This is what happens when a culture encourages people to use any opportunity to get ahead - and it's those with real claims that suffer from this crying wolf.
Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
11–20 of 359 posts
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#12What will happen to this Hill guy?
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#13Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#14Incidents like this and that Rolling Stone article do so much damage to real victims of sexual harassment/assault.
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#15What will happen to this Hill guy?
He'll end up paying millions of dollars in damages most likely not covered by insurance and might be subject to criminal charges if the State decides to prosecute
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#16Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#17Wow. Hill reportedly posted the false allegations on Hatena from his actual Comcast IP address. That was just so stupid. Not even using a bloody VPN service, let alone Tor.
Most likely he didn't expect a lawsuit, stupid nonetheless.
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#18Incidents like this and that Rolling Stone article do so much damage to real victims of sexual harassment/assault.
Edit: why is it all about "accusation is not the same as guilt" when a supposed anonymous woman accuses man A, but when man A accuses man B of staging the whole thing, HN believes it 100%? I apologize to fragile HN readers who see me saying we have courts to figure out these things, that HN is not a courtroom, and they get offended and downvote me.
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#19> Nevertheless, the threat of defamation suits can stifle women from coming forward, even if they have legitimate accusations of sexual harassment, she said. The accused must usually be given the benefit of doubt in cases of anonymous allegations without any corroborating evidence. But cases like these should not be used to cast doubt on the motive/credibility of women brave enough to risk their identity and careers…
> The accused must usually be given the benefit of doubt in cases of anonymous allegations without any corroborating evidence. The accused must always be given the benefit of the doubt in case of any allegations without corroborating evidence. This current trend of "anyone accused of sexual harassment is guilty unless proven innocent" is not justice.
The sheer number of people who react emotionally to allegations of sexual harassment is truly astounding. All rationality goes out the window with men throwing themselves over each other to proclaim "I BELIEVE YOU" instead of asking for the least bit of corroborating evidence.
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#20Incidents like this and that Rolling Stone article do so much damage to real victims of sexual harassment/assault.