I'm unsure what your second sentence means and which commenter you're referring to. Is blayent a word I don't know or do you mean blatant?

Oh ok thanks. I wonder with some of these people whether they actually believe what they say; part of me thinks it’s vital to reach people who say things like that because they may be perpetrators or heading in that direction, and they need to be engaged to be kept within the fold and possibly shown the light instead…

Your comment bears little responsiveness to mine. I never said or implied that women always tell the truth - I didn't even use gendered language when talking about sexual assault survivors.

It is literally impossible for you or I or anyone else to know for certain what happened. I believe Stoya because the overwhelming majority of people who say they were raped are telling the truth, and the other available information suggests the same conclusion to me.

Welp, that’s a stupid generalization.

You have zero evidence for the claim that a porn star is more likely to falsely claim rape than a non-porn star. Rationally, a porn star is less likely to make a false allegation because they are less likely to be believed about any rape allegation, true or not, by misguided people like you.

You either don’t get it. If a person says they were raped, odds are they are telling the truth, because the studies on false accusations indicate a 2-10% rate. e.g. http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/86874…

Because the vast majority of people who say they were raped are telling the truth. She has a lot more to lose than to gain by saying what she said. The thoughts of others in the industry and his behavior also corroborate her claims.

Uhh... knowing the difference doesn’t appear to be the issue.

Team Stoya. Odds are strongly in favor of her telling the truth.

The opportunity? Definitely. The inclination? No.

eh, people tend to think more people agree with them than really do

Team Stoya.

Exceedingly dumb false equivalence

Because the City had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the video was exempt from disclosure under FOIA and failed to sustain its burden. The family's wishes matter, but they do not override the overwhelming degree of public interest in disclosing it.

Your loss.

Like these swastikas are more likely due to mental illness or wanting attention than serious intimidation. Weird how it takes symbols to get people riled up - the official policies have been there and have a far more concrete impact.

Reaching a civil settlement with a victim is not viewed by courts as witness tampering. See, e.g., http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/… http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewconten… The terms of civil settlements are often kept completely confidential.

You’re clearly not a lawyer. I am. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. You don’t need a criminal conviction to get a civil judgment. They also have different burdens of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal, preponderance of the evidence in civil. It’s not witness tampering to reach a settlement…

Thankfully your consolation is not worth having. Civil litigation is directly involved in this because that’s how the fuck she got paid! Some survivors don’t go the criminal or civil route, some go both, and some go one or the other. Here, she participated in the prosecution that convicted him, and also got a…