We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day This situation begs a huge question: what is justice for? The idea that people who stand accused of something have the right to have those allegations tested is being fundamentally undermined by this new form of public showtrial. In the past, showtrials were used by authoritarian governments to establish a ‘truth’, which was convenient for their political purposes. Today, the showtrial is used to validate and confirm the experiences of those making accusations. The showtrial has become the most effective way of telling people that their story has been believed by society at large, even when the laws of that country prevent a formal trial from taking place. In a society in which such therapeutic validation has become so central, what value do we accord justice, fairness and objectivity? Principles which have, for centuries, been cornerstones of Western systems of justice are now being done away with.
– Luke Gittos, in an article entitled ‘Cosby: convicted by social-media showtrial‘
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Without expressing an opinion about this individual case (I have no idea whether Mr Cosby is guilty or not guilty), the craze of sex-crime charges is disturbing.
Charges of actions many years ago (where the “facts” of the cases seem to constantly change – and the legal system does not seem to care), even charges made against people who are dead and can, therefore, not reply to the charges against them.
It is a craze for sex-crime charges – tapping into an interest in sexual violence an interest that is part of the human condition.
And not a good part of the human condition.
For something to be “normal and natural” is not the same thing as it being good.
We should fight against this obsessive interest – at least demand that the principles of natural justice are applied to charges of sexual violence.
The person or persons making the charges must prove their case (it must not be assumed to be true) and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.
By the way – for all my differences with the “person in Kent” (as I am told I have to refer to him) that led to me from being banned from commenting on his site (which is his right – as it is his private property), he has been very good on this.
Philosophically the Person in Kent may not believe in the principle of natural justice (at least not as a universal principle – of good and evil) or in the ability of humans to actually CHOOSE their actions (our ability to choose to do other than we do), but on the details of the legal system he is good – very good.
Indeed I can think of no one with more knowledge in the area of the craze in sexual violence charges. Both in the legal system and in the media.
The main motivator behind suing the dead appears to be a cynical effort to distort the wishes of the deceased, as in the case of Jimmy Saville, who left his fortune to charity and divert the funds to themselves.
Ask Scooter Libby about show trials.
This warpage is especially vivid on American campuses now. Yes, you’re innocent, but you still have to go because your innocence is “triggering” to the victim–I mean, accuser. Or something, who the hell knows anymore.
This would traditionally have resulted in a defamation law suit.
But, defamation is easier than it ever was, thanks to the internet, whereas suing somebody remains as expensive as it ever was.
And taking on an amorphous collective of twitterati is bit like wacking barbapapa with a baseball bat. Largely pointless.
Anyway, the current situation does not seem like a ‘stable equilibrium’ to me and no doubt there will be some development to counter ‘conviction by twitter’. Reverse class action defamation law suits perhaps.
Or bring back duelling.
Law Graduate and worked in the Lord Chancellor’s Office for 12 years. I need hard evidence, not endless accusations and conjecture.
But that’s you, RAB. I would bet that you don’t spend your evenings watching The Apprentice or Hollywood Insider.
Correct. I certainly don’t Laird, but that’s bye the bye. I rather hope that all of the people want Justice to be done, not indulge in a “No smoke without fire” witch hunt.
The Savilegate thing has got completely out of hand now. His list of accusers stretches into the hundreds,if not thousands, so he must be guilty right? Well we both have considerable legal experience and we both know how difficult it is to get to the facts of a recent rape or sexual assault, let alone ones 40 years old. Most sexual predators have an MO. They like young boys or young girls, slender blondes or even old grannies, but Savile is accused of trying to shag just about anything that moved 24 hours a day, young, old, male female, christ even the dead! How did he have the time to pop down the shops for a bit of Bling or a box of Havana’s? let alone do his job of DJ, tv presenter, national icon and adviser to royalty?
It is getting beyond ludicrous and now it has spread to politicians of all stripes.So I repeat… I want proper investigation and hard evidence, not a “Me too!” list, conjecture and smear. I loathed Ted Heath with a vengeance for all sorts of things, not least for lying us into the EU, but I’m buggered if I will believe the word of a dodgy terraced house brothel keeper without some really hard facts.
Is this the allegation that he shagged little boys or the refutation by the aforementioned brothel keeper that said
The new-style of policing does play to the “nutter-on-the-bus” contingent. This is not progress.
I don’t even understand the question “what is justice for ?” As far as i can make out Mr Gittos is completely confused.
On the one hand, we have the state’s system of criminal “justice”, aka the law, which encompasses all sorts of protections, like the presumption of innocence, jury trial, rules of evidence etc. Because at the end of the process, the state may – if you are found guilty – do some unpleasant things to your person or your property against your will, and it is a good thing that the state has to leap over some difficult hurdles before it does this. This hand, and so this sense of justice, is completely irrelevant to Mr Cosby unless and until Plod chooses to feel his collar.
On the other hand, we have people exercising the liberty to speak, to do business with Mr C or not, as they choose. It is true that sometimes they may do so raucously, impolitely, all the while making all sorts of unreasonable and unsupported assumptions which they would not be allowed to make in a court of law. It may be “unjust” for them to do so, and we quiet sober types may urge them to behave in a more liberal minded fashion. But what does “what is justice for?” mean in this second context ? It sounds awfully like the beginning of paragraph which ends “…and so it must be banned.” Count me out.
So you want witches to go free, do you? Besides, witch-hunting unites the community, and gets people up and about, a communal form of therapy! You want happy communities, don’t you?
No. The “Elect” want the mob to obey their commands. To riot when told to riot. To be silent when told to riot be silent.
Now shut up and be a good Nazi.
Woah! Cosby?
I thought it was about “Dear Colleague…” at American Universities that so desperately rely on “fungible” tax dollars, currently “administered” by Executive appointees, so as to enforce “special” Social Justice.
Oh well, queer as folks I guess.
What Lee More said.
And if Mr. Cosby weren’t a rapist, he could easily sue, and OWN NY Magazine. In a defamation case, the plaintiff’s only burden of proof is to show that the statement was made, is defamatory, and allege that it’s false. It would take an hour.
The burden then shifts to the defendant, who has to prove truth (or show privilege or other defences).
And aren’t people free to speak, even “unjustly”, whatever that means? I thought this was a bunch of libertarians.
Cosby is clearly a public figure.
Thus, for him to succeed in bringing a defamation claim against NY Magazine, he would need to show that it published damaging falsehoods with “actual malice” – i.e., that it knew that the statement was false or that it acted in reckless disregard of the statement’s truth or falsity.
It’s a tough burden to meet. Without a smoking gun of sorts – an internal note saying “let’s slime the bastard, I never liked him” or something similar – it’s difficult for a public figure to bring a defamation claim in the USA.
Private individuals receive some protection from being slimed. Public figures . . . not so much. They’re left to rely on the adage that the best way to fight “bad” speech is with more speech. Cosby is free to publicly defend himself.
There may be a witch-hunt going on. That does not mean there are no actual witches. The rash of pederastic Catholic priests is a case in point; and many of them were “covered up” for by higher clergy.
There was the case of famed science-fiction and fantasy author Marion Zimmer Bradley and her husband Walter Breen – homosexual pagans who sexually abused and exploited children including their own daughter. They got away with it for decades.
Sometimes only death opens the doors, as apparently in the case of Jimmy Saville. I don’t know the details of the Saville case, but it appeared that many of the stories brought forward were well-founded. And some of those named as alleged protectors of Saville were powerful figures with great media influence – yet they were brought down.
When perpetrators are powerful, wealthy, or influential, they get away with it. Note the history of Bill Clinton, or Dominique Strauss-Kahn. (Strauss-Kahn’s release in NYC was not due to influence – the accuser had credibility issues that made a conviction unlikely. But there was clear evidence that something nasty happened – and that it was not the sort of thing that only happens once.)
There can also be statute of limitation issues – after enough time has passed, victims have no legal recourse. The only court open to them is “the court of public opinion”. And while that court may condemn, it cannot punish. Cosby has not lost his life, liberty, or property.
Is there a “dirt rush”? Sure. But as with the Gold Rushes of the past, the rush starts with a real find, and when a lot of prospectors go to work, they often find more paydirt.
There may be a witch-hunt going on. That does not mean there are no actual witches.
Sound thinking. I wish people would remember that when they lazily refer to McCarthy’s antics as a witch hunt.
Yes the trial of Mr Libby was a show trial.
Partly the result of a Federal “justice system” that is a conviction machine, with a absurd “crimes” and procedures that have no connection to the basic principles of natural justice (it is no accident that these procedures really started to emerge in the American legal system after philosophers and legal thinkers, started teaching that that there was no such thing as natural justice – no universal principles)
Also there was the political side.
I remember watching the jury being interviewed after the trial.
None of them said…..
“This lady was not a CIA clandestine agent – she was a office worker, it is insane to claim that naming her is a crime”.
Nor did they even say…..
“It was not Mr Libby who “outed” this lady – it was Richard Armitage”.
Instead it was “Bush should have been on trial” and “Cheney should have been on trial”.
So it was not just a corrupt “Prosecutor” (I believe the same Chicago scumbag who used perjury and so against Conrad Black) and a perverted legal system.
It was also a jury that is just no good.
People who are just no good – who are self righteous, but without any commitment to either the facts of the case or to the principles of justice.
All they cared about was venting their political opinions.
Showing how “enlightened” they were.
As if what was on trial was the policy of going to war in Iraq. Not whether a specific person had done a specific thing that was worthy of legal punishment.
It is the same with sexual abuse cases now.
It is more “sex abuse – boo-hiss”.
Not “did this specific person do this specific thing”.