Replies

As with the suit against Singer, Egan made four claims against each of the three execs — intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery and invasion of privacy by unreasonable intrusion. Each of the suits recounted in explicit detail the sexual acts that took allegedly place between Egan and each of the men in Hawaii in 1999. “Somebody has to stand up to these people,” said the 31-year-old Egan. The suits are also seeking at least $300,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.

I will ask the same question I'd asked a couple of days ago on this case. What is the standard of proof required to make such an accusation? Now, I do not know this Bryan Singer, I am not defending him, and I am not saying there are no cases of abuse in tinseltown. All I am asking is what is the standard of proof required? Certain accusations carry a lot of weight, and the proof requisite should also be similarly significant.

Or can one simply come and say 'so and so' molested me, do a writeup of how that abuse occured, and file a suit asking for monetary damages?

My question is - before these accusations are made public, is their a standard of proof that is required that goes beyond simply writing a statement on what was done?

(Again: Just to re-emphasize, I am not defending this chap, and do not know him. I am asking what I believe is a logical question, and not just for this case. Does the legal system have filters in place to ensure an accusation is based on fact before they make something headline news? On the other thread some days back a FReeper gave an example he knew of where some average Joe got railroaded with a similar accusation, which turned out false. Unfortunately, even false accusations can break up families and such).

My question is - before these accusations are made public, is their a standard of proof that is required that goes beyond simply writing a statement on what was done?

Nope, no standard of proof is required to file a civil suit such as this. Of course, if it's unfounded the plaintiff is subject to a hell of defamation claim. The plaintiff's lawyer also places himself/herself at risk by preparing and filing frivolous claims. Incidentally, the standard for winning a civil suit is preponderance of the evidence. Basically, if a judge or jury finds it's more likely than not that it happened the plaintiff prevails.

I fully understand Spetznaz' questions. I, too, am troubled by the situation, although, I have no vested interest in the case other than in an intellectually-interesting legal (and conservative) point of view.

Remember, the Left's main battlecry in attacks on its enemies is "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seiousness of the charge that matters".

Rush has been railing about this exact thing for years and years. "You need to make a hard, totally unfounded charge and that's reason enough to investigate."

Irresponsible public charges have been one of liberalism's guiding tenets for time immemorial.....and is also a core Alinsky tactic as outlined in his book, "Rules for Radicals".

Leni

the lawyer involved is not a lightweight. His practice is directed at these types of suits.

While it is innocent until proven guilty. (low standard in the civil arena). Between the deviant orgy pictures, and multiple confirmations of the type of parties happening at the time, it is little wonder the studio has made him disappear.

It is really simple, homosexuals go back to being box office toxins.

“Or can one simply come and say ‘so and so’ molested me, do a writeup of how that abuse occured, and file a suit asking for monetary damages?”

Yes, you can file a lawsuit for just about anything. You may not win, and the judge might throw it out before you see a courtroom, but as long as you fill out the paperwork correctly and pay any necessary fees, you can file it.

“My question is - before these accusations are made public, is their a standard of proof that is required that goes beyond simply writing a statement on what was done?”

No, unless there is some kind of gag order by the court, the standard 1st Amendment freedoms apply. You can go accuse anybody of anything publicly, but if you do it maliciously, you open yourself up to be sued by them.

That remedy doesn’t help much for celebrities, because they are held to a different standard in a libel or defamation suit. They are expected to endure a certain amount of negative speech about them simply because they are a public figure. So, for example, I can say “Obama is a two bit street hustling conman”, and have little fear that he would be able to win a libel suit against me for that. If I said it about my neighbor, he could probably get a payday.

Also, celebrities generally have plenty of money, while those accusing them may not, so suing false accusers for libel, even if they win, is more of a symbolic victory.