Posted on 01/21/2015 4:32:14 PM PST by BunnySlippers
You are incorrect. i do not despise women, please keep your inappropriate defamatory opinions to yourself!
Reality “Details were not disclosed. The two-sentence release from attorneys in the case said simply that Cosby and Andrea Constand “have resolved their differences, and, therefore, the litigation has been dismissed pursuant to local court rule.””
Sure you do, your posting history shows that you use this Cosby thing to express your utter disgust with the female sex.
I haven’t looked up your past on Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick yet.
LOL, I realize that you despise females, but Cosby settled out of court with Constand after drugging and raping her.
Cosby settled up for a claim of drugging and raping a woman, and she had found 13 more Jane Doe victims of his, today there are many more.
Please keep your inappropriate and defamatory opinions to yourself.
This Cosby thing has really brought out the female hating in you, you love these threads, to vent on the victims and women in general.
To plenty here too
It’s not just that they hate girls
They think Cosby is conservative and the left is after him
So he must be defended
That and the fact we sadly attract more than a fair share of stupids
Again. Please cease and desist with the defamatory comments.
Cosby’s politics are irrelevant to the issue. Period.
Cosby politics are damn sure relevant to plenty freepers
First it broke plenty here claimed it was lib media hit cause he strayed from plantation with black self reliance talk
Even though he donates major to libs and loves Obama
He smells guilty to me.
I’m not a courtroom....I don’t owe him presumption of innocence
That is such a bastardization of the concept
People used to have opinions....even offensive ones
To: ansel12
Biy, you are one sick puppy.
8 posted on 1/22/2015, 6:58:17 PM by Pikachu_Dad
This Cosby thing has really brought out the female hating in you, you love these threads, to vent on the victims and women in general as you troll the Cosby threads.
Like I said, so what? Most of these women realize that. They’re not looking for a criminal conviction or a civil judgment. Most just wanted to tell their stories, expose Cosby for what he did and speak the truth. You are free to believe them or not. I believe a lot of things people have told me that have never been uttered under oath. That’s life. You use your common sense and decide for yourself.
Criminal trials aren’t perfect either. Lots of people have made mistakes or lied under oath.
Actually, They are like point for $100,00,0000.
To say they are just looking to ‘tell their story’ is patently false.
Yes, some ignore that about 30 women are known to have stories to tell on Cosby.
The women haters keep trying to portray it as a handful of despicable females seeking money and victimizing a man with money, chosen at random, because he has money, in other words, those posters just want to talk about hating females, not Bill Cosby and his 5 decades of assaulting and raping women.
This lady lawyer from Philly said it very well.
Quote: “Rape allegations against Cosby no excuse to suspend rights of the accused
POSTED: November 21, 2014
I KNOW THE NUNS who had custody of my conscience for 12 long years will be hanging their heads about this, but I’ve come to the conclusion that you can actually be too compassionate. While it’s always good to reach out to those suffering, there are times when you have to say, “Sorry, but you waited too long. I can’t help you now.”
That’s how I feel about the women who are coming out and accusing Bill Cosby of raping them decades ago. I know that most of the ladies are doing it to make themselves feel better and neutralize the shame they say he caused them to carry through their teen years and into adulthood, but the regurgitated revelations have been picked up by people who advocate abolishing statutes of limitations.
The thinking goes that the statutes preventing putative victims from making accusations against their alleged abusers if they don’t file them in a timely manner are just another way of victimizing the innocent, and don’t take into consideration the psychological trauma experienced by a person who has been raped.
I get that. Clearly, not everyone has the ability to transcend their own pain, uncurl from the fetal position and raise their defiant voices to say “J’accuse!” It would be a much better world if society welcomed the testimony of victims, particularly children, and believed their claims of persecution and abuse.
But just because we don’t live in that utopia, we don’t then get the right to trash our venerable tradition of due process and simply eliminate the protections against false accusations or faulty memories.
Exposing anyone to a lifetime of liability because we feel sorry for a woman who says she was ashamed to tell that sordid tale of date rape, or a man who only found the courage to admit he’d been sexually violated in the sacristy 30 years after the fact, is as fundamentally un-American as you can get.
I know that this will not make me a lot of fans. I raised the issue on my Facebook page earlier this week, and while some of my virtual friends agreed that decades-old allegations are untrustworthy, many others believed that we need to give women the benefit of the doubt.
I say “women,” because I didn’t touch on the child-abuse scandal, which is a special variant of the topic with its own complications. I’m also pretty certain that my critics don’t think men should be afforded the same tolerance, because many of those who responded to my post talked about how women were traditionally discouraged from speaking out about rape. In point of fact, it’s actually been harder for men because of the stigma society attaches to male victims of sexual abuse, but we are all somehow conditioned to believe that women have a harder time of it.
I’ve studied the claims of the women who say they were drugged by Cosby and then raped, and they all seem to follow a pattern: the women were either interns or mentored by the actor, went to his room to discuss some project, had a drink (or several) and then woke up after he’d allegedly attacked them.
They sound so similar that I’m reminded of the McMartin preschool case where children were coached to tell the sordid tales of being raped by their teachers. That story, which never gets the attention it deserves, turned out to be false. Lives were destroyed by opportunistic psychologists, parents who were naive enough to believe them, and a flock of media vultures who fed on the carcass of manipulation and lies.
I’m not sure whether Cosby is innocent of having extracurricular sex, and it’s quite possible that he did take advantage of his position. Even so, I think we have an obligation to tell these women that they waited too long for their day of reckoning.
Compassion is a good thing, but it needs to be evenly applied. Sometimes, the people that we are naturally inclined to view as victims bear some responsibility for their injuries, and it’s neither sinful nor heartless to say that. If we tell them it’s OK to wait lifetimes to speak out about what they think happened to them, we are showing no compassion to the targets of their anger.
The thing that angers me the most about this whole situation with Cosby is the mean-spirited, vengeful way the story is being trotted out yet again like some B-movie zombie that refuses to die.
It’s been a nonstory for a decade, and it seems to pop up periodically when Temple’s pride and joy has a project or is railing against the gangsta culture. His detractors know they can’t get to him legally, so they want to destroy what Shakespeare’s Cassio called “the immortal part of myself,” his reputation.
For that reason alone, I have no compassion for these women and their cobwebbed, aged stories. Enough.
Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer.
Email: cflowers1961@gmail.com
Blog: philly.com/flowers”
http://articles.philly.com/2014-11-21/news/56314048_1_bill-cosby-sexual-abuse-facebook-page
This is a discussion forum, not a court room limited by law and a formal trial, in deciding our opinions of Clinton and Cosby being rapists.
Bill Clinton and Cosby are both guilty of rape it seems, with the Cosby guilt being much more obvious.
The posters who cry foul in favor of Cosby’s “rights” are very hinky to me, and smell of possibly being abusers themselves, in some form.
You’re right. They are women haters, period.
When they become trolls on the Cosby threads and post like fire filled ranters over, and over, and over, on thread, after thread, after thread, then it becomes impossible not to notice that they are are merely venting about women.
Besides, how many times can a guy post that all women are money grubbing ****** before we are fully aware of his feelings towards women, and he can move on, and leave us to continue the discussion about the unfolding news about Cosby.
Indeed. This is a public forum.
A court of law, on the other hand, can handle issues of defamation.
“
California Defamation Law
Note: This page covers information specific to California. For general information concerning defamation, see the Defamation Law section of this guide.
California Elements of Defamation
Defamation, which consists of both libel and slander, is defined by case law and statute in California. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 44, 45a, and 46.
The elements of a defamation claim are:
publication of a statement of fact
that is false,*
unprivileged,
has a natural tendency to injure or which causes “special damage,” and
the defendant’s fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.
Publication, which may be written or oral, means communication to a third person who understands the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference is made. Publication need not be to the “public” at large; communication to a single individual other than the plaintiff is sufficient. Republishing a defamatory statement made by another is generally not protected.
*As a matter of law, in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove falsity in a defamation action. Nizam-Aldine v. City of Oakland, 47 Cal. App. 4th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). In cases involving matters of purely private concern, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant. Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 646 & n.5 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). A reader further points out that, even when the burden is technically on the plaintiff to prove falsity, the plaintiff can easily shift the burden to the defendant simply by testifying that the statements at issue are false....”
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-defamation-law
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.