TechCrunch Founder Michael Arrington's History Of Abuse Allegations... | Hacker News Reader

TechCrunch Founder Michael Arrington's History Of Abuse Allegations...

au.businessinsider.com

8 pointsjoering27 comments

Here's a link to the actual article, rather than a sleazy way to get you to pointlessly visit businessinssider.com:

http://gawker.com/5993695/techcrunch-founder-michael-arringt...

A quote from the article:

> When TechCrunch founder turned venture capitalist Mike Arrington was accused last week of rape and abuse by an ex-girlfriend, many in Silicon Valley were shocked, but not entirely surprised ...

"Accused" or "rape and abuse"? Where's the police report? Why is this not an official police investigation? If Arrington has not been charged with rape by the police, then he hasn't been "accused" either, at least not as that term is used by professional journalists.

Let the source for this claim go to the police and file a report. If she doesn't, then Arrington has the right to sue those who claim that an accusation has been made. The reason? Until the claim is made before a judge, it's not an accusation, it's hearsay.

On further research, it turns out the "rape" claim was made in a public forum by someone posting under a pseudonym and who certainly has no intention of going to the police. This is unbelievably irresponsible.

Want to see this sort of crime prosecuted? Go to the police. If you don't, you're only adding to the perception that women lie about sex crimes. And they do -- FBI Labs reports that between 20% and 40% of sex crime reports are simply false:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html

(the linked article was written by Wendy McElroy, editor of ifeminists.com)

It might be via BI because Gawker links get [dead]ed. (Note I did not submit this item.)

Thanks -- I didn't know that. But routing it by way of businessinsider.com only tries to get around a reasonable action to keep trash out of HN (and I understand this isn't your submission).

thanks Lutusp. I did post a Gawker article, but that post was dead in a second; seems like HN marks all Gawker articles as dead.

>...you're only adding to the perception that women lie [emphasis added] about sex crimes. And they do [emphasis added]...20%-40%...are simply false... blah blah

Oh. My. Lie. Speaking of sleazy, do tell us more about your oddly worded little insinuation, when the article you linked goes on to say:

"First, the category of 'false accusations' does not distinguish between accusers who lie and those who are honestly mistaken. Nor does it indicate that a rape did not occur, merely that the specific accused is innocent....Third, the 1-in-4 figure has 'fuzzy' aspects that could influence the results. For example, Neufeld and Scheck mention only sexual assault cases that were "referred to the FBI where results could be obtained."

Please stop submitting this and links like it - all it is is a link to the Adrian Chen Gawker article. When you find something of more substance, rather than a gossipy tabloid rag, then we may be more inclined to discuss it. There's a reason Gawker submissions are autodeleted.

simons I am genuinely interested what HN community opinion is about accusations like that. You don't like it, don't read it and ignore the submition; don't create a problem when there is none.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com