Moose Blood Release Statement • Page 8

remember that time @emeryk3 pretended like he didn't give a shit about this site by visibly giving the biggest shit about this site for days?

i wish i could internet so good, are you wearing a cool leather jacket?

 

I actually do know someone who was falsely accused of sexual assault and he basically took the exact opposite approach in the aftermath of the situation as Conor Oberst did. As in, he very loudly proclaims his story as definitive proof that accusers shouldn't be trusted outright and alleged abusers are innocent until proven guilty. Once I tried to explain to him that his situation was in the overwhelming minority and but he wasn't having it. And while I can't imagine what being in that situation for real is actually like, it still infuriates me to hear such ignorance even from someone who's been through it.

 

for god's sake, i'm related to someone who falsely accused someone of rape to shirk the responsibilities of irresponsible sex. and i have never ever defaulted to discrediting the allegations of a purported victim. you can't let the odd instance color a sea of wrongdoing.

 

It’s really disingenuous to act as if you believe victims and then turn around and parrot “innocent until proven guilty” in a case like this band’s. They already have a history of abusive behavior. This is not the first allegation levied against them. They didn’t even respond to these allegations for months, but some of y’all still wanna act as if you support victims while discrediting the victim by defending the off chance of the band’s innocence? Nah.

 

First of all, thank you both for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I wholeheartedly agree with both of you and like I said in my original post, maybe for these types of circumstances we should revise "innocent until proven guilty" to (like Dylan said) "trust the victim unless proven otherwise" - And I'm ALL for trusting the victim until proven otherwise. Please know that. My ideals about innocence until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial, etc... probably apply more to other cases more-so than sexual assualt.

 

I hope everyone realizes/understands that any idea I presented about "innocence until proven guilty" is not directed at this specific circumstance, and as I pointed out in my post above, probably shouldn't apply to these types of allegations in the first place. It's more of a general idea that an accusation in and of itself should not ruin a person. That being said, victims deserve the right to heal and should always be treated as such. I would never distrust a victim's allegations.

 

One last thing. Even when proven innocent, I still believe people have the right to condemn whoever they want. Cosby might not have been convicted, but I firmly believe he is guilty as sin and deserves to fry. So I will agree with everyone who looks at the evidence (even if it is only a victim's accusation) and determines that they want nothing to do with the accused. That's fine, we're all aloud to formulate opinions based on whatever evidence we have (or don't have)

 

I don't think I ever said that victim blaming should be tolerated. I just said I believe in the presumption of innocence, albeit with a sliding scale in regards to sexual assault allegations.

 

Of course not, that is the opposite of what I'm saying.

In a defamation suit with these exact facts, the defendant would be the victim (the alleged abuser is suing the abused for the act of public accusation). The doctrine of defamation per se DOES shift the burden to the defendant - to prove the truth of the defamatory statement.* My gripe is with this burden-shifting framework.

For example, in california,** truth of the statement for defamation per se cases is literally part of the jury verdict form.

CACI No. VF-1704. Defamation per se—Affirmative Defense—Truth (Private Figure—Matter of Private Concern) :: California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017) :: Justia

So, if the statement falls under one of the categories of defamation per se (i.e. Accusing someone of sexual depravity), then the burden is shifted to the defendant (victim) to prove the truth of her statements.

I hope that clarified what I was trying to say.

*I don't want to go down a rabbit hole here because I don't actively practice in speech torts, but truth isn't the only affirmative defense in this situation, but it is definitely the most common.

** Obviously laws differ by state and county. Nothing in these posts is to be construed as legal advice.

 

Cool. Keep it to yourself then or you’re actively taking a stand against victims by saying you don’t believe them. That’s a form of victim blaming.

I don’t understand how people still can’t see this.

 

Everyone has a fucking story. Most of us have multiple stories. I could 10 pages of anecdotal evidence that suggests that the very worst place to go for healing, support, or care for victims is law enforcement or court systems. But that isn't even a part of a drop in the bucket of the reality of the real situation when it comes to this topic in this country - which is why we should all be making decisions not on one or two or ten stories, but on the collected data of our whole population.

The data is clear. There's no logical, reasonable, or good-hearted reason to ever be an asshole and not believe victims.

 

You have me confused. Saying that I believe in the presumption of innocence as a basic idea does not mean that I don't believe individual victims.

 

I will stop posting since my thoughts may come across a certain way in text that is unintentional. I don't want anyone to feel bad because of something I post. I trust victims and I hope they can all heal. I apologize if I offended anyone. Just wanted a chance to discuss.

 

That’s literally what it says when you spout it out in threads like this.

 

If you had read the rest of my posts you'd realize that BECAUSE I DECIDED TO ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION, I had the realization that maybe the presumption of innocence ideal that I have shouldn't apply to these types of cases.

 

I did not read the rest of your posts, I read and responded to what you quoted me with. Glad to see you realized you were wrong.

 

Thank you for being respectful and allowing for a little discussion. The other dude in here before did get out of hand, but I agreed with him defending the presumption of innocence so I chimed in. I now realize that you can't have both "I believe the victim" and "the accused is innocent, even though the victim says they're not because they've yet to be proven guilty" - In instance of victimless crime, maybe the presumption of innocence should upheld, but in these types of situations we MUST trust and side with the victim, since we are just individuals, and not a judge/jury adhering to the laws of a court.

 

Well, yes, says me. And turns out ... it's my website. And I've said more than enough on this exact topic over the past two-three years and I'm tired of repeating myself.

Here's my first post in the thread: Saturday at 11:00 AM

Right, I don't know what a VPN or a proxy is or good ways to deal with them.

Here, this is a good way to explain why you keep finding yourself banned places: