Emma 'Mattress Girl' Sulkowicz threatens to sue Newsweek for publishing accused's side of story
128 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The Rizzler;49300613]I'm 99% sure someone who has experienced traumatic rape would do anything to NOT experience that trauma again
Like CREATING A DRAMATIC RE-ENACTING OF THE RAPE for example
This woman is not mentally sound[/QUOTE]
Everyone experiences trauma differently and everyone has different ways of dealing with said trauma. I know a bunch of rape victims/victims of sexual assault and they have all dealt with the pain differently. Some just want a therapist and then to totally distance themselves from the event, others (I did this) tried to pull something good from it by using the event as a source (of rather dark) inspiration for creative works, and then there are people who make it their goal to publicly show everyone the horrors of what they went through, which if the allogations are true is the option she chose.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49301680]She did go to the police so its unfair to damn her for that. The evidence they found though made it clear that he did not rape her.
Also, her Tweets made it clear that her definition of rape was stupid since she had retroactively withdrawn consent.[/QUOTE]
I didn't follow this case very closely. She did go to the police and they found evidence that the person she was accusing is innocent? How could anyone [I]possibly[/I] defend her at this point? Unless this whole thing is a campaign to make it a legitimate thing to retroactively withdraw consent, it seems pretty clear-cut to me. She took the proper avenues for someone who'd legitimately been raped, and they determined that she had not been.
[QUOTE=Fort83;49301756]You don't see the sarcasm in that one post? You're grasping at straws bud.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but it's not exactly easy to see sarcasm in a few normal looking words. This is the internet after all.
[editline]12th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49301554]People were criticizing her for using twitter instead of going through proper justice channels, which sounds like the kind of thing you do when your claims are not legitimate, If she WAS really raped she needs to take it to a court room, where our JUSTICE SYSTEM can handle it. Not run to twitter and publicly ruin someone else's life forever without any evidence.
I'm sorry but you can't expect us to take her rape claims any more seriously than she herself does.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but I don't think you understand that trauma affects us in different ways. For all we know she was scared to go to the police for being laughed down since she was after all, a porn star. Or maybe she could have already gone to the police and decided to tweet it out not knowing the possible repercussions against the guy.
Thank fuck we did actually got the thread under control and did the right thing by stepping back and wait for new evidence to come up.
Besides, that's partially beside the point. This happens in every fucking thread we get rape allegations these days. It's fucking despicable, not because you guys don't believe the accuser, but because you guys actively go out and shit on her.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49301858]I'm sorry but I don't think you understand that trauma affects us in different ways. For all we know she was scared to go to the police for being laughed down since she was after all, a porn star. Or maybe she could have already gone to the police and decided to tweet it out not knowing the possible repercussions against the guy.
Thank fuck we did actually got the thread under control and did the right thing by stepping back and wait for new evidence to come up.
Besides, that's partially beside the point. This happens in every fucking thread we get rape allegations these days. It's fucking despicable, not because you guys don't believe the accuser, but because you guys actively go out and shit on her.[/QUOTE]
Ideally, the internet shouldn't know about a rape case until the trial starts. The fact that all the cases in question start on the internet might be part of the problem. It immediately causes concern of wrong motives.
If your goal is to drum up popular support, then you're either lacking enough evidence to get the job done or one of your goals is to gain some sort of popularity from the case. Either way the integrity of the accuser is put into question.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49301858] Or maybe she could have already gone to the police and decided to tweet it out not knowing the possible repercussions against the guy.[/QUOTE]
This isn't a fair point. If you go on twitter to try and ruin someone's life and get them fired (which he did) then you abso-fucking-lutely deserve criticism for doing so. Even if you pretend that a social media conscious porn star might not have known the possible consequences of intentionally taking action, ignorance isnt a great excuse, especially if you never apologize later.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49301858]Or maybe she could have already gone to the police and decided to tweet it out not knowing the possible repercussions against the guy.[/QUOTE]
you'd have to be really stupid or have your head deeply buried in the sand to not know that tweeting rape allegations about someone would massively affect their life
[editline]12th December 2015[/editline]
and stoya isn't stupid or ignorant
Social media is a great way to easily ruin someone. It doesn't matter if they're guilty or not, if there's a woman accusing a man, he's done for.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;49302479]Social media is a great way to easily ruin someone. It doesn't matter if they're guilty or not, if there's a woman accusing a man, he's done for.[/QUOTE]
Even without social media, rape is a great crime for ruining somebodies life.
Its not about just having sex, its also about this idea of consent, something that cannot be proven.
[url]http://www.inquisitr.com/1992015/did-13-girls-conspire-to-put-high-school-player-in-jail-with-false-rape-charges-defense-say-yes/[/url]
[url]http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/28700460/defense-pinal-county-serial-rape-suspect-may-have-been-set-up[/url]
Look at how fucked this guy is and the thing is, they have evidence of the victims colluding on Facebook to manufacture a rape case.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49302520]Even without social media, rape is a great crime for ruining somebodies life.
Its not about just having sex, its also about this idea of consent, something that cannot be proven.
[url]http://www.inquisitr.com/1992015/did-13-girls-conspire-to-put-high-school-player-in-jail-with-false-rape-charges-defense-say-yes/[/url]
[url]http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/28700460/defense-pinal-county-serial-rape-suspect-may-have-been-set-up[/url]
Look at how fucked this guy is and the thing is, they have evidence of the victims colluding on Facebook to manufacture a rape case.[/QUOTE]
Where are the feminists when men need them?
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;49297887]To be fair, not every rape has to include kicking and screaming, there's a lot of reasons it could have been quiet.[/QUOTE]
Ya but in a dorm on the very first day she moved in? There are hundreds of people plus parents there
[QUOTE=Sableye;49302543]Ya but in a dorm on the very first day she moved in? There are hundreds of people plus parents there[/QUOTE]
There are hundreds of variables that could make her story true.
What a massive cunt....
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49302730]There are hundreds of variables that could make her story true.[/QUOTE]
But they shouldn't be assumed to be true without validation
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49302817]But they shouldn't be assumed to be true without validation[/QUOTE]
But they shouldn't be assumed false without validation either.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49302849]But they shouldn't be assumed false without validation either.[/QUOTE]
All true but we're all only human and most of us will side with either the accuser or the one being accused.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49302849]But they shouldn't be assumed false without validation either.[/QUOTE]
I tend to think that it should be assumed false without evidence.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49302849]But they shouldn't be assumed false without validation either.[/QUOTE]
Innocent until proven guilty, so I will assume something is false until there is evidence to prove otherwise.
[editline]12th December 2015[/editline]
Like, that's the entire foundation of Western Law, and for good reason. Never assume someone is guilty just because someone said something.
[editline]12th December 2015[/editline]
It's even considered a fundamental human right by the UN in the Declaration of Human Rights.
what fucking bizzaro world does someone have to live in to believe that you should believe that someone is guilty by accusation even when the evidence says otherwise
whats even worse is that the opposite of this, like India is dealing with, is woman who are raped get socially outcasted if you try to stop it, or if you're a woman who gets raped in Bangladesh they will punish you with a whip
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49302730]There are hundreds of variables that could make her story true.[/QUOTE]
Not really, a typical college dorm consists of sardine can rooms with paper thin walls and tons of people around, plus security cameras everywhere and on the first day there are hundreds of people cycling through the dorms to move shit in and parents visiting, a lot about her story makes no sense
Additionally the police investigation could not prove it was rape, which isn't proof it wasn't rape but weighs heavily against her story
Then she waited 8 months to report the attack, she wasn't being threatened by this guy, she wasnt dating him or evidently had any other contact with him, she had no reason to wait that long and the two other girls that stepped forwards to say they were also raped were friends of hers. I have no idea why someone would fabricate a story or change their mind like this, but the evidence was not there, she failed to report it in any reasonable time, failed to preserve evidence, and the student that was charged had absolutely no motive
I'm not saying its her fault for not doing anything, but waiting 8 months after the fact to prove a rape isn't a great way to prove a rape, especially when she had no reason not to report it sooner
[QUOTE=bdd458;49302911]Innocent until proven guilty, so I will assume something is false until there is evidence to prove otherwise.
[editline]12th December 2015[/editline]
Like, that's the entire foundation of Western Law, and for good reason. Never assume someone is guilty just because someone said something.
[editline]12th December 2015[/editline]
It's even considered a fundamental human right by the UN in the Declaration of Human Rights.[/QUOTE]
As a [I]legal[/I] principle of punishment. Not an overriding social responsibility or even as an assessment of truth.
Society is not based strictly upon legal principles of determining guilt. If someone scams me you bet I'm going to publicly out them. If someone I know physically assaults me I am not going to wait until the conclusion of a months-long court case to name and shame. Yet somehow it's only with rape that out come the 'innocent until proven guilty!' quips to suggest that a woman should be [I]prevented from speaking about her experiences[/I] until a court case is resolved.
Not only is there no crime whatsofuckingever that works this way, not only is it absolutely normal for people to make accusations in public ([I]especially[/I] when they're dealing with celebrities) while a legal battle is ongoing or hasn't even started yet, but most of the people who invoke 'innocent until proven guilty' don't even seem to know what it means. It does [B]not[/B] mean the accusation is to be considered false and the accuser a damned dirty liar until they present proof. It means the legal system won't punish someone without due cause.
If you apply the principle of innocent until proven guilty the way it actually means, you hold the accusation as a possibility and guilt or innocence in limbo until the case is resolved. The court does not hold a defendant innocent, it holds them in [I]presumed[/I] innocence until evidence demonstrates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and until then anything's on the table. Even after the case is resolved, it does not declare innocence or guilt, it only determines whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
So no, accusations shouldn't be assumed false without validation. Innocent until proven guilty is not a sufficient justification to call an alleged victim a liar in any legal sense. Accusations should not be assumed false nor should they be assumed true, they should be held as nothing more than accusations until the court does its job. It's not up to anyone here to dictate what an alleged victim can or can't say about their alleged attack, and it's not fair or legitimate to insist that an alleged victim stay silent until they win a legal victory.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49301268]The headline is bullshit. 'I'll sue if you publish lies I can prove in court are lies' isn't the same as 'I'll sue if you share his side of the story'. Anyone in a serious controversy would do the same. If a publication takes only your opponent's side of the story and publishes demonstrably untrue claims about you, it's up to the legal system to sort it out. If she sued just because they're publishing his side of the story not only could she not possibly win, but good luck finding a lawyer to carry that to court.
She's an awful human being but that's no reason to invent stories to circlejerk over.[/QUOTE]
She only threatened to sue. If what you are saying is true I would figure she wouldve already had sued. Could it be that she's all bark and no bite because she knows she doesn't have a leg to stand on and is posturing as a gambit to get her way, something that isn't out of character given her previous behavior? I guess time will tell.
But The Daily Beast published Nungesser's side of the story quite some time ago, in February. He even had text messages between the two of them, two days after the alleged rape, and they were speaking on friendly terms. I really thought this story was over with what the hell?
[editline]12th December 2015[/editline]
[url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html[/url]
I'm surprised they had allowed her to walk with that mattress at graduation. The University found him innocent several times, and after her "art" incident, I'd think that what she's doing constitutes harrassment
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49304831]I'm surprised they had allowed her to walk with that mattress at graduation. The University found him innocent several times, and after her "art" incident, I'd think that what she's doing constitutes harrassment[/QUOTE]
That's why the university is getting sued.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49304190]Not only is there no crime whatsofuckingever that works this way, not only is it absolutely normal for people to make accusations in public ([I]especially[/I] when they're dealing with celebrities) while a legal battle is ongoing or hasn't even started yet, but most of the people who invoke 'innocent until proven guilty' don't even seem to know what it means. It does [B]not[/B] mean the accusation is to be considered false and the accuser a damned dirty liar until they present proof. It means the legal system won't punish someone without due cause.[/QUOTE]
I don't really see this happen much other than with rape and racial incidents, both which often end up failing to produce evidence. The average person doesn't want the wider public knowing what kind of crap they're going through in their personal life.
[QUOTE] It's not up to anyone here to dictate what an alleged victim can or can't say about their alleged attack, and it's not fair or legitimate to insist that an alleged victim stay silent until they win a legal victory.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, you're creating a false dichotomy. There's a big difference between "staying silent" and not accusing people on social media before any sort of legal proceedings have happened.
Secondly, it's not up to anything here to dictate what people can or can't say about an alleged victim and their story.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49305066]I don't really see this happen much other than with rape and racial incidents, both which often end up failing to produce evidence. The average person doesn't want the wider public knowing what kind of crap they're going through in their personal life.
Firstly, you're creating a false dichotomy. There's a big difference between "staying silent" and not accusing people on social media before any sort of legal proceedings have happened.
Secondly, it's not up to anything here to dictate what people can or can't say about an alleged victim and their story.[/QUOTE]
She's the one that spread his name around on social media, leaflets and to the press including where to find him...she's the one who made up the story that the university was not doing anything for her, she's the one that went to the media and made her case a when multiple tribunals and a police investigation couldn't find enough evidence, the guy she accused just lawyered up and followed the system which was horribly schewed against him, then the university refused to stand by their decisions or the procedures
Catbarf, I know that this may come as a shock to you, but there are many - myself included, who believe that "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is not just a legal responsibility, but a moral and social responsibility as well.
And to say that the accused is innocent until there is actual damned proof means not to have their life ruined simply because they've been accused of something, because that tends to be what happens when the reverse is true. While there are certainly cases where that ends up happening and its true (Sponsers and tv stations pulling Cosby related things for example) there are others such as this where it does actual harm to the accused and I'd rather avoid having innocent people's lives ruined because the court of public opinion says so.
But it's easy to tell where you stand simply because you state that those who believe in having an accusation actually investigated believe that the accuser is "a damned dirty liar". There's a difference between calling someone a liar (which indicates a larger chronic pattern) and saying there's a possibility that what they're saying is false. One is an attack on the character of the individual, the other is an attack upon their statement.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49305615]And to say that the accused is innocent until there is actual damned proof means not to have their life ruined simply because they've been accused of something, because that tends to be what happens when the reverse is true. While there are certainly cases where that ends up happening and its true (Sponsers and tv stations pulling Cosby related things for example) there are others such as this where it does actual harm to the accused and I'd rather avoid having innocent people's lives ruined because the court of public opinion says so.[/QUOTE]
Whose fault is that? Is it the person making the accusation or the people treating an accusation as a matter of fact?
Somehow it's always the alleged victim's fault that someone else didn't respect due process. Maybe that's what they were going for and in this case Sulkowicz was almost certainly using public opinion as a weapon, I get that. But it's absolutely [I]wrong[/I] to say that someone should shut up and not say anything about their experience because of the possibility that someone on the Internet will take things too far, and that's pretty much what people have been saying.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49305615]But it's easy to tell where you stand simply because you state that those who believe in having an accusation actually investigated believe that the accuser is "a damned dirty liar". There's a difference between calling someone a liar (which indicates a larger chronic pattern) and saying there's a possibility that what they're saying is false. One is an attack on the character of the individual, the other is an attack upon their statement.[/QUOTE]
There's a [I]huge[/I] difference between 'I think this accusation should be investigated' and 'I will assume something is false until there is evidence to prove otherwise'. One is staying neutral until you get more evidence. The other is taking a side in the absence of evidence.
I'm not defending Sulkowicz in the slightest, all evidence points to her alleged rape being invented and her behavior is deplorable. But there's a whole ton of people on this forum who [I]leap[/I] to defending alleged rapists and put all sorts of unreasonable conditions on their alleged victims (notice how I keep saying 'alleged', because sometimes it's true and sometimes it's not and I wouldn't want to make any assumptions now would I?) and trying to defend it with 'innocent until proven guilty'. Assuming that a woman is lying about a rape and declaring that she needs to shut up and stop talking about it until she wins a court case that may never happen is not innocent until proven guilty. People are misapplying legal principles that were never intended to be used as guidelines for social interaction.
If Nungesser goes and shares his abuse at the hands of Sulkowicz I will be shocked if there are people on this forum crying out about 'innocent until proven guilty' and insisting that he needs to shut up and go to court if he wants to make accusatory comments. I hope he does share his experience and I hope people will have the good sense to recognize that any public accusations he makes are not an affront to liberty and the justice system. I just wish they'd be more consistent about it.
[editline]13th December 2015[/editline]
To sum it up my issue isn't the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty', it's when 'innocent until proven guilty' is invoked as a defense of 'all accusations are lies unless you win a court case', which isn't the same by a long shot.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;49297595]You guys are such big goddamn babies over false rape accusations when they barely happen, get over yourselves
calling someone who could very well be traumatized by rape a "salty cunt" wow[/QUOTE]
lmfao if she was traumatized by it she wouldn't have paraded about a constant fucking reminder of it (the mattress she was supposedly raped on) around for an entire god damn year
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;49306663]lmfao if she was traumatized by it she wouldn't have paraded about a constant fucking reminder of it (the mattress she was supposedly raped on) around for an entire god damn year[/QUOTE]
Recovery comes in different forms. Some forms result in loudly and confidently declaring your injustice, and saying "Here, do something about it. Am I in your way? Tough shit, I'm waiting for what's due."
Bear in mind, though, it [I]all[/I] goes out the window with the fact that she made it all up. I feel it could potentially be valid. It just isn't, here.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.