Worst TV I’ve ever seen…I don’t understand how anyone can get past how cringe the acting is in those shows.
My mom (she’s in her sixties) still watches one that’s been on TV for like 30+ years now or something. The Bold and the Beautiful. I’ve seen about 30 minutes of it and it was next level cringe.
Ok then, at least as bad. Both can ruin a persons life but only the false accusation is a stigma that sticks to a person and makes it all right for anybody that enjoys that type of thuggery to mistreat the accused in any sort of way for the rest of his life. While his accuser is upheld as a victim of his evil. You know what? I talked myself out of it. The false accusation and the thuggery that follows it is worse.
What the ****? 1) There is a terrible stigma that can follow victims of rape their entire lives, often accompanied by a crippling sense of shame. 2) Please describe potential said mistreatment of the accused, and who exactly says it's all right. It sure sounds like you could desperately stand to learn a little bit about the long term effects of rape. It also sounds like you're saying an act that could potentially lead to rape is worse than just, you know, actual rape.
Nook and most others have earned a pass as far as I am concerned. (by virtue of their generally decent behavior towards those here) Hey Now has worn my patience away with his constant acerbic bickering was not enough explanation for you? Fine. To Nook and any others who have taken an accusatory stance toward Bauer I disagree with you very strongly for the reasons I have posted here. I am glad to see that most have moved on and I hope those who have not do so soon. It is time for me to move on too, least I become another Hey Now type of poster.
The problem is there's no legal penalty for accusations that can be *proven* to be false. I say "proven* and not merely "insufficient evidence" because real victims shouldn't fear telling the truth.. Paternity fraud -- the point I was eluding to earlier -- is the female version of rape. There's no legal penalty for that either. Stats suggest there's about 30-35% of fathers raising children they believe are theirs biologically, but they are not. DNA tests are not *mandatory* at birth -- and the reason is society's default is to kiss women's arse. There are men in jail right now for child support issues for children that are not theirs --- and sometimes, the court knows the children aren't theirs.
Same as before, you seem to be wrong on the facts. You say that Bauer didn't refile, but the USA Today article I posted says he did, and that the judge was considering the case again when Bauer and The Athletic reached an agreement. The judge said that a reasonable person could conclude that the tweets were stating a fact. Since we know that the tweet actually stated a falsehood, it seems that it is much more that the case has merit than that the "low standard of avoiding summary judgment was met" But again, I would be very happy for a lawyer to jump in and correct me if I am wrong. I tend to concur that it would have been difficult for Bauer to get damages, not because of what you stated, but because the press has a great deal of latitude in what they say, especially concerning public figures. Once The Athletic agreed to print a retraction (thereby also resolving the matter of Molly Knight), it eliminated any chance of Bauer recovering damages. Again, lawyers please correct me if my understanding is mistaken. Also note that the case is not gone because of the judge as your latest post seemed to infer, but because of the agreement between the parties. That Bauer was suspended for the exact remainder of his contract with the Dodgers just seems fishy to me, especially considering the amount of power the Dodgers owner exerted in determining the punishment the Astros received for sign stealing. If you have some information to the contrary, I will be happy to peruse it. As far as what I condone - If Bauer did what you claimed he did, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. IIRC, they have decided not to prosecute, correct? Doesn't prove that he is innocent by any means, but it does make me wonder what information that have that led to that decision, especially if the police and prosecution both believed the claims as you stated and still chose not to prosecute. Other than that I am just not interested enough to do any research. But a question please, while the cases are not perfectly related, weren't you the one trying to defend Wander Franco?
