this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
411 points (95.2% liked)
World News
32356 readers
969 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the case isn't iron clad you'll have to defend against libel and it gets ugly fast. See for example the case of Evan Rachel Wood or Amber Heard, who had to not only defend herself once, but twice losing once and having her reputation utterly ruined because the one time she lost got so much more media attention.
See also this interview from 2005! Thats 17 years before Weinstein was finally found guilty. https://www.tmz.com/watch/0-2mpyk0xk/
I think Heard is an excellent example because Depp lost the UK trial, but won the US one which got so much more attention. Plus despite the claim Depp's side put forth that "the abuse was a hoax" being found libelous, as in the jury decided it wasn't a hoax, this didn't get any attention and Heard is made out to be the sole villain in the story and having made it all up to hurt Johnny Depp.
This will make victims think thrice before even speaking up against (much less sue) celebrities as they risk being vilified if the case isn't ironclad.
A case like this should be ironclad, though. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal charges. I wouldn't want people to be convicted of life-ruining crimes based on non-ironclad cases.
I'm saying the evidence doesn't just have to be "ironclad" enough for a guilty verdict, it has to be so overwhelming that the outcome of the trial can be reasonably certain before a case is made. Why would I argue for the standard for evidence in a trial to be lessened? That doesn't make sense.