Why is an unproven assertion of sexual assault not defamation, but calling the woman who made it a “whack job” is? From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
Part of growing up is coming to terms with reality – contra what you believed it was when you were still a child. You realize your parents aren’t omniscient. You find out there’s no such thing as the Easter Bunny. And you discover that “the law” is not some mighty edifice of protection against the machinations of evildoers; it is just rules enforced by men who control the system that uses “the law” to keep you under their control.
The foundation of this control is your belief that “the law” is objective and impartial; that what matters in a courtroom is “the law” – and the facts – as opposed to the arbitrary whim of the judge.
And therein lies the rub.
“The law” – by itself – is just words written in books and those books are written and interpreted and applied by men, who are inherently partial and often arbitrary. All men have their own points-of-view. It is unavoidable. A good man will try not to let his opinion cloud his interpretation of the facts but it’s childish to believe his opinions do not color his interpretation of the facts. A bad man will not only allow his opinion to color his interpretation of the facts; he will deliberately twist (or ignore) the facts and use “the law” as a weapon against those he wants to punish, who have offended his opinions.
“I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein.
“[Americans] are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.” — Bertrand Russell