Michael Shermer accused of raping woman at conference

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have never spent a moment on either of their works or opinions so as far as I am concerned, Frank Farmer from fucksville said Tim Trapper from smucksville did..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You're missing out, then.  Shermer has several books which address the nature of both skepticism and gullibility, and is both thought-provoking and entertaining:  


//http://www.michaelshermer.com/books/

[Seabear]

The main problem is that in our society there are ways to handle things like this, and this isn't it.

It happened years ago, it's hearsay, there is no proof, an anonymous accuser, etc. Scenarios like this can be used to level false accusations as easily as true ones. Which is why this is not the way such business is conducted.

PZM better have his legal house in order on this one. I fully anticipate a libel suit. You can't just throw shit like this out in a public forum and walk away.

[LikelyToBreak]

hillbillyatheist, what I was ashamed of, were people assuming PZ Meyers guilty of libel, when he might not be.  If he is then as Seabear suggests, Shermer ought to sue the crap out of Meyers.  If you are assuming innocence on one, you are assuming guilt on the other.  Because if Shermer isn't innocent, then Meyers isn't guilty of libel.  Poor judgement, it would seem, but not legally guilty of libel.  

I don't like it when people come forward years after the fact to accuse someone of something, but sometimes it is for the good.  Consider the kids who grew into adults before they ratted on their priests.  If a few hadn't stepped forward and inspired more to do the same, we would have even more raping priests out there today then there already are.  And parents would still be trusting their kids with these people.

So, I say we shouldn't jump to conclusions until we have more information.  No matter how tempting it is.

[hillbillyatheist]

even with the kid and priests, if you can't prove the accusation then it shouldn't be seen as valid, unless you bring proof.

Otherwise what's to stop malicious people from just pulling accusations out their ass and ruining people's lives?

yes the burden of proof is on the claimant. thats how it works.

PZ claims Shermer is a rapist. fine balls in his court to prove it.

[Poison Tree]

I don't see how Shermer could prove an act of malice on PZ's part, which would be necessary for a libel case--at least if Shermer is a public figure, which I'm guessing he'd qualify as.

[LikelyToBreak]

Poison Tree wrote:

I don't see how Shermer could prove an act of malice on PZ's part, which would be necessary for a libel case--at least if Shermer is a public figure, which I'm guessing he'd qualify as.

That is an excellent point!  During the 60's, the Supreme Court decided that malice has to be shown in order for it to be libel.  So, PZ Meyers can make these allegations, sighting an "anonymous informer" or anything else he may want, and Shermer may have no realistic legal response to the charges.  

For those desk jockey lawyers out there, here is a link about the case which started the proof of malice crap.  //http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&invol=254    

I call it crap, because I have always felt myself, that as long as you could prove the charges false, you should win in court.  But, the Supreme Court decided it was better to protect their friends in the press, rather than to require them to print the truth as best they could.

Maybe Shermer, ought to say it was PZ Meyers who is the rapist, not him.  Meyers is just accusing him to draw attention away from his own misdeeds.  After all, how could Meyers prove malice if Shermer went about doing it the right way?   Shermer could just say he wants Meyers to get some help for his problems.  

Well done Poison Tree!  =D>

Having said that, I still don't think we should come to conclusions until we learn more.

[the_antithesis]

Having said that, I still don't think we should come to conclusions until we learn more.

I don't want to learn more about this. It belongs on TMZ.

[danwad14]

I think you may be confusing Malice with Actual Malice the legal term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice Shermer would have a strong case against Myers if he is innocent.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This would certainly appear to satisfy the "reckless disregard" standard.

[Poison Tree]

I think you may be confusing Malice with Actual Malice the legal term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice Shermer would have a strong case against Myers if he is innocent.

Ah, thank you. I previously read "actual malice" as "true/real malice" instead of recognizing it as a legal term  #-o

The existence of actual malice may be shown in many ways. As a general rule, any competent evidence, either direct or circumstantial, can be resorted to, and all the relevant circumstances surrounding the transaction may be shown, provided they are not too remote, including threats, prior or subsequent defamations, subsequent statements of the defendant, circumstances indicating the existence of rivalry, ill will, or hostility between the parties, facts tending to show a reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights..."

I think some of these may apply, but I don't think either party (Shermer or Myers) would actually want to drag this through the courts, unless there is some type of escalation or serious result such as Shermer loosing speaking gigs and, therefore, money. I think a lawsuit (especially one he failed to win) would create more negative publicity for Shermer by spreading the accusations wider than Myers can.

Off topic, but I've seen a couple of posts by users with 0 posts; sign god is trolling us? Or just normal forum delay?

[danwad14]

This would certainly appear to satisfy the "reckless disregard" standard.

Yes I think Paul Myers only hope is for Shermer to be guilty or not sue.

[Nonsensei]

Well his other hope is that Shermer ignores him for the windbag he is, which is a very real possibility.

[Atheon]

As far as I'm concerned, PZ Myers' credibility plummeted when he started acting like a pissy child taking his ball home, by censoring and boycotting anyone who disagrees with or criticizes him or his acolytes. So I want to see some facts, rather than summarily believe the accusations of someone I have little respect for that are leveled at someone I hold in very high esteem.

[charvakan]

I haven't seen anything from Shermer yet, so he's either lying low or his lawyer told him to keep his yap shut while a libel lawsuit is prepared.  Myers must be awfully sure of himself, and may even have assured himself that the accuser(s) would testify at a trial.  With the Radford accusations, this makes us straight aging male atheists look like real jerks.  I hope it gets resolved, one way or the other.

[Kevin Solway]

charvakan wrote:

"Myers must be awfully sure of himself"

Myers believes that he can make any kind of accusations of sexual wrongdoing that he wants, because people won't want to have their private sexual lives examined by a court.

So he believes they are defenseless.

He gave that reason as to why he thinks Laurence Krauss won't sue for libel against Jen McCreight, and I believe that he has become emboldened by that belief.