70
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
70 points (98.6% liked)
Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'
585 readers
121 users here now
Rules:
-
News must be from a reliable source. No tabloids or sensationalism , please.
-
Try to keep it safe for work. Contact a moderator before posting if you have any doubts.
-
Titles of articles must remain unchanged; however extraneous information like "Watch:" or "Look:" can be removed. Titles with trailing, non-relevant information can also be edited so long as the headline's intent remains intact.
Communities We Like:
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
We have pretty strong courts though and if she loses the judgement she'll likely be ordered to pay your friends' costs.
I meant $100k (not $100). I doubt he will get costs even if he wins. She also got an AVO out against him based on this. Claims it has ruined her business (she wants $100k for lost revenue despite not showing tax returns) and that she fears for her life complete with waterworks in the hearing (despite him living interstate).
The current political climate is biased in her favour. After the Higgins trial win Larissa Waters tweeted "I believe women".
He subpoenaed mug shots of the women arrested at the rally but none are of her. Seems the police are in on it, using her as a honeypot to attract the extremists. Courts protect police.
Dodgy tactics like that are why it matters that our courts are strong: it's not going to matter that she got an AVO out because if they didn't have a history of conflict prior to his genuine identification of her in the video, it's not relevant to the defamation case and won't hold up in court.
Whether it's technically possible to prove it's her in the video isn't materially relevant to a defamation case if it's obvious to the average observer that it's her. If she prove it wasn't her, she'd need to prove his identification of her was intentionally malicious to win a defamation claim against him.
The idea that the Lehrmann trial indicates the courts are generally biased toward women is a couple bridges too far. Larissa Waters believes women in regards to their allegations of sexual assault against them where alleged male perpetrator denies it and where there isn't a sufficient body of contradictory evidence. She isn't saying she generally believes women about any and every grievance they may have, especially not having awareness spread about a crime they genuinely committed.
I interpret Larissa Waters' tweet as you did and am shocked by it. That you seem to consider it reasonable is disturbing.
While it is unfortunate that women without rape evidence cannot get justice, there are just as many evil women in the world as there are evil men. If they automatically get believed without evidence in rape allegations (or predator/stalker allegations like my friend's case) then of course the evil ones will exploit that to put in jail the men they simply don't like.
I have it on good authority that she has me next in her sights because I am co-admin of what she sees as a rival activist group. This is the right-wing hijacking well intentioned but naive left-wing sentiment.
The AVO matters because the court tacked on a new condition a few months later in a hearing he wasn't even invited to: He was not to mention her publicly even indirectly (eg "one of the people running group X").
Identifying her in the video isn't resulting just in her seeking civil defamation against him but also pushing for criminal contempt of court (despite due process being ignored by the court).
Meanwhile she was allowed to continue defaming him. In fact him suing her for defamation is how it all started: she posted publicly that he is a sexual predator and stalker. So there are two opposing defamation cases in the pipeline and the one criminal case against my friend.
The successful AVO was intended by her to demonstrate to her thousands of followers that her accusations were valid, even though she had no relevant evidence for the rubber stamp AVO. The add-on was to gag him so that he could not deny the allegations she was publicly making against him.