PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[Thinking Aloud]

I see Myers has closed the comments on the thread with the accusations. Unsurprisingly, he's done so with his customary lack of grace:

Because forcing the deletion of a blog post and (heaven forbid) "your comments" is a crime far worse than posting an accusation of rape against a named individual with no evidence.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I've been thinking about this... a lot!

So, bear with me while I play devil's advocate here. I am going to give PZ (Preposterous Zebra) the biggest, most generous benefit of as many doubts as I can muster and see what happens. Here we go...


1. Let's assume that Ms Anon approached PZ with her story. Let's further concede that she presented him with direct and incontrovertible evidence that every word she says is true and that a witness, Ms Also-Anon came forward to corroborate her testimony.
2. Let us credit PZ with absolute altruism in his motives.
3. Finally, let us allow that Ms Anon had a valid reason for not approaching any relevant authority with her evidence during the statute of limitations for this offence and for wishing to remain anonymous.

So, assuming all of the above, what has PZ achieved with his blog post?

1. He has laid himself open to a legal suit for libel.
2. The only evidence that he can use to defend this suit is the testimony of Ms Anon and Ms Also-Anon, who were not prepared to deliver this same evidence to bring a suit against Michael Shermer while a charge of rape could be brought and still wish to remain anonymous!
3. So, effectively, he has placed himself between the Scylla of settling with somebody that he is convinced is a rapist and the Charybdis of forcing someone that does not wish to make this affair public to do so in order to clear his name!



Frankly, he comes across as better in my eyes if he's a lying, self-publicising wanker!

[Jason]

He's really easy to despise I find.

Anyhow, for those who thought PZ is free from libel charges because Shermer would have to prove PZ acted with malicious intent or with knowledge that the claim was false, it's not a case of Libel, it's a case of 'libel per se'.

Definition:

libel per se n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis), or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.

An accusation of rape falls under that heading neatly.

[Seth]

I've been thinking about this... a lot!

So, bear with me while I play devil's advocate here. I am going to give PZ (Preposterous Zebra) the biggest, most generous benefit of as many doubts as I can muster and see what happens. Here we go...


1. Let's assume that Ms Anon approached PZ with her story. Let's further concede that she presented him with direct and incontrovertible evidence that every word she says is true and that a witness, Ms Also-Anon came forward to corroborate her testimony.
2. Let us credit PZ with absolute altruism in his motives.
3. Finally, let us allow that Ms Anon had a valid reason for not approaching any relevant authority with her evidence during the statute of limitations for this offence and for wishing to remain anonymous.

So, assuming all of the above, what has PZ achieved with his blog post?

1. He has laid himself open to a legal suit for libel.
2. The only evidence that he can use to defend this suit is the testimony of Ms Anon and Ms Also-Anon, who were not prepared to deliver this same evidence to bring a suit against Michael Shermer while a charge of rape could be brought and still wish to remain anonymous!
3. So, effectively, he has placed himself between the Scylla of settling with somebody that he is convinced is a rapist and the Charybdis of forcing someone that does not wish to make this affair public to do so in order to clear his name!



Frankly, he comes across as better in my eyes if he's a lying, self-publicising wanker!

Worse, if he does get sued by Shermer, then Shermer's attorneys can COMPEL the Anons to testify...because it's a civil suit...or his own attorneys can do the same, thereby FORCING them to testify about the incident even if they don't want to.

He's a major-class fuckup. Oh, wait, is he still a member here? If so, strike that last.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth, I am delighted to say that he banned himself. Feel free to vent, dear Sir.

[Jason]

Your first assumption has a bit of a problem though because he admitted he had no evidence not long after he made the blog post claiming Shermer is a booming rapist.

[Sælir]

Ok...
What if a friend of his came and told him this story. He believes it (be there evidence or not).
He gets frightened that Shermer might do this to other women and with his blog decides to warn them...
He is the good guy.

Yes, it would still be a stupid thing to do but it is still plausible.

[Cormac]

That is what he should have done as a reasonable human being. To generate page views and book sales he should have gone about things exactly how he has.

Which is egregiously stupid, as he may end up giving all the book sales and ad income, along with a great deal else, to Shermer in the end.

It's beyond the stupid I thought PZ was capable of.

Maybe he's not greedy for money as much as Good Guy Points?

He's been the ultimate creepy white knight for a while.

I have always thought the white knight manginas were creepy rapy types who were projecting their misogyny on the rest of the male population. I have no evidence to back this up but now hearsay is evidence am just putting it out there.

I think there may be some truth to this though.

In the same way that you see some theists claim that without god they would rape and murder - and that this at least indicates a fairly erroneous interpretation of human behaviours and motivations - people who think that all males are rapists also have something odd going on.

Seems like a lot of projection going on.

[Jason]

Ok...
What if a friend of his came and told him this story. He believes it (be there evidence or not).
He gets frightened that Shermer might do this to other women and with his blog decides to warn them...
He is the good guy.

Yes, it would still be a stupid thing to do but it is still plausible.

I'd call him the idiot that got sued. I'd also question his credibility as a scientist as he accepts claims as true without evidence. Not just a scientist, but as a rationalist, freethinker, or thinker of any stripe really.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Ok...
What if a friend of his came and told him this story. He believes it (be there evidence or not).
He gets frightened that Shermer might do this to other women and with his blog decides to warn them...
He is the good guy.

Yes, it would still be a stupid thing to do but it is still plausible.

That's pretty much my point. EVEN giving him the benefit of the doubt as regards the veracity of his claims AND the public-spiritedness of his motives, he has still made a completely ridiculous error of judgment! There is no way that this can end well for either him, or Ms Anon! Or Michael Shermer.

Basically, he has opened a hornet's nest and everyone involved is likely to get stung!

[Jason]

If he does have evidence, then I'd call him an irresponsible vigilante idiot because he should have listened to the wishes of the victim, unless she wanted him to make it public and remain anonymous (which is absurd), and recommended they either go to the police or employ a responsible investigative reporter (the kind that either report because they found evidence or do not because they found nothing).

Come to think of it, I'd call him an irresponsible vigilante idiot in both cases.

[Cormac]

This thread is #7 on the first page of google search results for "Shermer Rape"

ETA: I'm very disappointed in the response from Shermer thus far. I don't know what he's up to, but he needs to address this. A limp letter from his lawyers isn't going to cut it.

No no. Standard process in litigation.

He'll let Myers carry on. There'll be a follow up, and then court action. In the meantime, the more Myers publishes allegations and defamatory claims, and the more he facilitates those claims by others, the more he'll implicate himself.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Ok...
What if a friend of his came and told him this story. He believes it (be there evidence or not).
He gets frightened that Shermer might do this to other women and with his blog decides to warn them...
He is the good guy.

Yes, it would still be a stupid thing to do but it is still plausible.

That's pretty much my point. EVEN giving him the benefit of the doubt as regards the veracity of his claims AND the public-spiritedness of his motives, he has still made a completely ridiculous error of judgment! There is no way that this can end well for either him, or Ms Anon! Or Michael Shermer.

Basically, he has opened a hornet's nest and everyone involved is likely to get stung!

Added to this, I doubt that Ms Anon urged him to go public like this - not if she wanted to remain anonymous. These things have a nasty habit of leaking!

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Is it possible Ms Anon could face litigation if her identity is disclosed?

[Sælir]

@Faku
But he didn't write this as a scientist, did he?
Sometimes you just go with your emotions regardless of your education or rationality.
Have you never taken someones word for something?

@XC
Yes, there is not denying this was stupid of him in a way and it was stupid not seeing this coming (if that is in fact true).
He is in the shit and Shermer as well
But maybe...
Just maybe...
He saved dozens of women from being sexually abused.