The entire article just seems to be upset that defamation laws are being used exactly as intended.
If you want to argue that defamation laws are bad, that’s fine.
If you want to argue that the standard of proof, or the elements that need to be proven should change, that’s fine.
But to argue that in the specific case of sexual assault allegations, defamation laws are being weaponised seems completely inconsistent.
Either you accept defamation laws and accept that with that comes the risk that a party can apply those laws even when you don’t like it, or argue the principle of the laws themselves.
1 Comment
The entire article just seems to be upset that defamation laws are being used exactly as intended.
If you want to argue that defamation laws are bad, that’s fine.
If you want to argue that the standard of proof, or the elements that need to be proven should change, that’s fine.
But to argue that in the specific case of sexual assault allegations, defamation laws are being weaponised seems completely inconsistent.
Either you accept defamation laws and accept that with that comes the risk that a party can apply those laws even when you don’t like it, or argue the principle of the laws themselves.