PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[Tyrannical]

Shermer might want to get a better lawyer.
Calling the statements libelous implies that PZ is maliciously spreading known untruths, an accusation itself that may be libelous.

[Robert_S]

Just a gut feeling that there's something.

Maybe not more sound, but something should at least seem like a more sound ground for him to stand on.

I still doubt it, on the basis that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but also because of the way he changed his story.

I think he has completely lost the run of himself.

...and I don't think that mental instability will work as a defence to this.

I'm not commenting on Shermer's guilt or innocence. I'm talking about the degree to which PZ has lost the plot.

Oh. I misunderstood.

Will you clarify your point for me? I've obviously misconstrued what you said, and am now confused.

Just my incredulity at the notion that PZ would put that up in that way unless there was a more compelling reason (at least in PZ's eyes) than what he's revealed.

It may still not be enough to condemn Shermer. It might be something I find quite flimsy evidence, but I can't shake the feeling that there is something we don't know that would make more sense than what we're given.

I know I'm a little loopy, but maybe I'm still too sane to wrap my mind around the kind of of crazy that the evidence suggests PZ is into here. It's just my gut talking here. I might have to admit some day that I found it hard to believe that PZ is as crazy as he turned out to be.

Or maybe he's holding back some stronger evidence just to make the people who doubted him look bad, like when Jesus said to Thomas: “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and (yet) have believed".

[Pappa]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/red-d ... 74082.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 46138.html


And yet, still all over the web today, people are still not clear that he was entirely innocent - nearly 20 years later.

He spent over three months in jail where he was severely assaulted, having already been mauled in the media.

False accusations do happen.

Famous people can sometimes be rapists.

The law tries to prevent false accusations from succeeding and tries to prevent rapists from getting away with it.


Myers has muddied the waters, and has, in fact, made it more difficult for a conviction to be secured
if there is any substance to his vague allegations.

And, if it is not true, the Shermer will never again be able to meet and talk to a woman* as an equal. It is appalling.


*or a man for that matter (Edit).

I had no idea Craig Charles was acquitted.

[DaveDodo007]

I thought it was somewhat ironic that the ads were for Chinese bints.

PZ pimping third world brides seemed a bit out of sorts.

The ads are generated by your use of search engines.

[Pappa]

I thought it was somewhat ironic that the ads were for Chinese bints.

PZ pimping third world brides seemed a bit out of sorts.

The ads are generated by your use of search engines.

[Azathoth]

I thought it was somewhat ironic that the ads were for Chinese bints.

PZ pimping third world brides seemed a bit out of sorts.

The ads are generated by your use of search engines.

[Jason]

Shermer might want to get a better lawyer.
Calling the statements libelous implies that PZ is maliciously spreading known untruths, an accusation itself that may be libelous.

No it doesn't. I covered this already, but for your benefit google "libel per se".

[SteveB]

I'll watch this TF video sometime.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I had no idea Craig Charles was acquitted.

Really? Do you think they would have brought back Red Dwarf a few years later if he hadn't been?

[Audley Strange]

Of course. He's a brave hero of rape culture. Look at Red Dwarf ffs! Four brodudes in a giant penis flying through time and space looking to force women to eat so much vindaloo that they pass out and then rape them. One the "hilariously" named Rimmer even has an H on his head, which we all know stands for homophobe!

Also where were the genderfluid people of colour in Dad's Army?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Of course. He's a brave hero of rape culture. Look at Red Dwarf ffs! Four brodudes in a giant penis flying through time and space looking to force women to eat so much vindaloo that they pass out and then rape them. One the "hilariously" named Rimmer even has an H on his head, which we all know stands for homophobe!

Also where were the genderfluid people of colour in Dad's Army?

There were no black people during the war. Everyone knows that. They didn't evolve until Sidney Poitier in 1964.

[Jaygray]

I'll watch this TF video sometime.

TF nails the bedrock issue in the first sentence of his video commentary. The rest is stating what I thought would be self-evident to any sensible person with any notion of (or respect for) due process.

[Coito ergo sum]

It would have to actually be libel for him to be sued it though.

We'll see.

No, it would have to be libel to be sustained, he can be sued for just about anything, including defamation of character, which is probably more likely, given the circumstances.

It's worth noting that repeating a libel is still libel.

No, I mean if it now goes to court and turns out to be true then it's not libel. Isn't it?

Um, yes and no. Truth is an absolute defense against libel, but it's not necessarily a defense against other tort claims like defamation of character.

Truth is a defense to defamation. Libel is written defamation. Slander is verbal defamation. In the US, that is.

I believe (and perhaps some lawyer will correct me if I'm wrong) if his second-hand accusations can be shown to be the product of malice and he made them without himself knowing what the truth was, he can still be guilty of defamation of character, especially in a case where a criminal act is alleged but not proven in court.

Not under US law. Reporting what someone else said is not going to be defamation.

For example, (hypothetically speaking) if one says "OJ is guilty of murdering his wife" that's defamation of character because he's been acquitted of that crime and is therefore not guilty. Doesn't matter if he actually did it or not.

Nope. Truth is a defense, and the acquittal does not operate as proof of innocence. He was found liable of wrongful death, for example.

It absolutely matters if he did it or not. Truth is a defense, under US law. It used to not be under British law.

[DaveD]

Mr Deity is in the firing line now: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... us-geddit/

[SteveB]

I wish I cared what any of them at FTB thought. No wait, I don't and I'm so glad I don't. More important things to. Think I'll put some lint in my belly button and retrieve and do it all over again.