absolutely it is asshole behavior (and I see my typo past the editing point where “discussing” was supposed to be “disgusting”, sigh). But I think words need to have well understood meanings and when I think of “outing” I think of, for example, GOP congressman who were secretly gay while trying to pass discriminatory…

Quaaludes typically don’t make you pass out, they are more like MDMA causing a loss of inhibitions. They also weren’t rapidly soluble in water, so they aren’t as easy to mix in a drink. You took them with alcohol to get the highlighted loss of inhibitions, but you took the tablet separately.

Ratner is crass and discussing, but is what he said really “outing” her? Unless he had factual knowledge, how is he actually outing her?

how available were date rape drugs in 1981?

Yes, really, I think it is asking a lot for them to rewrite a chunk of their show 2-3 hours before curtain when they are probably scrambling to get everything in order. If you were complaining about the next day, fair game. Note, Jez’s own article “Rumors” came out after shows like Colbert would have already been…

I’m not sure why we should expect extensive late night coverage of an event that happened that day. Particularly since most of these shows are filming in the afternoon only a couple hours after the story broke.

I would agree with you, but that is not what the poster I was responding to said. He said “ If you can empathize with such a horrendous criminal freak, there’s something just as bad in your own closet.”
I was commenting on how absurd a generalized proclamation that was with a simple example of someone expressing…

But that is not what OP said. You can raise a strawman to say I’m wrong, but why not address what was actually said rather than what you want it to say?

what part of that is a false equivalency? The OP asserted that a person that empathizes with horrendous criminals must also have done something bad. It is actually a quite on point analogy.

glad that being gay continues to be equated to criminal activities

It would not surprise me at all that in a large group of men with a great deal of power a good number engaged in sexual harassment or worse during their careers.

I guess that means Truman Capote was as secret murder, huh?

even if the conviction was logged, if not done in a certain way it probably still wouldn’t have barred him. Not only that, but there are plenty of easy ways to get a gun without a background check.

to some extent I can understand them not reporting domestic violence convictions since there is no specific crime of domestic violence under the UCMJ.

this needs more stars.

see comments above, there is no way anyone would take a contingency case against a basically indigent defendant

as for point 2, I don’t follow.

Look, I generally agree with your comments in this thread, I just thing the prosecutor analogy is not really apt since they have a number of special protections and a very defined role.

because you are comparing a situation where potential liability exists for making an error of fact to a situation where such liability is practically precluded as a matter of law.

Meh, you are clearly trying to make a gotcha, but your case is weak. Nobody would assume by simply saying Rules of Evidence that they meant FRE specifically, particularly in the context. In fact your claim that it shorthand is weakened by including the real shorthand: FRE. Many states also call their evidence rules…

you are right that the use of “allegedly” is often meaningless as used by the press, though who can really fault them for following what is likely the advice of counsel?
That still makes your example of a prosecutor’s arguments silly.