Comments on: Vigilante Justice For Gray Rape

By: Emily

Emily — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:21:47 +0000

Nice try. Slovic's so-called "excellent" article had less to do with the "Facebook fatwa." Rather, it was a biased, poorly-written, and overly graphic play-by-play of Hunter's allegations. Slovic (and your former employer) should be sued for libel.

By: Bacon Cheese Egg

Bacon Cheese Egg — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:29:41 +0000

Yeah, but Dom, the idea is that even outside of court, we should uphold the principles underlying due process: fairness, impartiality, restraint. AV's not saying it's illegal to assault the guy on Facebook. She is saying it's wrong.

By: Dom

Dom — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:59:44 +0000

Your knowledge of law is misplaced. The due process clause protects from government action, not action by a private person or group. The government has taken no action against the "alleged" rapist. Therefore, none of his rights have been violated. The presumption of innocence only applies inside the courthouse, not to public opinion. The First Amendment, the most important one, protects against free speech while it's the 14th Amendment that contains the due process clause. Meaning, me, you, the people calling him a rapist, and even the "alleged" rapist all have the right to speak our opinions. If the "alleged" rapist believes he has been slandered or libeled he he free use the court system and file suit. Although a defense to libel is that the words written are true. He can give his side of the story in whatever method he chooses. I see no "vigilante justice" as the above commenter says. I see people exercising their right to free speech. While I have a general disdain for feminist groups called "Womyn," like the one that started made the "alleged" rapist public, if it was my friend who was the victim, I would have beat the crap out of the "alleged" rapist.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:29:37 +0000

I also have a problem with circumventing due process. Even in a court of law, there is a presumption of guilt on the man's part in date-rape situations. But the alleged victim was drunk and actually initiated the encounter. Is it not even remotely possible that her account of the situation isn't true? Could there be a situation where a person is embarrassed by their actions and can't admit to themselves that they are responsible, placing blame on the other party, where both parties were in fact more or less consenting? I am not by any means trying to say that rape isn't real. But in this situation, she was drunk, she initiated the encounter, and it's her word against his. I don't know their history together, their respective characters, and so on. If this went to a court of law, then that information would be crucial in determining innocence or guilt, given it's her word against his. Instead, a bunch of people (presumably her friends) have just decided to take her word and crucify him without ever hearing the other side of the story. It's still vigilante justice and it's still wrong.