One of the strongest principles of justice is the right to face one's accusers.

[MineralMan]

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2019, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

In public. Openly. Anonymous accusations should always be held as suspect, unless the accuser comes forward and can be challenged by the accused.

Many people can remember some rumor about themselves that was started by someone who is never named. When it happens to us, as individuals, we understand why anonymity is unacceptable when accusations of wrongdoing are made.

That is why I will not listen to accusations from unnamed individuals against anyone. I'm always happy to hear from real people about wrongs against them, but only if they come forward publicly. That is especially true in politics.

We need to start insisting that accusers be identified, so that the accused has an opportunity to face them and defend themselves.

Anything less is reprehensible, and we should not accept the statements of anonymous accusers as truth.

It's the oldest strategy there is, and it's always wrong.

[kennetha]

1. totally agree!

[shraby]

2. You're absolutely right.

[dalton99a]

3. Kick

[Baltimike]

4. This. nt

[MineralMan]

5. Here's a story related to this:

When I was in high school, back in the early 1960s, one of the school's teachers, the French teacher, was accused in an anonymous letter to the school board of being a Communist. That was during the time of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, so it was a serious matter. It even made the local newspaper, and that teacher was called before the school board.

I took classes from him. He was an excellent teacher and the students all liked him. He never once in the four years I took French from him mentioned politics at all. He taught French.

As a 16-year-old Junior, I attended that school board hearing, where that teacher had to stand up in public and listen to the school board read aloud the accusing letter. All he could do was say, "No, that is not true." A few of the adults in attendance stood up and said that he should be fired. Why, I don't know. There was time for public comment, and they commented, in their ignorance and hatred for Communists.

I stood up, too, a tall skinny teenaged boy, and read the riot act to the School Board and the audience. My point was that the letter was anonymous. Nobody knew who wrote it. That person wasn't there to speak, nor to be challenged by the accused teacher. I talked about the teacher and what a good job he did in teaching French to classrooms of teenagers. I explained that he had never mentioned anything political in any of his classes. I ended my time by saying, "Who is accusing this man? Where is the accuser? Why is the School Board even considering this as a serious accusation? There is no justice here."

Then I sat down. There was a little applause from those attending the meeting. The teacher kept his job. I don't know if what I said had anything to do with that, but I had to speak about the injustice of anonymous accusations being taken as truth.

[dalton99a]

24. +1

[MineralMan]

26. I was a smart-ass kid. No fear of speaking in public

at that time. That got me in trouble more than once, I can tell you...

[safeinOhio]

41. The problem for me in public education

was the principle of the thing.

[MineralMan]

58. The Red Scare days were pretty horrible.

Many innocent people got accused of being Communists by someone who had some other sort of grudge against them. I never found out who accused that teacher. It could have been a student or a parent of a student who failed a class. It could have been a neighbor who didn't like the man. Whoever it was never came forward in public. Just that anonymous letter.

A few days later, that teacher kept me after class and just shook my hand and said, "Thank you." That was it, and it was more than enough.

[hostalover]

45. Wow. Congrats to you and your 16-yr-old self! That took a lot of courage and

I'm glad the teacher kept his job!

[MineralMan]

57. So was I. He was a very good teacher.

As for my 16-year-old self, that guy was a smart-ass. Many people told him so. I mellowed over time, but never did get over standing up for people who had been wronged.

[drmeow]

6. And Christine Blasey Ford is getting death threats

It is not as black and white as you make it out to seem.

[MineralMan]

7. In the internet age, everyone gets death threats.

I've had them, myself. Anyone who speaks out gets death threads. That does not change people's right to face their accusers in public. Not in any way.

[drmeow]

40. To my knowledge,

I've never gotten a death threat.

There is a very wide area between anonymous and public.

[Demit]

8. Are you making an argument for anonymous accusations?

[oldsoftie]

11. No one should be PUNISHED for anonymous accusations, but requiring ID of sex victims is tough.

Unless the charge is inna court.

[Demit]

17. That gives too much power to anonymous accusers. The point of an accusation IS to punish the accused

—how could it not be?—and avoid responsibility for the damage. That strikes me as wrong.

[safeinOhio]

42. Freedom of the press

protects a reporters sources. It works both ways. That is not always good, or bad. it's up to use to select trusted News. Being a public figure limits your rights.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Wrong. Anonymous accusers can injure & kill. They MUST be punished when they do

Anonymous accusers have goaded people into suicide and other harmful actions.

Anonymous accusations can have damaging psychological effects. Indeed, anonymous accusers often intend such effects.

[oldsoftie]

27. I agree; my post was poorly written

[dalton99a]

35. +1. Innocent people have been killed by SWAT teams who were sent by anonymous 911 callers

[Igel]

22. No one should be punished because of anonymous accusations.

They should be looked at for what they are. If in doubt, sniff at them. And then scoop them up, put them in little bags, dump them in the trash, and wash your hands.

Any accusation that doesn't satisfy the basic human rights of the accused isn't an accusation. It's slander or libel.

Too much "justice" is meted out in unjust ways.

[oldsoftie]

25. That was my point; my post was poorly worded. And false accusations should be HARSHLY punished.

[MineralMan]

18. Sure sounds like it.

[drmeow]

38. I'm saying that there needs to be something

between public and anonymous

[Demit]

44. There is. Going to the police.

[PatrickforO]

46. I'm going to have to agree with Mineral here.

I'm sorry Blasey Ford has gotten death threats, and it probably won't be the last time that happens. But that does not negate the right of someone, anyone who is accused to face their accuser.

Due process is the cornerstone of our system of justice - innocent until proven guilty with the onus of proof on the accuser. That makes it rough, I know, to accuse someone of something like this, but the alternative is to punish someone who may well be innocent. Speaking for myself, I would hate to be a person punished without due process.

[oldsoftie]

9. Its hard enough for rape victims to come forward without their names being splashed across headlines

now in a court of law, sure.

[Empowerer]

12. Dr. Tyson came forward on her own volition and made an allegations

very publicly.

She could have remained private, but she chose not to. I commend her for her courage.

Now, if she has the courage to come forward to accuse Fairfax of a crime, she should now take the step of officially charging him with the crime she says he committed. Doing so won't expose her any further or "splash her name across headlines" any more than has already occurred by her own actions.

[oldsoftie]

15. But do "statute of limitations" apply here? It WAS several years ago.

I know they dont apply in a murder case, but sexual assault?

[MineralMan]

16. I don't know.

[Demit]

20. The Massachusetts statute of limitations for sexual assault is 15 years. It hasn't yet run out.

[Igel]

30. And yet that's not the most important point.

She can file, but what evidence is there that would tell the police it's worth investigating?

What evidence would a prosecutor see to help decide whether or not to prosecute?

Many take lack of current evidence to mean lack of a crime. If you can't prove that something happened, it must not have happened. That's not valid reasoning. We declare the person innocent.

It's why the courts don't declare people innocent. Just "not guilty"--and that's the verdict, not a declaration of fact as to what actually happened. The person is presumed innocent.

When somebody's accused and there's insufficient evidence to convict, then the immediate response is to say that the accused was vindicated, shown to be innocent. In fact, all that happened is that the presumption wasn't overturned.

[Demit]

31. I was answering the poster's question with a fact. The point is moot anyway.

She's not going to press charges. She said in her statement she just wanted to go back to her life. In her mind, her job was done.

[treestar]

51. But then we don't have to believe her as she is the accuser

He is presumed not guilty as long as she doesn't get a prosecutor to take the case and he is found guilty.

[oldsoftie]

56. Oh wow, I'm surprised its that long. Thank you.

[Empowerer]

55. Massachusetts has a 15 year statute of limitations, so it's still running

[EffieBlack]

60. Massachusetts has a 15-year statute of limitations, so she's still within the time

North Carolina doesn't have one.

[MineralMan]

14. Fairfax's accusers have come forward. We're listening to them.

So, apparently, people can and do come forward.

Klobuchar's accusers remain anonymous, assuming they even exist as real people.

[oldsoftie]

19. True. I didnt realize your post was specific to the Fairfax case

I thought you were making a general statement about cases like this.
I do NOT think someones life or career should be ruined over anonymous accusations.

[MineralMan]

23. It IS a general statement.

It's not specific to any case. However, it was inspired by the anonymous accusations against Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is one of my senators. Someone else brought up Fairfax.

[oldsoftie]

28. well hell, I haven't even HEARD of that! I guess I need to do some reading.

This shit is only going to get worse as the years go by and social media gets even bigger

[MineralMan]

29. Yes, it is. Accusations against public figures happen all the time, anonymously.

In today's social media environment, such accusations get spread like wildfire. It's not a good thing.

[Demit]

34. It's not just social media. It's the mainstream press, when they pick up stories & amplify them.

When they grant anonymity to sources just to get the gossip and rumor and innuendo into print. It's a terrible trend in journalism.

[ewagner]

10. Agree...taking it back to basics.

We seem to forget that basic principle...

This is being fought politically and by-passing the JUSTICE SYSTEM..

I think we need to get it back into the forum in which justice is determined!

[Polly Hennessey]

13. Yet, you cannot anonymously

accuse someone. The consequences are too serious for the accused. We all have the right to face and question our accusers. If not, then we are all guilty of whatever accusations are made against us. Shine light on the accusers as well as the accused.

[Midwestern Democrat]

32. IMO, investigative journalism would be dead and buried without the use of anonymous sources.

"Deep Throat" was an anonymous source. The latest Bob Woodward book about the Trump administration is full of anonymous quotes. You ban anonymous sources and you're mostly going to get quotes that are basically nothing more than pure spin/official press releases - we might as well rely solely on Sarah Sanders to give us an accurate picture of the Trump administration.

[MineralMan]

33. I see. So anonymous accusations of individuals should be accepted

at face value? Really? I think not.

[Midwestern Democrat]

37. No - but I will push back on the idea that journalists are ethically wrong to use anonymous sources

in their reporting.

[Demit]

36. Newspapers used to have standards for when to grant anonymity. Now they hand it out like candy.

[safeinOhio]

43. For the most part, the news source that reports

most of these are not the best. Now we have other news reporting on the stories. Check the source.

[Demit]

47. Both the NYT and WaPo routinely grant anonymity simply b/c the source "isn't authorized to speak"

That's a very flimsy reason. Newspapers have lowered their standards probably because of shrinking readership; they need the eyeballs and the clicks, in addition to having the increased competition for their beloved "scoops." It's more important for them to retain access to the powerful than to insist on attribution for establishing credibility. I can't believe how quickly it has happened that people are not only accepting anonymous sources in journalism but now are defending them! Don't they see how easily the practice can lead to cries of "fake news"—or even to fake news itself?

[exboyfil]

48. Didn't Woodward and Bernstein use

Deep Throat's information as a starting point to find confirming information. I may be wrong, but has the standard shifted?

[tblue37]

50. Yes, Bradley insisted that they have two sources to confirm each claim. nt

[Demit]

54. Exactly! He pointed them in the right direction then they did the legwork.

"Follow the money," he said, and their solid reporting uncovered the rest.

[EffieBlack]

61. And then law enforcement also investigated.

[Midwestern Democrat]

62. The best political book I have ever read - David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest" - was

full of anonymous sources - and that was written all the way back in 1972. Let's not pretend that using anonymous sources is some new thing.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

39. KR NT

[jalan48]

49. I agree with your premise but that would mean applying it to both sides. Are we ready to do that?

[Hekate]

52. KnR

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Justin Fairfax's Accusers Ready To Testify At Potential Impeachment Hearing

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justin-fairfax-impeachment-hearing_us_5c5ffd28e4b0f9e1b17e10f5

"More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones."

[Demit]

59. Does your quote mean you think people are sad that they're going to testify?

[garybeck]

64. There is a difference between

Facing your accuser in court and having the public know the identity of the accuser.

The first one is important

The second one in not so sure

If you are talking about our right, as the public, to know all the details of an accusation along with the identity of the accuser in not sure that should always be a requirement for justice

[MineralMan]

65. Here's an experiment for you to try:

Go down to your county courthouse and go in and watch a trial that is going on. In the United States, trials are public. You can go and watch them, if you choose. Everyone charged with a serious crime has the right to a PUBLIC trial. Our courtrooms, with almost no exceptions, are open to public scrutiny. If a victim or witness testifies, you will know who that person is.

Public court proceedings are a crucial part of our system of justice.