> I’m not wild about the precedent that [suing for libel] sets for other women to come forward in cases of actual sexual assault.
Very, very, very few men have the wealth, fame, connections, and social media presence that Max has. He can defend his reputation; most men can't. He has to know this.
He is openly trying to set the precedent that suing over a very public false accusation is somehow anti-women. That's just gross.
The trade-off he has presented can be translated like so: "The overall problem of women not feeling able to come forward to report sexual assault is worse than the overall problem of false accusations by women of sexual assault"
I would agree with that statement, and do not consider it gross at all.
I was just about to write exactly this in reply to a comment above until I kept reading, saw this comment and saw you'd already expressed it succinctly.
Very, very, very few men have the wealth, fame, connections, and social media presence that Max has. He can defend his reputation; most men can't.
There's something about that statement that just feels so very... off to me. A rich man should fight on behalf of all poorer men against the all-conquering, all powerful woman? Because that's not in any way representative of the power women have in situations like this.
The balance of power in these cases seems to be very finicky. Sometimes the woman hasn't a chance of getting the man convicted; sometimes the man hasn't a chance of living a normal life ever again even if he is acquitted.
> I’m not wild about the precedent that [suing for libel] sets for other women to come forward in cases of actual sexual assault.
Very, very, very few men have the wealth, fame, connections, and social media presence that Max has. He can defend his reputation; most men can't. He has to know this.
He is openly trying to set the precedent that suing over a very public false accusation is somehow anti-women. That's just gross.