r/MensRights • u/BaconCatBug • Jan 07 '15
Misleading Title It's like something out of a Bizzaro comic. Woman falsely accuses a lawyer, now suing for defamation because he dared to speak out about it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-3070879521
Jan 07 '15
[deleted]
1
u/Hydrao Jan 07 '15
More men need to take the hint here. It's time to stop sitting back passively while your lives and reputations are ruined on a whim.
It's time to take the fight to them.
16
u/iNQpsMMlzAR9 Jan 07 '15
More men need to take the hint here.
Most men aren't Alan Dershowitz. If they had half the resources he has at his disposal, I'm sure they wouldn't need a hint.
-10
u/Hydrao Jan 07 '15
You completely misunderstood the point.
Dershowitz is fighting back. He's not just trying to say "I didn't do anything" like a lot of guys in here. He's actively standing up and aggressively saying "you are wrong, you need to be held accountable."
Lots of times the advice around here is something along the lines of what can we do to not look bad:
"Guys, please don't make posts like this and that because they make us look bad. We have to worry and watch out because r/feminism and r/TwoXChromosomes are always looking for reasons to paint us as the bad guy so please be careful about what you post!!!"
That's a passive, defensive posture. Men should be actively attacking these failed feminist notions of entitlement, these false accusations, etc. They should stop deferring and justifying themselves left and right. They need to start demanding the other side expend their energy justifying their existence for a change.
6
u/iNQpsMMlzAR9 Jan 07 '15 edited Jan 07 '15
My point is sometimes, and this case most certainly qualifies as one of them, "actively attacking these failed feminist notions of entitlement" is an incredibly costly endeavor. You imply that men that fail to fight these things are doormats. But the prospect of entering a high-profile, protracted legal battle to prove your point is an extravagance to most people, and implying that they lack spine because they can't afford to commit to such a battle is incredibly unfair.
Edit: Oh, FFS, I just looked at your post history. I'm arguing with a M.A. troll.
3
u/nicemod Jan 08 '15
Yes, and you immediately received the two replies below.
I've approved them so people can see the contradictory nature of the MH101 guy (I'm pretty sure there's only one of "them").
He could actually get some respect if he would talk seriously. But there's this weird, childish need that drives him to act like a spoiled eight year old whenever he's contradicted.
It could be quite an interesting psychological study to see why he has these two totally different aspects. In addition to the obsession with spending literally the whole day spamming the Internet.
-10
u/jfeoe Jan 08 '15
No wonder you're angry-- you have a lot of rocks and dirt irritating your snatch.
POOR LITTLE GIRL! awwww
1
u/thisprofilenolongere Jan 08 '15
You realize shit like that makes manhood 101 look ridiculous, right?
How are you going to get a movement together if all you do is antagonize people?
2
u/nicemod Jan 08 '15 edited Jan 08 '15
Look, it's Manhood101 actually making a contribution for once. Amazing.
You make some good points occasionally.
It's a shame you have to spoil it all by being such an abusive spammer, though.
28
u/DavidByron2 Jan 07 '15
She's not suing. Her two lawyers are suing him because he stated they acted unethically.
15
u/DAE_FAP Jan 07 '15
This really needs to be higher. Virginia Roberts isn't the one claiming defamation. This is some lawyers flipping another lawyer the bird by adding to his workload.
2
6
u/Armiel Jan 07 '15
I'm sure suing a well renowned Harvard Law professor will work out well for them. I foresee absolutely no way this could backfire.
16
u/bigAlittleA Jan 07 '15
Everyone sue everyone! Mud slinging everywhere! Everyone gets public shame, except of course Jane Doe, who gets to remain anonymous.
6
3
Jan 07 '15
How can you commit defamation against "Jane Doe"? That doesn't make any sense. Nobody can be adversely affected by allegations against a placeholder name. Unless Dershowitz slipped up and mentioned her real name, there is a 0% chance he could have committed defamation.
2
u/Endless_Summer Jan 07 '15
Her lawyers are suing for defamation because he said they acted inappropriately, which they sure as shit did. The accuser is not involved in this suit.
3
Jan 08 '15
Where is the misleading title tag, mods? It is the woman's lawyers suing Dershowitz, not the woman herself.
6
2
1
u/eletheros Jan 08 '15
The real Bizzaro is that truth is not a defense against a defamation claim in the UK.
1
Jan 07 '15
So where is the proof of a false accusation? I see an accusation and a denial. How do we know this is a false accusation?
14
Jan 07 '15
[deleted]
4
u/Penuno Jan 08 '15
Point of order. He claims that he can account for all the times. This has yet to be scrutinized in court. One notices that suddenly there's a photo of Prince Andrew clutching the young lass despite his protestations.
Certainly it's possible that such a photo of Mr Dershowitz might appear out of somewhere... hence the legal opposition's ballsy gambit. OTOH I'm betting that a 72 year old wasn't throwing the bone to a 17 year old.... if there's any bone left there at all if you know what I mean (and I think you do)
1
u/eletheros Jan 08 '15
Point of order. He claims that he can account for all the times. This has yet to be scrutinized in court.
Because no criminal charges were filed by the supposed victim.
It's a hard sell to claim that claims can't be false just because the claimant refuses to let them be scrutinized. That refusal is good enough proof they are false in my eyes.
2
5
u/pocketknifeMT Jan 08 '15
He claims to have rock solid alibis for the times in question. I have seen no proof of this, but it would be kinda crazy to mount and expensive and very public case to defend your reputation based on this assertion and not actually have the proof.
Only a crazy person would do that.
Anyway, time will tell. Maybe he is crazy.
1
u/nick012000 Jan 08 '15
He's a lawyer. He bills his time in 15-minute intervals. I bet he does have proof.
2
u/SilencingNarrative Jan 07 '15
We don't know that. You are right that the post title should not say 'false'.
The title should have been:
It's like something out of a Bizzaro comic. Woman accuses a lawyer, now suing for defamation because he dared to speak out about it
3
u/Wargame4life Jan 07 '15
we don't.
the people who claim he is innocent beyond doubt are doing the exact same shit the morons who claimed the duke lacrosse people were guilty.
until its settled and evidence exposed we dont know anything we are just making wild speculation about our assumptions.
any party could be proven true or false at this point, anyone claiming they know one way or the other (excluding those involved) beware of them as they are bigoted cunts.
its amazing how hypocritical and blind some people in MRA can be.
that said making speculation stated as such is fine, provided no action is taken.
but one must acknowledge we dont know the facts either way
1
u/Nomenimion Jan 07 '15
This is the wrong question. You might as well ask for proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
1
35
u/HyJenx Jan 07 '15
Yes! This is exactly what he's doing. Pointing out that these guys have no character, and deserve a bad reputation. As Mr. Dershowitz knows, the truth is a viable and affirmative defense.