Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Yeah, in this case, it would also be a signal that they're supporting ex-con getting back into society.

Also, how on Earth was that guy convicted for rape, but not the other guy that was having sex with the same girl at the same time as him?

[Leafsnail]

And in cases like this, the actual details of the court case don't really matter. If the public thinks you're guilty then that's what the league will respond to. The court of public opinion trumps legal and ethical issues any day. What matters is the appearance of not supporting rapists.

He was convicted of rape in a court of law, what more do you want?

Like this isn't a case where the "court of public opinion" has decided someone's a rapist in spite of their acquittal, it's a case where an actual court of law looked and the evidence and decided that yes, he raped that woman.

[Reelya]

Like Sheb said, why him and not the other guy doing the exact same thing?

But I could also say people's views on court decisions flip flop too. If I was to talk about people wrongfully charged with murder and given the death penalty no-one here would go "they were convicted in a court of law, what more do you want?" as a rebuttal. It does seem a bit convenient to slam court decisions when you feel like it but uphold them as beyond question other times. Either courts are a fundamentally flawed system and it's always valid to question court findings, or we accept all court findings as the final word on all matters. You can't have a bit of both, depending on the identity politics of who is charged with what.

[Leafsnail]

I was responding specifically your idea that this is somehow the fault of the "court of public opinion".  If you want to criticize a court's decision you should point to flaws in the state's case, as we do whenever one of the death penalty stories comes up (it happens a lot because death penalty defendants never have good lawyers so they can be railroaded).

I don't think it's likely the state's case is bad though, considering the fact that the rape was recorded on film.  So they'd be able to judge whether Evans was taking advantage of an insensible woman just fine.

[Reelya]

[redcated]

[Leafsnail]

It doesn't seem to be in that article but other sources say it was.
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Port-Vale-s-Clayton-McDonald-guilty-raping-19/story-15874897-detail/story.html

Evans, of Penistone, South Yorkshire, then arrived at the hotel around 10 minutes later and raped the woman. The attack was filmed on a mobile phone by Evans's brother and a friend.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-footballer-ched-evans-raped-2047536

Video recordings found on Mr Higgins’s phone showed that he had been filming or trying to film the incident.

This is probably why he was convicted an McDonald wasn't, there was more direct evidence.

[Reelya]

idk, both should have been convicted based on the evidence. If she was too drunk to consent to Evans, she was too drunk to consent to the other guy, whether there was a video or not. It still smacks to me that they wanted exactly 1 conviction out of this case, and he got the short straw. It's a common thing, and the British legal system has a history rife with these semi-political things - cases where they don't really care but they think convicting one person will be good PR (or more often, to avoid bad PR).

[Leafsnail]

There are all kinds of possible reasons for the verdict - maybe the jury decided that the woman may have consented to have sex with the man she went home with but not any old rando walking into the apartment, or maybe they thought the woman's condition may have deteriorated after McDonald had sex with her (it takes a while for alcohol to have its full effect).  You have not seen the evidence (or even read all the information that's available to the public) so frankly you cannot make that claim.

And even if the jury was mistaken in acquitting McDonald that doesn't change the fact that Evans was convicted, and that no real flaws in the case have come to light.

I also see no reason why "they" (the jury?) would want exactly one conviction out of this case rather than two.

[BurnedToast]

I disagree and this goes against a fundamental principle of social democracy.


Actually it combine two topical American misguided idea : freedom of speech is absolute and "you vote with your wallet".
Freedom of speech shouldn't be absolute : hate speech is an agression and, because it force peoples to be civil, the state itself should sanction it.


And the monetisation of politics make it so that ALL political parties are controlled by money, Democrat and Republican. In practice, CEO shouldn't be allowed to voice a political opinion and companies whouldn't be allowed to finance politics. As long as they are, poorer peoples will never be represented.
In your system, if your wallet is empty you don't exist.

And I disagree with you - freedom of speech *should* be absolute. The instant you decide some speech is acceptable and some is not, is the instant the concept becomes meaningless. Let the bigots and racists and zealots show the world just how disgusting they really are - they will hurt themselves far, far more then trying to silence them would.

As for "vote with your wallet", I think you've completely misunderstood the phrase. it's not supposed to apply to politics at all, it applies to influencing the behavior of companies and markets. Most americans would agree that the corruption of politics by money is a bad thing (though, nobody can agree on how to fix it)

[Darvi]

What about libel, slander, and wilful disinformation in your news and advertisement.

[BurnedToast]

What about libel, slander, and wilful disinformation in your news and advertisement.

It's not what they are saying that's being punished, it's fact the are lying.

A subtle, but important difference (imo).

[Phmcw]

Well most hate speech is either slandering a race or group in a publication (a dabate on violence in the name of Islams is not hate speech for instance), or racially charged insult. It's also provocations based on race/gender/ethincity/sexual preference.


Once that is out of the way, you can actually discuss ideas.

it's not supposed to apply to politics at all, it applies to influencing the behavior of companies and markets

This sentence contradict itself.

[penguinofhonor]

What about libel, slander, and wilful disinformation in your news and advertisement.

It's not what they are saying that's being punished, it's fact the are lying.

A subtle, but important difference (imo).

So would it be okay to go after racists for saying Obama is a Muslim and/or is from Kenya? Those are both pretty obvious lies.

[Phmcw]

The muslim thing isn't slanderous (it'ss not a bad thing), though, and you have to give more leeway for political speech, just to show that you're not using it for censorship.

[BurnedToast]

it's not supposed to apply to politics at all, it applies to influencing the behavior of companies and markets

This sentence contradict itself.

Company A starts burning down rainforests to produce more coffee. Company B uses sustainable agriculture practices. You switch from brand A to brand B. This is considered "voting with your wallet"

Politician A suggests we should start murdering babies. Politician B suggests that's a bad idea. You donate all your money to politician A because you hate babies. This is NOT considered voting with your wallet as the phrase is traditionally used.

Do you understand the difference?

What about libel, slander, and wilful disinformation in your news and advertisement.

It's not what they are saying that's being punished, it's fact the are lying.

A subtle, but important difference (imo).

So would it be okay to go after racists for saying Obama is a Muslim and/or is from Kenya? Those are both pretty obvious lies.

If they are knowingly lying about him being from kenya, then yes I think that could be considered slander/libel. The president's birthplace is an objective fact that can be proven.

The muslim thing is a more difficult question, since it's impossible to prove he's not secretly muslim in his heart. I think, generally speaking, no but it strongly depends on the situation and the specific statements made.

In both situations, the fact that they are racists have nothing to do with the situation. Racism is not what's being punished, it's the slander/libel.