Posted on 06/25/2007 9:13:38 PM PDT by goldstategop
The rape of a name can be as vicious a crime and as destructive an act as the rape of a body. Sometimes the rape of a body is worse, sometimes the rape of a name is worse. But they are both rapes. And morally likening the two is in no way meant to lessen the horror of rape; it is meant only to heighten awareness of the horror of intentionally destroying the name of an innocent person.
These words are written in the aftermath of the destruction of three young men's names by a lying woman whose name is still hidden by The New York Times and other major newspapers whose commitment to truth is not as strong as their commitment to political correctness.
Upon first hearing a comparison of name-rape to body-rape, most people are likely to recoil. But upon reflection, it becomes clear that the two are morally comparable. In fact, I have had women listeners to my radio show call and e-mail me to say that they have been raped -- one woman had been gang raped -- and felt they were better able to go on with their lives than men they loved who had been falsely accused of rape or molestation.
If you are a woman and this seems far-fetched, imagine that a man you love -- such as your father, brother, husband or son -- were publicly accused of a rape he had not committed. Imagine the pain he and your family would endure. Why is that pain not comparable to the pain suffered by at least some women who are raped?
"Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?" That was the question the secretary of labor in the Reagan administration, Raymond Donovan, asked, after being acquitted of all charges for larceny and fraud.
Where, indeed, does one go after having one's reputation unjustly ruined?
A police officer recently acquitted of charges of molesting two boys told the press that he will never again be able to hug a child.
To this day, a decent human being named Clarence Thomas, who has become a major Supreme Court thinker, is identified by his political enemies with sexual harassment (of the most innocuous variety, even if true) and of having looked at pornography (along with the majority of other decent men in America), as if those charges define his life.
What do we have in life, after all, that is more valuable than our name and reputation? What do good people work hardest at maintaining, if not their good name?
The lying woman in the Duke lacrosse case, Crystal Mangum, raped three men. Generally speaking, it is meaningless to speak of women raping men's bodies; it is men who rape women's bodies. What women can rape is a man's name.
It is a symptom of the major sexism of our time -- against men (see Christine Hoff Sommers' "The War Against Boys" for a detailed discussion of this sexism) -- that not only is the rape of men's reputations not considered anywhere near as serious as the rape of a woman's body, but the women who perpetrate such destruction are protected by feminist, politically correct news media. That is why, to this day, The New York Times and most other liberal newspapers refuse to publish Crystal Mangum's name, let alone advocate that she be tried or punished for her cruelty.
The Talmud, the set of books of Jewish law and philosophy that rank in Judaism second in importance only to the Torah, says, "Whoever humiliates his friend in public is considered as if he has shed his blood." That is why some rabbis call undeserved public shaming "emotional murder."
That was written nearly 2,000 years ago. The lack of interest by elite America in even identifying, let alone punishing, a woman who "emotionally murdered" three young men proves that those who believe in the inevitability of moral progress frequently delude themselves.
We must take care not to harm someone's personal reputation. It is better to remain silent and to refrain from judging them until their guilt is certain. For destroying an innocent person's reputation is tantamount to raping them emotionally. We can destroy one world among billions with unwarranted suspicion. It is always best not to rush to judgment or think the worst of our fellow man until we do know they did wrong.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Making false accusations is criminal. Indeed, those who are falsely accused do suffer. Their reputations are ruined even when their names are cleared sometimes.
But it’s not the same as rape. Two different crimes.
Think of all the gossip and slander that happens every day, and people don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s sad, and all of us have been the victims and all of us have done it to others at various times.
False witness is a big time sin; in the top 10 as I recall.
I have to disagree.
Anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want to say, within reason.
Don’t get me wrong: nobody should yell ‘FIRE’, etc. unless there really is one. And no one should maliciously and falsely accuse, so as to use the police and courts to harrass or menace an innocent party. That strumpet did that, tied up the courts, created near riot, and threatened to destroy the lives of those families. There’s plenty extant law to put her (it?) away.
But how do you acertain when somebodies been “emotionally raped?” Is it feelings?
Saying: “Your mother wears army boots.” to another is not rape. But call for a law like this and your liable to have the equivalent.
Consider who’s in congress.
ah you must be in your 20’s. If not you have no idea what you are talking about. I would say “in all due respect” but it apparently doesnt matter to you.
Nifong lynched these students in a trial by media as a successful re-election campaign strategy.
The prosecuter was GUILTY of abuses too. Don’t pin all the blame on the woman who is STILL not being prosecuted.
Frist was tried by media (and after he was hounded out of office the charges were dropped). Tom DeLay was tried by the media and the prosecutor is STILL holding off on the trial years later.
Our legal system is corrupt.
Words mean things.
Let’s let rape mean rape.
Libel, slander, false witness or anything else can then be properly applied.
Dr. Laura has a wonderful analogy to rumor-mongering, and the permanence of spreading gossip:
Take a feather pillow, slit it open, and let all the feathers fly in the wind.
Now, go get all the feathers and put them back.
The Clinton machine made this type of personal destruction an art.....which has continued to this day.
Perhaps the answer is to let rape be rape, let libel and slander be libel and slander, but to RAISE the severity of those last two to more of what it should actually be. Gossip, slander, libel is a terrible sin. If it destroys people, unjustly, I think it should be punished accordingly.
I know here in the UK courts will routinely impose reporting restrictions on the media, forbidding them to give names or addresses of participants in criminal cases, which restrictions are only lifted upon determination of guilt. It seems such a simple way to me of ensuring the reputation of the innocent is not sullied. I know, it shouldn’t be neccesary - you are innocent until proven guilty and the public have a “right to know”. But unfortunately in the real world people think there is “no smoke without fire”.
That's true. I should have mentioned him.
But he's "in the system", and when that's over, he'll be garden fertilizer. He'll be recalled among one of a handful recent additions to the vocabulary: nifong: verb, meaning to maliciously prosecute innocent people for political and personal advantage, etc. We'll have this along with 'Lewinsky,'noun or verb, and 'bork,'a verb. 'Bork' should be 'kennedy.'
It is distressing that Crystal has avoided prosecution. I suspect that it's because she considered insignificant. This is also disturbing:it implies a stark social and economic class division. It implies that those on the lowest tier are held to lower standards; less accountable for their acts. This defines them as less than human. Once again good intentions have paved the road to hell.
The do-gooders who created this mess, slowly, incrementally, and again, with the best of intentions, were trying to fix what they perceived to be a problem.
Now somebody is saying there's another problem. Who do we think is going to fix that?
A different case from Clarence Thomas. There was no evidence in the Thomas case. The Duke boys got themselves in a position where the rape case could be credibly made. If you hire a prostitute, you shouldn't be shocked to find she has no morals. Luckily for the boys, Duke learned a harder lesson. If you stand in support of a prostitute, don't be surprised if she screws you for money
Well, no. But thanks. I feel pretty good and I'm getting back in shape. But again, thanks.
If not you have no idea what you are talking about.
Okay, I'll grant the possiblity. But it might be helpful to me if you could be a little more specific. If you say I don't comprehend my own brain, how can you expect me to know what's in yours?
I would say “in all due respect” but it apparently doesnt matter to you.
Oh. Did somebody called you a bad name? Help me to help you.
In all due respect.
My point is that as one gets older one understand that one of the few things that one has and cherishes is their personal reputation. If you have never had someone intentionally try to defame or slander you, you do not have any idea what that could cost you. Further if you ever had someone do that, I would seriously doubt you would take it lightly.
I believe Prager whom I hold in high regard, is elevating a value our society has significantly diminished over the last 25 years.
People are far more likely to believe a heinous lie than they are to investigate it for truthfulness. Once it is proved a lie, you can never fully recover who heard what about you and until the false knots connected to it.
Prager was making the point that this society does not think much of their own reputations ( look at what is posted on youtube) and if they disregard their own, they certainly will disregard others.
My point was that you is that you seem to diminish what it is like to have your reputation “raped”. Er go I thought you to be too young to have ever happened to you.
Is that enough detail?
I agree, up to a point. But people who call for any changes in the law should think hard about it. There is the law of unintended consequences. These matters involve freedom of speech, and I would support no law that might even remotely alter or restrict this cornerstone of liberty.
Presently we are facing a very real threat to this liberty. Last week were reports of Hillary and Nancy and their ilk discussing 'talk radio,' a category of the media that for some reason excludes the liberal Juggernaut NPR
(that's 'National Public Radio', or as I prefer it: 'Nattering Public Radio. This entity was established some years ago as an Education&Edification Effort. It's neither. I've tried to get my wife to turn them off, and that's why the radio is always on that station. "It quiets and soothes the dog" she tells me. True there is something about the adnoidal drone, in it's cadence, that lulls the beast to sleep--she's a border collie and her reaction is proof of her intelligence- the dog, I mean. Saturday the thing was on, though the dog was outside barking and I was drawn in. At that moment, listening as a continuous stream of nonsense dribbled like water from a neglected faucet into the room, I had an epiphany. I declared: "Now. Now I understand!Now I know what this is about! This isn't news, or discussion. All of these words, this packages of masticated nonsense--they're ciphers! This broadcast is a conduit of coded directions to deep cover KGB operatives! The wife rolled her eyes; she's also intelligent, though I'll never understand that NPR thing.)
In any case, the liberals want to shut down independent media. Hillary, I suspect, has designs to nationalize media, to do to the press what she attempted to do with health care. Mind, she doesn't have to succeed at this to get the compliance she wants. She's shrewd and learned a thing or two since Hillary-care.
I say that it will be impossible to write any law concerning any aspect within the realm of free speech rights that will be immune from their (Hillary and her ilk) distorting, subverting and transforming into a weapon to use against us. And they will use it.
Democrats will use any and all legal means, irrespective of spirit, original intent or morality, to get their way. Conservatives tend to be too either too busy or too principled to engage in dirty, legalistic and partisan cat-fighting. This is why we're always vulnerable.
Here's a hard question that ought to be honestly and thoroughly addressed before even thinking of proposing remedial legislation: Have we 'slept on our rights?'
You’re right. Unless we change the meaning of words.
Thank you Walkingfeather.
I see that you have been injured in this way.
And it is outrageous.
I’m not saying we musn’t join the battle. I’m suggesting that we need to be careful how we wage the battle.
I’m saying that another law will be another weapon in their hands.
True, and may you never experience it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.