brittany higgins (2 Viewers)

[SylviaB]

Agreeing with someone generalising rape to leave “no sign no damage” is harmful imo. Punishing rape less harshly isn’t gonna deincentivise it at all, it’s gonna make things worse

Fair enough, so feminism is wrong

 

[nsw..wollongong]

Fair enough, so feminism is wrong

What does rape have anything to do with feminism

 

[cosmo 2]

Agreeing with someone generalising rape to leave “no sign no damage” is harmful imo. Punishing rape less harshly isn’t gonna deincentivise it at all, it’s gonna make things worse

u didnt understand the point did u

 

[SylviaB]

What does rape have anything to do with feminism

????

 

[brent012]

Im really convinced of this now, but I worry that lehrmann lying about not having sex at all will jeopardize the case

It's not even a criminal case though?

IMO it's kind of ridiculous that he started a defamation trial under these circumstances.

 

[SylviaB]

It's not even a criminal case though?

IMO it's kind of ridiculous that he started a defamation trial under these circumstances.

I mean in the sense that it seems like an obvious lie and it makes it seem like he's hiding something, which lends credence to it being reasonable that ten did what they did

 

[carrotsss]

Fair enough, so feminism is wrong

disagreeing with one niche weird feminist’s view on rape = feminism is wrong?

even you’re better than this sylvia what

 

[SylviaB]

disagreeing with one niche weird feminist’s view on rape = feminism is wrong?

even you’re better than this sylvia what

just joshin ya m8

 

[carrotsss]

just joshin ya m8

I was about to say lmao what, it’s hard to tell with u sometimes

 

[cosmo 2]

germaine greer isnt very niche

 

[nsw..wollongong]

germaine greer isnt very niche

didn't she preach the fact that women fantasise abt being raped... after she got raped herself.

 

[cosmo 2]

didn't she preach the fact that women fantasise abt being raped... after she got raped herself.

how would i know i dont religiously follow what she writes

 

[Luukas.2]

It's not even a criminal case though?

IMO it's kind of ridiculous that he started a defamation trial under these circumstances.

It sounds like a similar situation as Ben Roberts-Smith, claiming defamation when you know there is at least significant truth in what was said and yet claiming it is all false. It's a legal strategy that is very high risk, especially as the standard of proof in a civil trial is "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". Still, we are all hearing media reporting and not all of the evidence like those present in the courtroom, and so can form views that are inaccurate.

 

[SylviaB]

It sounds like a similar situation as Ben Roberts-Smith, claiming defamation when you know there is at least significant truth in what was said and yet claiming it is all false. It's a legal strategy that is very high risk, especially as the standard of proof in a civil trial is "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". Still, we are all hearing media reporting and not all of the evidence like those present in the courtroom, and so can form views that are inaccurate.

Yeah exactly

 

[SylviaB]

tbh though i don't understand defamation law very well. why do they have to demonstrate the rape likely occurred rather than that what they said was likely true to the best of their knowledge at the time

like if this case has resulted in new evidence being subpoenaed that supports Higgin's claims, why should this be relevant to whether or not ten were wrong to air what they did. Hypothetically, if they had explicitly said that Lehrmann was guilty of rape and presented no evidence to support this, then a year later some heretofore unseen CCTV footage is discovered that unambiguously proves Lehrmann is guilty, it doesn't mean they were right to make the claims they originally did. Or the reverse situation where they made very modest claims about Lehrmann's guilty based only on the publicly available evidence and then new evidence appears that completely exonerates lehrmann, that means they were wrong to make their original claims?

 

[brent012]

tbh though i don't understand defamation law very well. why do they have to demonstrate the rape likely occurred rather than that what they said was likely true to the best of their knowledge at the time

This is what has confused me a lot ever since the BRS defamation trial, it felt like a criminal case. That's why I commented earlier, I genuinely think a lot of the general public might not realise that in this case Brittany Higgins is just a witness in a defamation trial between Lehrmann and Lisa Wilkinson/Ten.

I believe that in both this trial and the BRS one, the truth defense was used which is probably why they ended up this way. I understand they need to make a good case for the truth defense, as it requires proof that's admissible in court.

But, without being a lawyer or understanding the other defenses, it seems a bit broken if that defense is the best to use for journalists. Surely it's a huge barrier to independent journalism?

 

[Luukas.2]

This is what has confused me a lot ever since the BRS defamation trial, it felt like a criminal case. That's why I commented earlier, I genuinely think a lot of the general public might not realise that in this case Brittany Higgins is just a witness in a defamation trial between Lehrmann and Lisa Wilkinson/Ten.

I believe that in both this trial and the BRS one, the truth defense was used which is probably why they ended up this way. I understand they need to make a good case for the truth defense, as it requires proof that's admissible in court.

But, without being a lawyer or understanding the other defenses, it seems a bit broken if that defense is the best to use for journalists. Surely it's a huge barrier to independent journalism?

If the claims made in the report about Lehrmann or about BRS are true, then making those claims and any damage to their reputation is caused by their own actions and not the statements, and thus is not defamation.

Further, if Lehrmann or BRS launched defamation action on the basis that the claims are false and defamatory and those claims are actually substantively true then they have made false claims / declarations to the court under oath and come to the case lacking clean hands.

Truth is an absolute defence to defamation - one of multiple defences that can be raised - and establishing that what was said is true ends the matter, whether or not the evidence of the truth was available or known at the time that the broadcast / publication occurred.

 

[cosmo 2]

i think brucey is just a dumb guy. he should have walked after the criminal proceedings ended, i dont know why he tried to take this to civil court where there's a way more likely chance of a bad outcome against him than in criminal

 

[SylviaB]

i think brucey is just a dumb guy. he should have walked after the criminal proceedings ended, i dont know why he tried to take this to civil court where there's a way more likely chance of a bad outcome against him than in criminal

well I guess he figures he has no future even without a guilty conviction, while if he successfully sues it could leave him set for life (and possibly be a de facto exoneration)

 

[cosmo 2]

i dunno he could have become a manosphere grifter, or left the country. he probably would have been able to get a job (i think he already has anyway) just bc a lot of people sympathise with him