The defamation lawsuit filed by currently
unemployed football player Ray McDonald,
against a woman who claimed without proof that he had sexually assaulted
her while she was passed out drunk, was recently thrown out by a judge. The
attorney representing the defendant, uber-feminist and professional misandrist Gloria
Allred, claimed that the ruling “sent a message” to players and celebrities
that defamation suits against women who falsely accuse them is not a “winning
strategy”—convincing Judge William Elfving that defamation suits against even
proven false accusations would have a “chilling effect” on female accusers,
keeping them from coming forward with accusations against a male.
The judge further allowed that
McDonald had no “case” because of the absurd notion that he could not “prove” that his accuser had
spoken to anyone about her accusation, other than the police. Accusations made to police, said the
judge, are “protected speech,” whatever that means. This is hypocrisy of a very
high order; besides that accusations made to police are much more damaging than
conversations with friends, football
players who are accused of gender-related crimes are in particular moving
targets (or more likely, sitting ducks) for media “outrage” and the dispensing
with due process.
McDonald admittedly has deserved
some of his bad press, although the fact that the several accusations against
him haven’t led to charges suggests that there is a “backstory” to each
incident, in which the female involved was hardly “innocent.” But the
interesting observation here is that men seem to be just as much “victims” as
their accusers claim to be, insofar that defamation law is simply tossed out
the window to benefit female accusers to shield them from their own perfidy.
You don’t have to be an actual “victim” of anything—just be vindictive—and you
can destroy your victim’s life and career with a false accusation, and this has
proved to be case in the NFL’s spineless handling of them, allowing people with
gender political agendas (like Allred) the power to overthrow due process.
In any case, the Find Law website
provided me with some enlightenment on what constitutes defamation in this
country:
The Statement: “A ‘statement’ needs to be spoken, written, or otherwise
expressed in some manner. Because the spoken word often fades more quickly from
memory, slander is often considered less harmful than libel.”
The fact that the accusation
against McDonald’s has been disseminated
widely in the media suggest that someone said something to someone. Does it
matter who said it to whom? The alleged victim surely knew that accusing an NFL
player in this media environment was going to make headlines at least in the
sports media (and if there was a video involved, in the national media as
well). No wonder such “victims” and their protectors prefer anonymity; if
caught in a lie, she isn’t any worse off—just the accused is.
Publication: “For a statement to be published, a third party must
have seen, heard or read the defamatory statement. A third party is someone
apart from the person making the statement and the subject of the statement.
Unlike the traditional meaning of the word "published," a defamatory
statement does not need to be printed in a book. Rather, if the statement is
heard over the television or seen scrawled on someone's door, it is considered
to be published.”
What part of this statement did
the judge in the McDonald lawsuit not understand? Either he needs to hit the law
books and retake his bar examine, or Allred should. Or is there a “waiver” if
the accuser is female?
Injury: “To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, the statement must be
shown to have caused injury to the subject of the statement. This means that
the statement must have hurt the reputation of the subject of the statement. As
an example, a statement has caused injury if the subject of the statement lost
work as a result of the statement.”
Again, what part of this did the
judge and Allred not “get”? Because of the accusation, McDonald was released by
the San Francisco 49ers, because of “bad judgment.” Did the 49ers mean not
getting into a situation where he could be falsely accused by a woman who
admitted to having consensual sex in his hot tub just hours before? The alleged
victim admits to have no memory of any sexual encounter after that, but merely
“suspects” McDonald did the dirty deed while she was passed out. But it doesn’t
matter; whether the accusation was proved or not, it is unlikely he will find a
team wishing to employ a player with his “reputation” on their team, for fear
of “outrage” from so-called victim advocates.
Falsity: “Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory
if they are, in fact, false. A true statement, no matter how harmful, is not
considered defamation. In addition, because of their nature, statements of
opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.”
Apparently what this is saying in
part is that any statement that can be construed as “true” or merely an
“opinion” cannot be construed as “defamatory.” But women are “special victims,”
if often only in their own minds; they can make false accusations of rape and
domestic violence against men and not suffer any legal consequences for it. We
live in a “victim”-obsessed society, whether females or black males shot by
police, and the “back story” has as much relevancy as what one had for breakfast
the day before.
Unprivileged: “Lastly, in order for a statement to be defamatory,
it must be unprivileged. Lawmakers have decided that you cannot sue for
defamation in certain instances when a statement is considered privileged. For
example, when a witness testifies at trial and makes a statement that is both
false and injurious, the witness will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation
because the act of testifying at trial is privileged.”
False testimony given in a trial
usually hurts the witness providing that testimony more than the person who is
being defamed—unless, of course, it is not exposed as such during the trial,
otherwise it can be used to wrongly convict a man. In the McDonald case,
statements given to police were claimed to be “privileged,” yet is it
“privileged” to disseminate accusations to the public and the media in the
absence of any proof, especially if they are harmful to the accused—especially
if they are NFL players who accusers know they now can ruin their careers
simply by making an accusation, knowing that the media will expect harsh
“punishment” by the NFL regardless of due process? The rights of the accused
are the real victims here, under the guise of “privileged” testimony simply
because we must “protect” the “right” of an accuser to make an allegation, even
if it is a knowingly false one.
And it isn’t just about
accusations of a sexual or domestic nature; the laws and work environment rules
tell us that women “tell the truth” nearly all of the time—or at least the
“sexual harassment” section of employee guide that requires a whole chapter
says so, which more often than not provides women who create a hostile work environment cover. The reality is that “truth” is subjective, and in more cases than not,
the female version of “truth” far outweighs that of the male’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment