If you want to stop this kind of thing from happening, it means speaking up when folks around you express hate for other subgroups, whether that is sexual, racial, or religious.
If you want to stop this kind of thing from happening, it means speaking up when folks around you express hate for other subgroups, whether that is sexual, racial, or religious.
Why the fuck does this say “for having sex with” and not “raped”? Who the fuck wrote that? What the fuck?
It’s since been updated, although I’m not sure the changes are any better. More clinical, I guess.
In absolutely no way defending these peices of shit… But news agencies can’t just say “rapists” if they haven’t been charged/convicted without risk of getting sued.
It’s stupid, but it’s, usually just them protecting themselves from legal action.
Did you read the article or even the quote? The sentence where it says that begins by saying that’s the reason this fucking garbage went to prison.
It says he was convicted of sexual assault. Depending on the state’s laws, that could be different from rape. Even if we colloquially would call it rape, that may not be the legal definition. So any news reporters would potentially be opening themselves to libel lawsuits if they use the word “rape” instead of “sexual assault”. Because again, he wasn’t explicitly convicted of rape.
Hell, that’s what got Trump off of a rape charge, because the state he was sued in had a very narrow legal definition of the word “rape”. The definition required penis-in-vagina sex. He “only” (ugh) groped and fingered the victim, so the state’s narrow definition didn’t consider it to be rape. Even if we would colloquially call it rape, that’s not what the state’s legal system determined it to be.
In Trump’s case, the judge later had to clarify that using the word “rape” is socially acceptable for what he did, because it would be what most people would consider rape, even if it’s not what the state has on the books. But the judge only did that because Trump is a public figure who was threatening to sue any news orgs that called it rape. This random rapist wouldn’t get that same kind of clarification from a judge, because their story wouldn’t be likely to hit national news for weeks.
“He went to prison for sexually assaulting…”
It’s not hard.
I’d argue that the article went a step farther and listed the exact crimes he was found guilty of. Your version leaves some ambiguity in regards to the nature of the sexual assault, (first degree, second degree, aggravated or not, misdemeanor vs felony, etc) whereas “first degree sexual abuse” and “first degree criminal sexual act” are terms that anyone can google and find the legal definition for. The article was even more specific than your example, and yet you’re still complaining that they didn’t say he sexually assaulted someone?
I thought we were criticizing the first wording chosen by the journalist, not the corrected version.
Yes I did in fact, did you? Please explain where it says they were convicted of rape?
I’m not defending them. What they did was rape, but unless they’re convicted, specifically of rape, you won’t find articles saying that.
If someone… goes to prison for sex with someone underage… that is by definition… STATUTORY RAPE
I’m not defending them, but could you walk through your though process here?
Obviously /s … what are these questions
I see your point, not a big enough distinction for me but I know what you mean.
deleted by creator