PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[Seth]

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. 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.

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.

[Scott1328]

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. 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.

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.

Whereas, simply saying OJ killed Ron Goldman would not be libel, since truth is a complete defense and the civil suit against OJ established that he, in fact, was responsible for Goldman's death.

[Seth]

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. 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.

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.

Whereas, simply saying OJ killed Ron Goldman would not be libel, since truth is a complete defense and the civil suit against OJ established that he, in fact, was responsible for Goldman's death.

Nor would it be either libel or defamation to say "George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin." Words matter.

[Scott1328]

There are other causes of actions, such as public disclosure of private facts.

[Bella Fortuna]

I know Shermer has a reputation as a ladies' man (I know one person who had an affair with him) but this is new.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think it would be parsed out to "Into a position where I neither give or deny consent", in other words into a corner where she didn't have a say one way or the other. Interesting to see if that plays out.

[Scott1328]

Until we have direct testimony from the complainant it is unreasonable to speculate on any claim that a biased third party may make.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Until we have direct testimony from the complainant it is unreasonable to speculate on any claim that a biased third party may make.

And we would never do that!

[lordpasternack]

Aside from the fact that we have literally NO possible way of knowing exactly what physically occurred on the night in question - we have no way of knowing Michael Shermer's intent. It is possible that sex occurred which he believed to be consensual, and she believed was coercive and non-consensual.

Besides, if there is no substantive evidence in existence of what has been alleged - then Shermer may take the opportunity to sue PZ Myers and win. Is PZ going to call up the woman and her friends as witnesses to testify? Do they want that?

It really is fucking horrible if a rape really did occur, and rape was the intent - but it is frustrating for everyone concerned to be presented with allegations like this with absolutely no substantive evidence.

The best that could come out of this, if Michael Shermer really did what is alleged - is that other women come forward with some sort of actual evidence. Otherwise, it's worse than an exercise in futility: it could be very expensive for PZ, and he could find himself paying out damages to a man whom he sincerely believes raped someone he knows.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What if it happened in an elevator?

[Scott1328]

What if Mchael Shermer IS elevator guy?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What if Mchael Shermer IS elevator guy?

[Bella Fortuna]

FFS keep the guy away from COFFEE!!11!!

[lordpasternack]

For the record - I was once physically coerced into sex, with someone I'd previously had consensual sex with. In this case I relented rather than consented, and it was obvious that the man in question simply wasn't interested in seeking my complete consent. He physically pinned me down on the bed when he saw me move to get up, and only released the force when I stopped trying to resist his advances.

He was of a certain age, and he worked on oil-rigs (isolated, virtually 100% male environments) - and I don't think he was even conscious of how obnoxious he was being. To this day, he probably doesn't think he did anything wrong. He probably thinks that pressured consent is fair game as long as they don't say "no".

I felt angry afterwards - not distraught - but sickeningly angry, at him, while I reflected on it in the days after. I know some of how it feels to be quietly pressured into sex, and to not even manage to utter "no" out loud at the time. But at the same time, I knew full well that there was nothing to be gained in making any kind of official complaint on tenuous and evidence-free grounds. There's the futility and resignation. It also wasn't particularly violent, and I wasn't verbally threatened or degraded. I'm not traumatised, and I don't fear him ever coming to get me.

I just put it to bed in my mind and moved on. I feel genuinely fine now. It was the best response to the incident that I could give, to my mind at the time. And I can't remember his name or anything now, if I wanted to send him feminist pamphlets and explain in great detail what his offence was.

It's over…

[Seth]

For the record - I was once physically coerced into sex, with someone I'd previously had consensual sex with. In this case I relented rather than consented, and it was obvious that the man in question simply wasn't interested in seeking my complete consent. He physically pinned me down on the bed when he saw me move to get up, and only released the force when I stopped trying to resist his advances.

He was of a certain age, and he worked on oil-rigs (isolated, virtually 100% male environments) - and I don't think he was even conscious of how obnoxious he was being. To this day, he probably doesn't think he did anything wrong. He probably thinks that pressured consent is fair game as long as they don't say "no".

I witnessed the same thing, to my horror and disgust, with a high-school acquaintance who tried to get into a girl's pants in the back seat of my car while claiming that "sex under protest" wasn't really rape, and that she never said "No" so it was okay to grope her as she struggled. I ended the attack right away, kicked him out of my car in the middle of nowhere and took the girl home.