PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think that Thunderf00t's video is right on.

I don't get what the woman means when she says "I was coerced into a position where I could not consent, and then he had sex with me...."

Can a woman translate that for me? To me, the words TFoot used are apropos -- weasel words. What in the world does that mean? Was she forced or threatened into a room and then he fucked her? Could she refuse to consent? What does it mean "where I could not consent..." What's she getting at there? Did he gag her so she could not speak? Or, did he get her drunk and have sex with her? Is this like the wine glass thing, where he keeps her wine glass full and then they have sex?

Is there an aspect of this that men don't understand the same way women do?

[Coito ergo sum]

The full cease and desist letter can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/159838891/she ... ter-to-pzm

Is it all still up on the FTB blog?

[Coito ergo sum]

The full cease and desist letter can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/159838891/she ... ter-to-pzm

Wow.... after reading that it's crazy that PZ hasn't complied with the demands to remove the post and post a retraction. What a fool.

The problem for Shermer is that he's a public figure, and defamation claims in the US are almost impossible to win. And, the cost would be very high. He would have to file a civil complaint and a motion for an injunction asking that the stuff be taken down. That alone would likely cost him $20,000 minimum to have any chance of success. To get the injunction he would have to prove that he is being irreparably harmed, that money damages will not suffice to cure his injuries, that the public interest is served by an injunction, and that he has a likelihood to ultimately succeed in a defamation trial which would mean that he would have to prove: (A) a false and defamatory statement, (b) intentionally uttered, (c) with malice on the part of PZ, (d) and damages, and typically the proof in defamation cases is held to a higher standard than normal civil cases. This is the NY Times v Sullivan standard in the US.

Almost impossible. Very tough. Very expensive. Great for the lawyers, because they get paid by the hour, and they have to set the client's expectations low. They would say "our chances of winning are slim, and the chances of you paying us a lot of money are 100%."

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

What else can he call them? False, defamatory statements in print is by definition "libel."

[Cormac]

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

I hope they escalate their vile accusations. Every time they declare their certitude that Shermer is guilty, and they're not reporting PeePee's accusations, they're also defaming Shermer*.

It wouldn't be the first time that a plaintiff went after a large group for defamation.

It would be great to see that hatred lanced.

[Cormac]

The full cease and desist letter can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/159838891/she ... ter-to-pzm

Wow.... after reading that it's crazy that PZ hasn't complied with the demands to remove the post and post a retraction. What a fool.

The problem for Shermer is that he's a public figure, and defamation claims in the US are almost impossible to win. And, the cost would be very high. He would have to file a civil complaint and a motion for an injunction asking that the stuff be taken down. That alone would likely cost him $20,000 minimum to have any chance of success. To get the injunction he would have to prove that he is being irreparably harmed, that money damages will not suffice to cure his injuries, that the public interest is served by an injunction, and that he has a likelihood to ultimately succeed in a defamation trial which would mean that he would have to prove: (A) a false and defamatory statement, (b) intentionally uttered, (c) with malice on the part of PZ, (d) and damages, and typically the proof in defamation cases is held to a higher standard than normal civil cases. This is the NY Times v Sullivan standard in the US.

Almost impossible. Very tough. Very expensive. Great for the lawyers, because they get paid by the hour, and they have to set the client's expectations low. They would say "our chances of winning are slim, and the chances of you paying us a lot of money are 100%."

He could run the case in the UK and/or in Ireland - as he definitely will have sustained damage in each of these locations.

I wonder if he could also sue in these jurisdictions for damages incurred in the USA.

[charlou]

The full cease and desist letter can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/159838891/she ... ter-to-pzm

Wow.... after reading that it's crazy that PZ hasn't complied with the demands to remove the post and post a retraction. What a fool.

The problem for Shermer is that he's a public figure, and defamation claims in the US are almost impossible to win. And, the cost would be very high. He would have to file a civil complaint and a motion for an injunction asking that the stuff be taken down. That alone would likely cost him $20,000 minimum to have any chance of success. To get the injunction he would have to prove that he is being irreparably harmed, that money damages will not suffice to cure his injuries, that the public interest is served by an injunction, and that he has a likelihood to ultimately succeed in a defamation trial which would mean that he would have to prove: (A) a false and defamatory statement, (b) intentionally uttered, (c) with malice on the part of PZ, (d) and damages, and typically the proof in defamation cases is held to a higher standard than normal civil cases. This is the NY Times v Sullivan standard in the US.

Almost impossible. Very tough. Very expensive. Great for the lawyers, because they get paid by the hour, and they have to set the client's expectations low. They would say "our chances of winning are slim, and the chances of you paying us a lot of money are 100%."

Larry Flint's legacy has pros and cons, it seems.

[Scott1328]

The full cease and desist letter can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/159838891/she ... ter-to-pzm

Wow.... after reading that it's crazy that PZ hasn't complied with the demands to remove the post and post a retraction. What a fool.

The problem for Shermer is that he's a public figure, and defamation claims in the US are almost impossible to win. And, the cost would be very high. He would have to file a civil complaint and a motion for an injunction asking that the stuff be taken down. That alone would likely cost him $20,000 minimum to have any chance of success. To get the injunction he would have to prove that he is being irreparably harmed, that money damages will not suffice to cure his injuries, that the public interest is served by an injunction, and that he has a likelihood to ultimately succeed in a defamation trial which would mean that he would have to prove: (A) a false and defamatory statement, (b) intentionally uttered, (c) with malice on the part of PZ, (d) and damages, and typically the proof in defamation cases is held to a higher standard than normal civil cases. This is the NY Times v Sullivan standard in the US.

Almost impossible. Very tough. Very expensive. Great for the lawyers, because they get paid by the hour, and they have to set the client's expectations low. They would say "our chances of winning are slim, and the chances of you paying us a lot of money are 100%."

Although, I agree that Shermer faces a difficult case if he persues a defamation suit. One hurdle he will not have to face is to prove malice on PZ's part. A false public accusation of a crime is "libel per se" and as such malice need not be proved in order to sue for general damages and not just specific losses.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... bel+per+se

[charlou]

I think that Thunderf00t's video is right on.

I don't get what the woman means when she says "I was coerced into a position where I could not consent, and then he had sex with me...."

Can a woman translate that for me? To me, the words TFoot used are apropos -- weasel words. What in the world does that mean? Was she forced or threatened into a room and then he fucked her? Could she refuse to consent? What does it mean "where I could not consent..." What's she getting at there? Did he gag her so she could not speak? Or, did he get her drunk and have sex with her? Is this like the wine glass thing, where he keeps her wine glass full and then they have sex?

Is there an aspect of this that men don't understand the same way women do?

I don't know, but I'm guessing it's the too much alcohol thing ...

At MR, people have been discussing the responsibility aspect too. My thoughts:

In the case of a person getting too drunk to take care of herself, and another person taking advantage of her while she's in that state, I don't think responsibility is an either/or thing. Both are responsible for their part. When it comes to culpability though, it's the person who violates the rights of another individual by acting without consent who has committed a crime.

This should be clearer to people than is currently the case. Education is needed.

[charlou]

Actually, it would be useful to have a clearer line where a person is deemed to have become too drunk to give consent. Where should that line be?

[mistermack]

Actually, it would be useful to have a clearer line where a person is deemed to have become too drunk to give consent. Where should that line be?

So, will there be a matching line, where one person is too drunk to TELL if the other has consented?

If you can be too drunk to consent, then you can be too drunk to recognise that the other person is too drunk.

I'd be happy to leave each case to a judge or jury to decide. And they just have to do the best that they can. They can't read minds, and you can't really write rules for every eventuality.

Anyway, people don't always remember what they did when they were drunk, so if someone says that they didn't consent because they were drunk, you have to view that with a lot of suspicion. They might THINK that they didn't consent, when they actually did, but just can't remember it.

[Bella Fortuna]

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

He was scheduled to be at the Sacramento Freethought Day again this year, and I was SO looking forward to interviewing him (especially in light of this) - but he's not on the list any more, and I'm terribly disappointed.

[DaveD]

Shame, I woulk like to have read that interview.

[Jason]

The full cease and desist letter can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/159838891/she ... ter-to-pzm

Wow.... after reading that it's crazy that PZ hasn't complied with the demands to remove the post and post a retraction. What a fool.

The problem for Shermer is that he's a public figure, and defamation claims in the US are almost impossible to win. And, the cost would be very high. He would have to file a civil complaint and a motion for an injunction asking that the stuff be taken down. That alone would likely cost him $20,000 minimum to have any chance of success. To get the injunction he would have to prove that he is being irreparably harmed, that money damages will not suffice to cure his injuries, that the public interest is served by an injunction, and that he has a likelihood to ultimately succeed in a defamation trial which would mean that he would have to prove: (A) a false and defamatory statement, (b) intentionally uttered, (c) with malice on the part of PZ, (d) and damages, and typically the proof in defamation cases is held to a higher standard than normal civil cases. This is the NY Times v Sullivan standard in the US.

Almost impossible. Very tough. Very expensive. Great for the lawyers, because they get paid by the hour, and they have to set the client's expectations low. They would say "our chances of winning are slim, and the chances of you paying us a lot of money are 100%."

Wrong.

[DaveDodo007]

The full cease and desist letter can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/159838891/she ... ter-to-pzm

Wow.... after reading that it's crazy that PZ hasn't complied with the demands to remove the post and post a retraction. What a fool.

The problem for Shermer is that he's a public figure, and defamation claims in the US are almost impossible to win. And, the cost would be very high. He would have to file a civil complaint and a motion for an injunction asking that the stuff be taken down. That alone would likely cost him $20,000 minimum to have any chance of success. To get the injunction he would have to prove that he is being irreparably harmed, that money damages will not suffice to cure his injuries, that the public interest is served by an injunction, and that he has a likelihood to ultimately succeed in a defamation trial which would mean that he would have to prove: (A) a false and defamatory statement, (b) intentionally uttered, (c) with malice on the part of PZ, (d) and damages, and typically the proof in defamation cases is held to a higher standard than normal civil cases. This is the NY Times v Sullivan standard in the US.

Almost impossible. Very tough. Very expensive. Great for the lawyers, because they get paid by the hour, and they have to set the client's expectations low. They would say "our chances of winning are slim, and the chances of you paying us a lot of money are 100%."

Larry Flint's legacy has pros and cons, it seems.

Larry Flint argued that his piece was obvious satire and no reasonable person would believe it, Fallwel(sp) agreed on the witness stand.