Hacker News Reader

Comment by eykanal | Hacker News Reader

While it's very chivalrous of him to not want to lawyer up, what he's describing is libel, pure and simple. This "friend" of his did something completely inappropriate, and is liable to cause significant monetary damage, a possibly permanent stain on his reputation, and significant psychological distress.

Not pursuing this through the appropriate venues—the legal system—simply lets her "get away with it". That's not being nice to her, that's being in an abusive relationship and not speaking up for yourself.

View on HN

A lot of people in this thread seem to want Max to become a Men's Rights activist and fight this case on behalf of wronged men everywhere.

What he seems to say in his post is that he is willing to let this slide because the alternative could well result in fewer women speaking out about sexual assaults they have suffered. He has decided that the negative (a false accusation against him) is worth an overall positive (women hopefully feeling free to speak out). That is his choice to make.

Don't worry, that case is already happening in Michael Schwern v. Noirin Plunkett, a libel case brought after her second public accusation of sexual assault. The Geek Feminism Wiki has a really depressing article[1] on it (including a really sad misunderstanding of the word "exonerate"). The wiki article is basically a distilled version of how folks want to bypass the legal system and convict someone on an accusation alone.

If you monitor this public accusation drama that's currently in vogue, Oregon 3:14-CV-00146-PK[2] is a case to watch.

[1]: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Schwern_arrest

[2]: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/1vely89ia/oregon-district-c...

> The wiki article is basically a distilled version of how folks want to bypass the legal system and convict someone on an accusation alone.

From the court documents it looks like there was physical evidence of the assault, so, even leaving out the fact that the police were called at the time (rather than an accusation being made for the first time ten years later), I don't think it's fair to say this is based "on an accusation alone".

This has nothing to do with other wronged men. It's also got nothing to do with women speaking out about sexual assaults either. It's about a malicious and untrue slur by another person on his character and behavior. If he had any shred of self-respect or honor, he would be vigorously defending his reputation by whatever means he saw fit.

Sadly he seems to have neither.

> If he had any shred of self-respect or honor, he would be vigorously defending his reputation by whatever means he saw fit.

Um, isn't that exactly what he's doing with his blog post? He says straight out that the accusation is false. That's the means he sees fit.

While this is definitely true, couldn't that just bring more unwanted attention to him in this situation? We see it with celebrities all the time; they go on trial for something, and the trial often gets so much media publicity that people forget if the person in question was even innocent or guilty in the end. They only remember to associate them with whatever the crime was. He doesn't want that, and maybe he doesn't want to give the accuser the satisfaction of tainting his reputation like that.

I don't think many people ever forget that you were publicly accused of rape. If she's lying, he should absolutely sue the shit out of her, and drag her name through the mud. Screw her feelings.

If she's not lying, then, well. He shouldn't do that, then.

I agree with your first part: People that lie to damage your reputation should absolutely have to deal with consequences.

The second part though... What? If she's not lying, then that means he actually raped her and he should have to deal with those consequences—he should be prosecuted for rape!

Your last statement makes it sounds like you're trying to let him off the hook if he indeed raped her, which is why I think you are getting downvotes.

He was implying that only a guilty man would choose not to sue...

I see now. I completely misunderstood his comment.

Good point, basically the Streisand affect.

In libel suits, the truth is the ultimate defense. He would have to prove that she is lying, not that there is an absence of evidence. Going to court would bring her private emails and messages into the court record, but it would take an email of hers acknowledging that it was a lie in order to win the case.

It's somewhat troubling that this top-rated comment and all its children assume this can only be a false accusation.

I can only assume that this is the case with many rape accusations, especially those from years ago, though what limited research there is suggests false rape accusations are rare (2-8%).

The horrible part about it is that when an accusation like this is made, either one person or the other will potentially have their life destroyed, but the alternatives for both parties are also horrible: for the victim to stay silent, or for the falsely accused to not defend themselves.

False allegations are far from being rare.

You also have to acknowledge that when you have a rape accusation, there isn't a boolean result(either the allegation is false, or it's true, meaning there was rape). It's a broad spectrum, with only around a third of the cases resulting in conviction.[1]

As far as I understand, only if there wasn't a sexual contact will the allegation be considered false. In other cases, there will be some sort of investigation. So, it's possible to have basis for allegation and NOT have rape.

Correct me if I am wrong though.

---

Of the 136 cases of sexual assault 8 (5.9%) were coded as false reports, 61 (44.9%) did not proceed to any prosecution or disciplinary action, 48 (35.3%) were referred for prosecution or disciplinary action, and 19 (13.9%) contained insufficient information to be coded (see Table 2).

[1]http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegati...

"False allegations are far from being rare."

"Of the 136 cases of sexual assault (5.9%) were coded as false reports..."

I grant rare is subjective, but doesn't that statistic say that only 1 in 17 of the reports in the study you're citing were found to be false? I get what you're saying about "not boolean," but the handout on false allegations from that conference you linked to (your link doesn't work, but if you take the first part of "http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/" you get the full schedule) says, "when more methodologically rigorous research has been conducted, estimates for the percentage of false reports begin to converge around 2-8%." I don't see anything that suggests the allegation is only false if there wasn't sexual contact, either.

"The determination that a report is false can then only be made when there is sufficient evidence to establish that the sexual assault did not happen (was not completed or attempted). This does not mean that the investigation failed to prove that the sexual assault happened--in that case the investigation would simply be inconclusive or unsubstantiated. It also does not mean that the suspect was unable to successfully complete the sexual assault--this would be an attempted sexual assault and/or some other sexual offense."

(I should note I'm not taking any position on the allegation against Max Temkin here.)

I think you missed purringmeow's point. Yes, 6% of cases were determined to be false reports but how many of the remaining 60% were also false reports and we simply don't know?

what remaining 60%?

I assume the 60% is:

(44.9%) did not proceed to any prosecution or disciplinary action (13.9%) contained insufficient information to be coded

From the article:

> That is my rapist. Having his face pop up on my news feed unexpectedly in any context has the capacity to ruin my day. Seeing him praised in the press is giving me a panic attack.

This is classic SJW (Social Justice Warrior) / Tumblr language. Many within this community genuinely believe a man is raping a woman literally by only looking at her. No, this is not a joke.

For some representative examples of how insane those within this movement are, there are plenty of examples posted on reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction

I don't doubt this girl genuinely believes she was raped, but I'm quite confident her definition of rape is vastly different than the mainstream definition.

Twitter/tumblr social justice warriors are a small, loud, and uniquely disturbed group who are only relevant in a discussion of how small, loud groups tend to be taken as representative of majorities.

They're quite an influential group, case in point: Suey Park.

Last I checked, she hasn't converted any of the thunder into lightning.

If she is one, and she imagined the rape, I would consider that relevant.

What a terrible thing to say. What she wrote sounds like classic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I have PTSD myself and this is exactly the kind of thing that triggers it.

As for the Cards against Humanity game, let that be "exhibit A".

I agree that what mistermann said is wrong. But I find your claim that Cards Against Humanity are any kind of evidence appalling. Does that extend to the whole team? Are all of them potential rapists because they enjoy making those cards? What about the buyers?

Humor is humor, nothing more.

>Humor is humor, nothing more.

What an utterly false, utterly stupid thing to say. If you think humor is removed at all from misogyny and racism you are willfully blind.

Do you care whether he factually raped her or not though? Does objective reality matter more than someone's feelings about their possibly incorrect interpretation of it?

'Objective reality' is not that black-and-white. She clearly regretted the incident and was emotionally hurt, probably because of the way she was treated afterward. She has not forgotten or forgiven(herself?) for the act even years afterward.

But to call 'rape', the actual incident has to be non-consensual. Later regrets don't make the cut.

Your language is classic ad hominem and guilt by association. You're not making a reasonable argument at all, you're saying that because you dislike group X, and person A "sounds like" group X, they're untrustworthy. For all of the problems the SJW community has, each post like yours makes them seem more justified.

I don't entirely disagree, I am making a prejudgement, but if you read carefully, you'll see I said "quite confident" rather than "certain".

> You're not making a reasonable argument at all, you're saying that because you dislike group X, and person A "sounds like" group X, they're untrustworthy.

The "reasonableness" of this type of logic varies depending on which "group" you're talking about. Sometimes stereotypes exist for a reason, and some stereotypes are more consistently correct than others.

> For all of the problems the SJW community has, each post like yours makes them seem more justified.

Really? So if someone like me happens to "not like them as a group", it justifies their nonsense assertions such as looking at a woman is rape, or all men should die?

Sorry, I simply cannot take people like this seriously.

If it had been the truth she should have reported him back in college, when there were evidence and witnesses. Years after the fact? Yeah that is not really believable.

Also I am going to have to see the research methods that allowed them to come up with that number of false rape accusations, since I doubt it is possible to come up with a real number.

Your lack of compassion is disturbing. Regardless of the current case, which I certainly don't have enough information to comment on, in general rape often inflicts a terrible psychological damage on the victim. And since the rapists are often close to the victim, the act very often doesn't have any witnesses or clear evidence, especially if they were romantically involved. And despite what some people might believe in their minds, accusing someone of rape doesn't get the town to behind you and the rapist locked up. True victims will be disbelieved, insulted and treated as "damaged goods".

Again, I don't know anything about this case. I don't know if he did anything wrong. But your assumption is disgustingly ignorant.

> though what limited research there is suggests false rape accusations are rare (2-8%).

Incorrect. You're quoting the FBI statistics, but there have been several studies done over the years, later reviewed by Philip N.S. Rumney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney...

Rumney took together all the data he could find about false accusations, and studies of false accusations. He researched the information used in the studies, the methods used to obtain said information, and their findings. The result: a varyance of between 1% and 90% in terms of what was considered a false accusation, with a mean/median of about 20% over the findings in all the studies.

His conclusion, however, was that these studies varied so much (and their information and means of retrieval so inconclusive) that it is impossible to know what an accurate rate of false accusations is.

So the numbers you're quoting are, statistically speaking, worthless. I suggest reading the studies and their sources before merely repeating the numbers that validate your point.

And here goes the pattern. A lot of people simply assuming she's truthful just because she made the accusation, and a lot of people simply assuming she's lying just because he stated a defense.

I personally think the threat of libel (followed by the claim he won't because he's a good person or whatever) is a creepy move if he accepts there's the possibility she might have misinterpreted something. If she legitimately believes she was wronged, then that comes across as an intimidating silencing technique.

He also said that he was wanted to talk to her and sort things out in private. Sure, you can see that as an opportunity to pay her off/silence her etc, but at this point anything he does can be taken either way

Or maybe he's just trying to prevent comments of the type "if she's lying, why doesn't he sue her? He probably has something to hide."

> what he's describing is libel, pure and simple

In order for this to be "libel, pure and simple", you have to prove damage to a reputation, defamation of character, that the claims prevented you from doing business, did psychological damage, etc.

His ability to win a case rests on his ability to prove his business or state of mind has been seriously damaged by these claims. The problem with that is also his saving grace: it happened 10 years ago, so most people won't give it much credit without evidence. Because people won't give it much credit, his personal and professional reputation won't be damaged.

If he did initiate a suit, it would probably bring him an enormous amount more trouble both professionally and personally than if he addresses it quickly and lets it die, which is what he's decided to do. So really he probably has no case and this is his best course of action.

But then again, I Am Not A Lawyer, so what the hell do I know? Armchair lawyering sure is fun though.

I agree with you, not taking legal action against this person is not a "respectable decision" and will, indeed, encourage people to report more rapes, but not necessarily real rapes ("hey, I can say whatever I want people won't do anything about it and it will ruin this guy's repuation" kind of stuff).

Also, I agree with some of the posts in this thread: the fact that such an accusation has any value, when it supposedly happened 10 years ago, is ridiculous, as proving that something did or did not happen 10 years ago is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

I'm not saying it did not happen, but it is very unlikely to be proven/disproven (and by proof, here, I mean actual proofs, not people's words on the subject).

"Not pursuing this through the appropriate venues—the legal system—simply lets her "get away with it"."

If he expects this to happen again in the future, then it might make sense to pursue a libel case. But if not, and if the premise here is that what she's saying (regardless of whether it's true) is damaging to him, then it makes sense that he'd have to seriously consider whether filing a libel suit against her would really be an effective remedy.

It's unlikely that the objective truth of the matter could ever be definitively proven one way or the other. Therefore, even if he were to win such a suit, the act of defending himself will tend to make him look more guilty and less like a victim. So I think he has little to gain and much to lose from filing suit.

It gets worse.

> I’m not wild about the precedent that [suing for libel] sets for other women to come forward in cases of actual sexual assault.

Very, very, very few men have the wealth, fame, connections, and social media presence that Max has. He can defend his reputation; most men can't. He has to know this.

He is openly trying to set the precedent that suing over a very public false accusation is somehow anti-women. That's just gross.

Very, very, very few men have the wealth, fame, connections, and social media presence that Max has. He can defend his reputation; most men can't.

There's something about that statement that just feels so very... off to me. A rich man should fight on behalf of all poorer men against the all-conquering, all powerful woman? Because that's not in any way representative of the power women have in situations like this.

The balance of power in these cases seems to be very finicky. Sometimes the woman hasn't a chance of getting the man convicted; sometimes the man hasn't a chance of living a normal life ever again even if he is acquitted.

The trade-off he has presented can be translated like so: "The overall problem of women not feeling able to come forward to report sexual assault is worse than the overall problem of false accusations by women of sexual assault"

I would agree with that statement, and do not consider it gross at all.

I was just about to write exactly this in reply to a comment above until I kept reading, saw this comment and saw you'd already expressed it succinctly.

>While it's very chivalrous of him to not want to lawyer up, what he's describing is libel

Assuming he is innocent that is. Who knows?

I totally agree.

"Additionally, I’m not wild about the precedent that sets for other women to come forward in cases of actual sexual assault."

Ummm.. what about the precedent OP is setting if he's letting her get away with it. Sometimes there's a nice decision and a smart decision to make. Unfortunately, OP chose the former.

That is why I think there is more to the story. The smartest move would have been to quietly sue and not publish a blog about it.

You don't think there'd be retaliation for that? I haven't seen this story yet, but I bet "Creator of horrible and crass card game sues to shut up victim he raped" certainly sounds like the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from a newscast.

Right now it's a little thing. Defending himself could end up doing a Streisand effect and making it worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com