Moderating]
crowmanyclouds, your redaction of xtisme’s post entirely alters the meaning of his original sentiment. This is a violation of board rules. Please do not do this in the future, even as a joke.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I thought this made for interesting reading:
http://media.nybooks.com/strauss.html
Single line summary - there could be a good case that DSK has been deliberately setup by political opponents.