Zak Smith is suing his accusers

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm sorry, but this is speculation. None of us knows for certain what happened. So you're making an assumption, and arguing that an accused should have no recourse, even if they were falsely accused. All you're doing is guessing. Just like the people who were certain that Chris Hardwick committed sexual assault when those accusations first game out.

It might be possible Zak did these things. It might even be probable. But unless it's certain without a shred of doubt with evidence, you can't deny him (or any accused) the right to legal recourse to defend him/her/themselves. No matter what your (general you) personal feelings are. That's not how the legal system is supposed to work.

Edit and no, I am not OK with victims being attacked again. I'd ask you to refrain from such accusations about my position or motives. I actually volunteer work in domestic violence groups, so I take this very seriously, and do not appreciate your implication that I'm OK with victims being continued to be victimized. All I'm arguing is that even accused are afforded some legal rights, and unless you were there and saw firsthand yourself, neither you or I know exactly what happened. And we don't deny rights based on our personal feelings about that person. These accusations are very serious, and yes, the victims should be given full attention and taken seriously. But that doesn't mean anyone accused has no rights, or the people you personally don't like shouldn't have rights.

Who is denying him anything? Who is proposing changes to the legal system?

We all just sitting here judging the piece of garbage.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Who is denying him anything? Who is proposing changes to the legal system?

We all just sitting here judging the piece of garbage.

Gradine did, with the implication that Zak shouldn't be allowed to file a lawsuit because they just know he did it, and therefore any legal attempt by Zak to defend himself is a further attack on the victims.

 

[Gradine]

Gradine did, with the implication that Zak shouldn't be allowed to file a lawsuit because they just know he did it.

That's imparting me with a great deal more power than I have or would ever want.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Gradine did, with the implication that Zak shouldn't be allowed to file a lawsuit because they just know he did it, and therefore any legal attempt by Zak to defend himself is a further attack on the victims.

No, they judged him for his actions.

Those are different things.

 

[Gradine]

In any case, please make sure to donate what you can. We cannot allow the worst members of our community to get away with silencing their victims.

From the OP:

Legal Funds, organized by Amanda Nagy

Hi This is Mandy Morbid, as many of you know my ex Zak Smith is suing me for defamation after I, and a number… Amanda Nagy needs your support for Legal Funds

www.gofundme.com

 

[Sacrosanct]

In any case, please make sure to donate what you can. We cannot allow the worst members of our community to get away with silencing their victims.

Legal Funds, organized by Amanda Nagy

Hi This is Mandy Morbid, as many of you know my ex Zak Smith is suing me for defamation after I, and a number… Amanda Nagy needs your support for Legal Funds

www.gofundme.com

Thank you for the link. Donation submitted. IMO, the best way to handle this isn't to try to prevent or deny or attack an accused from taking legal recourse, but to support the side you find has more credibility. Also, let Zak take this to court, because then the truth will come out for all to see either way. And if he's a liar, then Mandy can counter sue

 

[billd91]

Gradine did, with the implication that Zak shouldn't be allowed to file a lawsuit because they just know he did it, and therefore any legal attempt by Zak to defend himself is a further attack on the victims.

Well that's the thing isn't it? Any attempt by ZakS to defend himself by suing, if he did perpetrate what Mandy and others are accusing him of, is, by definition, a further attack on the victims. And, as you pointed out, since neither we nor any of the (eventually to be picked) jurors were there, there's no way to establish any kind of absolute truth of the matter. The jurors have to weigh exactly what we've been weighing - the testimony of those making the accusation. With all the pearl clutching over (rare) false accusations, you should be able to see exactly why abusers like ZakS get away with their abuse - it's very easy to make it hard for victims to accuse their abuser.
There's a reasonably good chance ZakS could win a defamation lawsuit in Canada even if the jurors believe the accusations because, unlike in the US, finding of fact doesn't seem to immunize the defendant of defaming the plaintiff. And that probably means he gets what he wants - his pound of flesh from his accusers for daring to stand up and accuse him.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For every Cris Hardwick, there are 20 Zak Smiths.

Yes, false accusations do happen at times. Yes, people deserve a fair chance at being believed.

Cris Hardwick didn't have a history of abuse accusations. He didn't have the enmity of a good portion of his industry because he was abrasive, rude, and a general dooshbag in all his dealings.

Zak is very likely being judged just as much for his overall attitude and abrasiveness as he is for the abuse accusations. Perhaps if he hadn't burned every bridge he crossed and hadn't rubbed everyone he dealt with the wrong way, maybe more people would be willing to believe him?

I mean, he seems to already have been given a good deal of benefit of the doubt since it took multiple accusations for everything to finally catch up to him. The fact that accusations have continued to pile up and he's continued to be a general dick online.....seems like a strong enough reason to doubt him.

Again, the problem is that we will never have the GUILTY VERDICT that so many are expecting as a pre-requisite to taking a side. It won't happen. So what we have to do is look at what information is available, and then decide accordingly.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well that's the thing isn't it? Any attempt by ZakS to defend himself by suing, if he did perpetrate what Mandy and others are accusing him of, is, by definition, a further attack on the victims. And, as you pointed out, since neither we nor any of the (eventually to be picked) jurors were there, there's no way to establish any kind of absolute truth of the matter. The jurors have to weigh exactly what we've been weighing - the testimony of those making the accusation. With all the pearl clutching over (rare) false accusations, you should be able to see exactly why abusers like ZakS get away with their abuse - it's very easy to make it hard for victims to accuse their abuser.
There's a reasonably good chance ZakS could win a defamation lawsuit in Canada even if the jurors believe the accusations because, unlike in the US, finding of fact doesn't seem to immunize the defendant of defaming the plaintiff. And that probably means he gets what he wants - his pound of flesh from his accusers for daring to stand up and accuse him.

Which is why the victims can counter sue for further emotional damage and suffering. Just because false allegations are rare, doesn't mean that all accused should be denied their legal rights. Tell that to Chris Hardwick. Or Brian Banks. People were certain they committed the crimes they were accused of. Until they were cleared...

I fully agree that accusers should be taken seriously, and not attacked like Blassey Ford was in the Kavanaugh hearings. And it's a horrible shame that those types of attacks are way too frequent. And we absolutely should be protecting victims when we can. But the reality is that not every single case is a true accusation. My family is mixed race. I can tell you with certainty that minories, especially black men, are falsely accused of things all the time. Often by the police themselves. Or the parents of a white girl who didn't want her dating a black guy. Is your argument that those people accused should just shut up and take it, whatever the punishment is up to including prison time, because false accusations are rare? Hate to break it to you, but that poor black kid doesn't have Loeb and Leob around to do an investigation and clear their name.

 

[Bardic Dave]

There's a reasonably good chance ZakS could win a defamation lawsuit in Canada even if the jurors believe the accusations because, unlike in the US, finding of fact doesn't seem to immunize the defendant of defaming the plaintiff.

I'm 99% certain you are misstating Canadian law. It's been a few years since law school, but as far as I can recall telling the truth is an absolute defence against defamation.

I believe the real difference between defamation in most Canadian jurisdictions and most American jurisdictions is the reverse onus. In the U.S., the onus to show that a statement is NOT truthful always lies with the plaintiff. In Canada, if the plaintiff can establish the elements of defamation the onus shifts to the defendant to prove that their statement WAS actually truthful.

This reverse onus has been heavily criticized because it brings a whiff of "guilty until proven innocent" into defamation suits. Many people argue that it would be more fair to just make "not truthful or reckless disregard for the truth" an element of the offence. Instead, we've got "truthful, or earnestly believed it to be truthful" as a defence, which is why the onus shifts. It's just a different way of framing the question, but it makes a real difference in outcomes.

EDIT: To add a little more context, it's relatively easy to establish that a statement is prima-facie defamatory. If person A says person B sexually assaulted them, it's an attack on person B's character and thus prima facie defamatory (regardless of whether the statement is true or not). What's much harder to establish is whether the sexual assault actually took place. In a defamation suit in the U.S., the heavy lifting of proving the truth of the matter lies with the alleged sexual assaulter, whereas in Canada it lies with the alleged victim. So in Canada, unless person A can prove that person B sexually assaulted them, they are likely to lose the defamation suit. You can see why many people (myself included) find this problematic.