Petition to boycott Sony reaches over 200,000 signatures

[binary solo]

spemanig said:

mornelithe said:

True, however, the courts must award great deference to under oath testimony.  It wasn't just that she said it, it was that she swore under oath during a secret deposition.  This is literally the only proof that exists in the matter, and she expected the allegation to be enough for an injuction in court.  Not sure what her lawyers were thinking, frankly.  Oh wait, I know, they like money.

I'm not saying that the judge was wrong in his decision given the unsturdy information provided. I'm just saying that it's ignorant for the internet to immediately assume that she's lying based on that. Rape is some of the most fucked up psychological trauma a person can go through. If she did get sexually assaulted, her decision-making isn't going to always be rational.

And frankly, I think it takes an eyerollingly suspicious cynic to immediately assume that the world is so fucked up a place, filled with such an overbearing quantity of horribly detestable scums, that it's more likely that a woman would attempt to publicly ruin someone's entire life by falsely accusing their boss of a crime as heinous as rape merely as a quick way to get out of a petty contract, one of which there is currently no alterior motivation as to why she'd want to get out of it in the first place, than to actually entertain the idea that she may actually be a traumatized victum shakily telling the truth.

I'm generally inclined to think she's telling the truth, but lacking sufficient corroborating evidence I think the court made the only decision it could under the law. It sucks for her, but if you want to live under the rule of law rather than the law of the jungle then you have to accept that sometimes the law isn't going to work for you even if you're right.