Eh, I'm overly sensitive to such around here, perhaps.

Prepare to be called our on perceived slights in grammar or logic and then summarily dismissed. It's sort of what the poster does when inanities are highlighted.

It must be so awesome to constantly think you're the smartest person in the room and dismiss everyone before engaging in actual conversation.

I think that overstates the case of what effect one lawsuit would have.

It's not articles. For a case to be tried, a case must exist. No case exists. By saying it is not yet tried, you are saying it exists.

As a lawyer, I'm required to begin all posts with those three words.

I have cousins who had terrible teeth as kids because they had pacifiers until who knows when.

It seems like every story on academia these days is from this same discipline.

Poster clearly implied there was a criminal case, waiting to be tried, and then attacked you for questioning shoddy logic. Much the same as my previous interactions with this person.

You opened with "yet to be tried." Which implies there is an existing case out there that is winding its way through the courts. There, in fact, were no charges filed.

Federal court jurisdiction isn't the same as State court jurisdiction. NY may have been chosen because the alleged damages—loss of earnings— was based on decisions by NY companies and in a way, the tort "happened" in NY.

I'm sure he'll be fine, too, but his audience, moreso than the sports and entertainment names mentioned by someone else, are more also more likely to care about such things, to stereotype them as largely urban progressive sophisticates.

What is it with philosophy professors and inappropriate/criminal actions?

Correct. I don't believe there's any pending criminal case nor the hint of one. The above comment throws a lot of stuff at the wall without saying much.

I just went onto the federal court system looking for the suit, but the full text was not available to read. I had hoped it would be, so that I could see the language used about how the online comment led to defamation. It seems a fair number of people are taking from this piece that Oberst is suing because someone…

The comments were covered in the mainstream media. I'm not sure who picked up and promoted the story first, but it's not just a random internet comment like this one that fueled the story or the alleged defamation.

A random internet comment covered in the press.

Well, you run into two problems, in that so few cases are reported or followed up on that many civil claims could never proceed and that it's very unlikely a civil court judge, were there a criminal proceeding, would touch a case until the matter was resolved.

I'm only one guy, so I can only speak for me, but if I was falsely accused of rape, I'd be suing from here to Tacoma and back. I understand the big picture of not silencing victims of real assaults, but if it was my career and livelihood on the line I'd be salting the earth in my wake.

The claim, if I read ABC's article correctly, is that there was media attention based on three posts she made.