Rape

Mattress Girl Defends Right to 'Artistic Expression' in Response to Lawsuit Over Rape Claims

Lawsuit targets Columbia U., not Emma Sulkowicz

|

Sulkowicz
TIME / Youtube

On Friday, Emma Sulkowicz addressed Paul Nungesser's lawsuit against Columbia University, which accuses the university administration of aiding her gender-based "harassment campaign" against him. Her response is telling. The Guardian reports:

"I think it's ridiculous that Paul would sue not only the school but one of my past professors for allowing me to make an art piece," Sulkowicz said in an email to the Guardian.

"It's ridiculous that he would read it as a 'bullying strategy', especially given his continued public attempts to smear my reputation, when really it's just an artistic expression of the personal trauma I've experienced at Columbia. If artists are not allowed to make art that reflect on our experiences, then how are we to heal?"

Keep in mind that Sulkowicz publicly accused Nungesser of choking and raping her. The university cleared him, and the police declined to file charges due to a lack of reasonable suspicion. Deprived of justice (in her view), Sulkowicz then received permission from a faculty adviser to conduct a performance art project—dubbed the "Mattress Project (Carry That Weight)"—which involved her carrying her mattress to class in protest of Nungesser's continued presence on campus. She denounced him by name, in violation of certain privacy policies. Nungesser's lawsuit blames the university for endorsing these efforts.

Whether or not the art project—and the university's sponsorship of it—is permissible under civil rights law is indeed the point of the lawsuit. But I can't understand why Sulkowicz would bother addressing this aspect of the dispute, when her position (at least previously) was that Nungesser brutally raped her. If that's true, it trumps any disagreement over artistic expression. If that's true, her actions were justified, regardless.

NEXT: Conservative Artist Sabo: "My focus was to be mean, nasty, and just as bad as Bill Maher"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What the fuck, who wiped all the comments?

    1. Huh? This article was published a few minutes ago. There weren’t any comments.

      Are you talking about this? https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..tress-girl

      1. It’s Saturday. Warrren has been hitting the jug wine again.

        1. On Monday, when the money’s all gone, he’ll be back to Listerine.

          1. I ain’t no Ho Bo.

            1. MD 2020 or Thunderbird?

              1. Four Loko and Goldschlager.

            2. Boone’s and a 40 of Colt 45?

          2. Tuesday’s, it’s Sterno.

  2. You wanna be an artist, honey? Make something other than ass of yourself.

    1. But all the famous recent artists – Mapplethorpe, Serrano, and that ilk – are famous mostly for making asses of themselves.

      1. Yeah, but they got photographic evidence of their ass play.

  3. So I can do whatever I want and call it art? I need to brainstorm with some beer for a while.

    1. Here ya go.

      *Tosses can at Playa*

      1. I’m way ahead of you. Stone Imperial 10.5 %

        1. I doubt that, Left Coaster.

        2. How is Stones Imperial?

          1. Good, but hard to find. It’s a limited 2015 release.

        3. I had a Strongbow earlier.

    2. Can I refuse to serve a wedding cake to gay people and then get legal immunity based on the claim that I was carrying out performance art? Can I wear a shirt declaring that “EMMA S. LIKES TO BROWN HER WURSTS”?

    3. Fumble with a can opener in front of an adoring group.

  4. Ah, “Art”. That is a legit point.

    As a side note, I would also like to invite everyone to my new photo exhibit, called = “Lying Bitches

    some critics have suggested that my work relies too much on a single subject, one known as “Emma”. I consider the subject to be more of an ‘every-woman’ really. A purplehaired asian jewish everywoman.

    1. ‘Lying bitches who like butt sex’.

      Mine is better art.

      1. Only if we can do a closeup of this chick in the collage. From my Alma Mater. That I won’t be fucking donating too.

        She lets four guys run a train on her. Decides it was rape when she’s deemed the campus slut a few months later. The county cops laugh her out of the room. Campus expels two of the men.

        Have no idea, but since race isn’t mentioned, the lads affected were almost certainly African-American.

        1. Yes, I SF’d the link.

          I’m drinking Costco Beer right now. It was $22 for a 48 pack. Had to try it.

        2. the woman told investigators she didn’t want the students she accused to get into trouble, and that her father had insisted she report the incident to police.

          In a statement released through Dunn, the woman’s father criticized the police for releasing information to the media about the case, and said the legal system doesn’t do its due diligence, discouraging victims from coming forward.

          Oh, daddy found out what his little girl got up to and he’s pissed.

          1. And to think, she and the accused were friends up ’til then.

            It’s so obviously bullshit, but there’s been so much other bullshit nobody noticed.

  5. “I can’t understand why Sulkowicz would bother addressing this aspect of the dispute, when her position (at least previously) was that Nungesser brutally raped her. If that’s true, it trumps any disagreement over artistic expression.”

    I guess we don’t really understand art.

    1. As long as somebody suffers, it’s art!

      1. “I suffered for my art, now it’s *your* turn!”

  6. “If artists are not allowed to make art that reflect on our experiences, then how are we to heal?”

    Oh, she’s an artist, all right. A *con* artist.

    1. That’s an insult to con artists. For a con artist to succeed he has to master human psychology, or at least the dynamics that matter. These twerps, not so much

      1. She sounds like a self-entitled retard. I doubt she could devise a plan to take a shit and wipe effectively, much less to con anyone.

        1. That will come as an unwelcome surprise to the next guy she invites over for buttfun.

          1. She extended that invitation in writing.

            1. In her own shit?

      2. believe it or not, this guy is one of the greatest con artists of all time….and I think is more reliable than this broad

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SSF9I9BQwI

        Then google him

  7. Ah, I thought he named himself after the former MLB player Chris Sabo.

  8. But I can’t understand why Sulkowicz would bother addressing this aspect of the dispute…

    She’s an attention whore?

    I like that he’s accusing gender bias in his lawsuit. Force the university to defend their double standards.

    1. I was gonna comment on that quote too, but I disagree with your conclusion. It not because shes an attention whore, shes just a liar. A spiteful psycho who couldn’t handle a breakup. The artistic expression argument is a deflection, an a pitiful one at that.

  9. Apart from photorealistic drawings, whose objective quality is determinable by how strictly they adhere to the appearance of objects in reality, art is subjective.

    Because art is subjective, I personally judge Emma Suckowicz’s antics and “work” to be utter bullshit, and propose that she’s a moral degenerate guilty of felonious harassment.

    1. She is too dumb or uneducated to realize she she could have just signed her name in menstrual blood or whatever on the offending mattress, rather than schlep it around campus.

      1. You’d be surprised how hard it is to paint with menstrual blood. It doesn’t stick well, the texture isn’t very good and when it tried it often just looks like a shade of brown, not very appealing to the eye,

        Not that I’ve ever done that or anything.

        1. *dried not tried.

        2. Look man, you don’t paint with the with stuff as it comes dripping out of ya. You collect it, dry it out, pulverize it, wet it to a paste, add a binder, mix well, and dilute to a desired consistency. Then you paint with it.

          Fucking kids today and their ignorance of artists’ materials.

          1. Whoa! I totally forgot I was just taking a cheap shot at either Marcel Duchamp and/or Joseph Beuys. Now I’m writing recipes for monthly blood paint.

          2. You’d be amazed at the things you can do with things as they drip out of you. For example, in the culinary arts:

            http://www.amazon.com/Natural-…..al+harvest

            1. When will I learn not to click on the links! I really didn’t need to know that.

  10. Since Nungesser wasn’t charged, he has an open-and-shut libel case against Sulkowitz directly, and I don’t see why he hasn’t filed it. More power to him.

    Maybe if enough universities wind up paying 8-figure settlements to guys like him for ruining their lives, the universities will decide it’s no longer worthwhile to accept federal money.

    1. Libel? Screw that, even. Send her on a ten-year tour of the local prison for attempting to facilitate a grievous miscarriage of justice and the accusatory harassment she subjected Nungesser to. Fuckbags like her need to be taught that egregious, injurious actions of that kind aren’t justifiable.

    2. He may well believe all the feminist crap about how punishing false accusers will deter real victims from filing reports.

      While we’re at it, let’s stop punishing stock fraud since it may deter honest investors from investing in the market.

    3. he has an open-and-shut libel case against Sulkowitz directly, and I don’t see why he hasn’t filed it

      If you’re interested, Robby linked to this explanation yesterday:

      http://www.washingtonexaminer……le/2563566

      FTA:

      When asked by the Washington Examiner why Sulkowicz was not included in the lawsuit, Nungesser’s attorney Andrew Miltenberg said: “This case is not about Emma Sulkowicz. It is about Columbia University and its ivy-covered halls, and the responsibilities it owes as a place of higher learning.”

      He added: “Here, Columbia University, as an institution, was not only silent, but actively and knowingly supported attacks on Paul Nungesser, after having determined his innocence, legitimizing a fiction. Emma Sulkowicz is merely a footnote to this story, we already know that she cleverly crafted a story and rode it to celebrity on the back on [sic] someone found not responsible.” (Emphasis original.)

        1. You sound surprised.

          1. No, not at all. And in this case, he deserves every penny. But let’s not play games.

            1. Although, in some ways he’s doing the right thing. She lied, but if Columbia had acknowledged that, publicly, that would have helped the situation I think.

              1. Yeah. If you have a broke crazy person making allegations, you don’t have much recourse.

                But she had institutional backing, and that’s a big problem. They’re going to pay up big time.

                1. Seriously. Someone who lugs a mattress around has to be missing a Robertson screw loose.

            2. No money, and he doesn’t want to come across as a bully. Emma is a very…. confused and…. fragile human being.

            3. AND, she deserves to be behind bars. Anyone who’d lie about being raped, and ruin an innocent person’s life, is at least as bad as a rapist.

              1. AND, she deserves to be behind bars. Anyone who’d lie about being raped, and ruin an innocent person’s life, is at least as bad as a rapist.

                This. Trying to have someone jailed for rape is a crime at least as bad as rape itself. It’s important to get that message out since the fascist section of the feminist movement seems to believe being falsely accused of rape is a minor, trifling nuisance that doesn’t really matter.

              2. But…ART!

                “Visual arts professor Jon Kessler, named as a defendant in the case, approved the “Mattress Project” for college credit. “Carrying around your university bed ? which was also the site of your rape ? is an amazingly significant and poignant and powerful symbol,” he told the Columbia Spectator. Nungesser says the project and resultant publicity have harmed his career prospects; Sulkowicz counters that “really it’s just an artistic expression of the personal trauma I’ve experienced at Columbia.”

                1. Forgot.

                  /multiple face palms.

              3. I figure anyone trying to frame somebody else should get whatever punishment their target might have gotten.

              4. The problem is she probably isn’t lying. Most likely she honestly believes the story she is selling

        2. Also; SHE’S obviously a neurotic little ninny; suing her would grant her a degree of importance to which she is unentitled. COLOMBIA, OTOH, is supposed to be a venue for scholarship, not a playpen for the deranged.

          This is, I sincerely hope, about putting Colleges and Universities on notice that fashionable Progressive idiocy is not legal grounds for violating peoples’ rights.

          If he gets a multimillion dollar settlement, so much the better.

          1. COLOMBIA, OTOH, is supposed to be a venue for scholarship, not a playpen for the deranged.

            This “project” was her senior thesis. Colombia may or may not be the former, it already is the latter.

      1. “…after having determined his innocence”

        I suspect Columbia will never make *that* mistake again.

    4. Filing a false police report is also a serious crime.

  11. At least Nungesser was cleared, however another Columbia student wasn’t so unlucky after what appears to be a case of consensual until the regret after-the-fact.

    After talking for some time, John says he asked Jane to take a walk to get some fresh air. The two walked about 14 blocks before turning around. John says at some point the topic of “hooking up” came up and the two began to flirt. John alleges that Jane suggested they go to her suite bathroom since they both had roommates. She even, John says, left the bathroom briefly to obtain a condom.

    Nearly five months later, Jane would accuse John of sexual assault.

    John says that from the beginning, the case was bungled. He alleges that his access to residence halls was immediately restricted but that he could access the on-campus Counseling & Psychological Services. John said that he twice tried to make an appointment to meet with a psychologist, and twice had his appointment cancelled on him.

    1. Eh. John’s accusation is just as much a case of unsubstantiated assertions as a lot of these rape accusations. I’d wait for more evidence to come out before assuming he was actually mistreated.

      It’s certainly possible given the current state of college campuses, but rapes do happen so you never know.

    2. Student sued university for gender discrimination because they railroaded him. “investigator” in his case was a women’s rights activist who misrepresented his side of the story and declined to make corrections that he requested.

      Judge dismissed his lawsuit saying that under title IX he must prove that they were intentionally discriminating against him and that the intentional and gender-based discrimination directly lead to harm. Basically, the investigator being biased against him could not be evidence of discrimination because she wasn’t the final adjudicator. He needed written or recorded statements by the administrators of his case stating that they were biased against him because of gender and discriminated against him on that basis.

      Somehow I find it doubtful that this same judge would have made the same ruling based on the same facts were the genders reversed. It seems this kid is getting something of a lesson in the power of gender politics.

  12. If we only had a way of telling if she’s a lying nutcase or not.

    1. Like carrying around a mattress?

  13. I still would.

    1. You’d be sorry…

      1. Yes, I know. And yet…I still would. Plus, we know she is very determined and has a strong back, so that must be good for something.

        1. “Fuck my butt”

        2. Plus, we know she is very determined and has a strong back, so that must be good for something.

          It’s nice to know that you look for the same attributes in women that you look for in pack mules.

          1. I have interesting sexual proclivities.

      2. Yes, I know. And yet…I still would. Plus, we know she is very determined and has a strong back, so that must be good for something.

        1. She either has a strong back or she’s very good at blowing up mattresses.

        2. She either has a strong back or she’s very good at blowing up mattresses.

          1. Multiple times.

            1. I wouldn’t mind blowing up her mattress multiple times, if you know what I mean.

              1. No, no I don’t………please explain further.

    2. The rule clearly states that you don’t fuck crazy. I think that’s a pretty good rule.

      1. Definitely don’t make love to it.

      2. Fucking crazy is, at times, a lot of fun.

        But this bitch is well beyond crazy. She’s a criminal. She is a fucking sociopath.

        1. And not hot.

          1. You just do not appreciate pouty lips and unassuming breasts. Hey, not everyone is perfect.

            1. And she does want it in the butt, so she’s good for that.

              Theory – she went psycho after he stopped dating her (which was after they had sex). So if you stayed with her or drove her away (e.g., Playstation or ESPN or FoxNews 24/7) you’d probably be ok with the rape charge. Dunno how she would be day to day…

              1. If someone gave you a condom that had been filled with excrement and then rinsed out, would you put it on?

                No? Then why would you want to put your dick in an anus?

                1. Just sayin’ for the folks that roll that way.

                2. Oh. And if someone gave you a condom that had been filled with piss then emptied would you put it on?

                  A begging the question for a begging the question.

                  Why do you keep changing names?

                3. Tulpa, party of one. Legend in his own mind.

                  You’ve never had a hot chick beg you to put it in her ass? Color me shocked.

  14. There is a reason why you do not engage in anal sex with someone you are not actually dating.

    1. News to me.

      1. I saw what you meant about ‘mother in law’ last night. It was in fact my mistake.

        /bows head. Licks ice cream.

        1. Dane can never me mad at you.

          1. *be

  15. BTW, this should be an interesting gymnastic event as the left attempts to justify her activity under free speech when I’m sure there will be comments regarding ‘lying bitches’ which will NOT be free speech.

    1. Sevo

      Bitch is hate speech.

      And the truth is an evolving paradigm.

      Calling a victim a liar is alao hate speech.

  16. I heard the tag on Emma’s new boyfriend’s car reads: Assman

    1. “Anustart”

    2. “Hey, the assman’s in town!”

  17. Her using the word ‘ridiculous’ is what’s truly ridiculous.

    Her six minutes are up.

    1. Almost.

      1. She did learn a very important lesson, though.
        Lying about the right things will make you famous.

        She should have learned how to wear a bra.

        1. It was a brilliantly plotted movement against assault. She will be living off of the mattress stunt for years.

          Verdict: anal pays.

        2. She has her fans. Like Senator Gillebrand.

          Get a load of that smug smirk. Good for another type of load if you get my drift. I’m sorry was I being rude?

          http://twitchy.com/2015/04/25/…..mic-video/

        3. When New York Magazine tweeted out that article, I responded by asking how they knew she was telling the truth given that there’s no substantiating evidence and someone called me a misogynist.

          This story falling apart has therefore given me more than a little schadenfreude.

        4. I hate the high-waisted jeans trend.

          1. It’s strongly correlated with the floppy tits trend.

            1. Eh, they look fine too me.

              1. to

                1. who could have a problem with this?

                  1. I don’t have “a” problem with that, I have several.

                    …though I’d be willing to overlook them.

                  2. Those aren’t floppy, Crusty.

                    Emma Sulkowicz is lacking the… support that she needs.

                    1. Damn you, HM, I clicked on that and there was no bootay. I have a disappoint.

                    2. Just be thankful he didn’t link to ‘The Retard.’

                    3. So apparently there’s something worse than twerking — sweaty twerking.

                    4. Worse, or better?

                  3. Impressive that her nips show through her training bra. Must be a cold day.

        5. PM

          She is wearing a bra but it is loose fitting.

  18. This never gets old. I’m thinking of laminating it and putting it over my bed.

    “Hi Robby! Thanks for stopping by! One small correction: I don’t think you’ve ever “reported” a goddamn thing in your life. (And because I know you’re going to do this, either here or in my Twitter mentions, which you and your friends are currently stink-clouding up with your Feelings, I have a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia and I write investigative stories. Have done for years, both at Jezebel and before I got here. Thanks for asking!)

    Instead, I think, as I made clear above, that you’re piggy-backing on the work of other people who are calling Erdely’s story into question without a single shred of evidence. You don’t get brownie points for saying *IF* the story is true *THEN* UVA should have called the cops. That’s what any decent human being would suggest.”

    1. Rufus J. Firefly|4.25.15 @ 9:06PM|#
      “Hi Robby!”

      Commie kid uses the same faux-friendly greeting, I presume in ironic contrast the oh-so insightful question he’s gonna ask next, which usually turns out to be horseshit.
      I presume it’s the current lefty fashion.

      1. Like Am-Soc, eh?

        ‘Hi Baylen!’

        /puts fist in mouth.

      2. His greeting reminds me of the vocal but ignorant kid in class. Each time I see it I envision him half sitting at his desk half standing/leaning forward with his hand raised begging the professor to give him permission to share his wisdom.

        1. The “Hi Robbie” quote is by Anna Merlan, who did later apologize when it became clear that Jackie Coakley was a liar.

          1. I’m referencing american socialist.

          2. Her contrition lasted all of about one tweet.

  19. Whether or not the art project?and the university’s sponsorship of it?is permissible under civil rights law is indeed the point of the lawsuit. But I can’t understand why Sulkowicz would bother addressing this aspect of the dispute, when her position (at least previously) was that Nungesser brutally raped her. If that’s true, it trumps any disagreement over artistic expression. If that’s true, her actions were justified, regardless.

    Which strongly suggests he didn’t rape her and she’s tacitly admitting that by absurdly trying to hide behind the veil of ‘artistic expression’ rather than reiterating her accusations.

    1. or pretending that her very-public act of carrying the mattress around everywhere (including the cover of a national magazine) wasn’t actually part of any accusation of any specific rape-claim, but was just some school ‘art project’

  20. Are any of you Peanuts planning to watch Nerd Prom tonight?

    1. Watching videos of a growing riot in a city that has been run exclusively by Democrats since the 1960s due to statist thugs murdering a citizen that did nothing illegal.

      1. They didn’t “murder” Freddie Gray. His spine just happened to come undone during the arrest.

  21. Bruce Jenner, After Coming Out As Transgender, Says He’s A Conservative

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..mg00000013

    Playa Manhattan? Is that you? SoCal con?

    1. Weak. Your dealer is cutting your shit with baby powder.

      First of all, I’m an anarchist, not a conservative. Second of all, I’m 30 years younger than Bruce Jenner. That’s why it’s so easy to piss you off. I have more money than you even though I’m a lot younger and don’t work in finance.

      Better luck next weekend.

      1. “even though I’m a lot younger and don’t work in finance.”

        The closest turd ever got to “finance” was cleaning the office after everyone left.

        1. He gives financial advice to comment sections. Isn’t that how Buffet got rich?

          1. PB’s company is called Birk Sure That’s the Way.

    2. This is no fun. I thought you came out to play! Do a quick bump get back in here, Buttplug!!

  22. OT: I just stumbled on this opinion piece. An excerpt:

    For the fifth year in a row in 2014, ambush attacks on police officers were the No. 1 cause of felonious deaths of law enforcement officers in the line of duty. Nevertheless, Google continues to market a smartphone application that lets lawbreakers pinpoint the location of police officers in the field. Google’s executives won’t even discuss the subject with organizations representing law enforcement.

    1. Bonus excerpt:

      But when it comes to Waze, Google has gone into a defensive crouch.

      The company’s executives flat out refused to discuss the subject with representatives of the National Sheriffs’ Association, an organization representing more than 3,000 sheriff’s offices across the United States.

      The refusal of Google’s executives to even dignify our concerns by meeting with us offends our conscience.

      If Google’s real objective is the “common good out there on the road,” it will work with us to ensure the safety of both motorists and police officers.

      The goals are not mutually exclusive: we can have both.

    2. No. 1 cause of felonious deaths

        1. Those scraggly white beard hairs…

        2. “You’re the best and the brightest. Harvard, Yale, Brown, Cornell, this is what we put out. You should have gone to Norfolk State, bastards, you would’ve got the same education and you would’ve spent a whole lot less money.”

          Awesome.

        3. Well done, HM, that was great.

      1. I’m going to go ahead and call the bullshit flag on this. I think they’re simply making this shit up because they don’t think enough people will check their numbers.

        How many police have died during a no-knock raid where the homeowner is simply defending himself?

        How many have died during a routine traffic stop – that the *cop* initiated – when the suspect pulls a gun and tries to shoot his way out?

        How many times has a cop been out, off-duty and plain-clothed being an arsehole, and gotten in over his head when fucks with the wrong guys? Guys who didn’t know he was a cop?

        How many undercover cops were ambushed and killed when they blew their cover? sure this is an ambush – but Google’s app would have no effect on these guys.

        Those aren’t an ambush, but I bet they’re including this sort of thing in the numbers.

        1. I think they’re simply making this shit up because they don’t think enough people will check their numbers.

          I think they are too. The opinion piece is concern trolling plus a “Nice business you got there, shame if something happens to it” approach to getting Google to do what the cops want.

        2. WARNING: Autoplay

          Headline: “Officer’s fatal shooting by suspect called ‘ambush'”

          Police responded to a shots fired call early Wednesday. They were told the suspect was possibly intoxicated. Neighbors said the man was going from house to house, banging on doors and firing a long barrel gun.

          http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../24359961/

          Headline: “Man ambushes, kills Fulton County police officer”

          Basically a drunk guy starts shooting his gun in a house. 911 is called. Guy leaves house and police search for him. After 45 minutes of searching drunk shoots at cops.

          http://www.cbs46.com/story/282…..ne-of-duty

        3. Agammamon|4.25.15 @ 10:12PM|#
          “I’m going to go ahead and call the bullshit flag on this. I think they’re simply making this shit up because they don’t think enough people will check their numbers.”

          No one can check the numbers, since they qualify it such that the claim is meaningless:
          “For the fifth year in a row in 2014, ambush attacks on police officers were the No. 1 cause of felonious deaths of law enforcement officers in the line of duty”
          Does this mean one death? None? Who knows? It’s a crappy attempt at propaganda and should be seen as such.

      2. Good catch.

        One wonders what the other causes of “felonious” deaths might be. Drunk drivers, maybe? That pretty much rounds out the possibilities.

    3. Apparently math is not a requirement to work as a sheriff. I just posted this over there:

      “For the fifth year in a row in 2014, ambush attacks on police officers were the No. 1 cause of felonious deaths of law enforcement officers in the line of duty.”

      According to the source that the authors cite as a reference, in 2013, five officers were killed in ambush attacks, which ties with the five killed during investigative activity, while NINE officers were killed on domestic disturbance calls. According to the latest scientific research, nine is more than five.

      If you include such an obvious error, or blatant lie, in the first paragraph of your article, why should anyone listen to anything else you have to say?

      1. As I tried to show with the links above, ambush killing means pretty much anything the media wants to call ambush kills. If they don’t regurgitate what the local LEO wants then they suddenly lose access to the crime beat. Cop sucking is just good for business.

  23. Has this been covered here yet? I asked about it a few days ago, but still haven’t seen any mention of it here:

    Protests in Baltimore

    1. They’re calling for Obama. Classic.

      1. I’m sure they’ll be surprised when he sends in the drones.

    2. The “western district way” was bound to eventually cause a problem.

      1. From what I can understand, they put the guy in the back of the van, with shackles on his feet and did what they call a ‘rough ride’, which is basically driving like a maniac and slamming on the brakes with someone schackled in the back but not restrained, so as to throw them around and rough them up a little more. Seems like this is a common practice with Balmer cops, they think it’s some sort of joke. Except that in this case they broke the guys spine and refused his request for medical treatment until later. There’s also a woman currently suing them for this ‘rough ride’ thing.

        1. Yes. This story has more to say about the rough rides.

          1. I would say there is a clear pattern here. And if we don’t end qualified immunity for these cops then I suspect that it will keep happening and the taxpayers will keep paying multimillion dollar settlements.

            1. They’re not going to end qualified immunity and the dumb shit politicians are going to continue to make it about race, deflecting the cause and the cure.

              So the cops are going to continue escalating this bullshit all around the country until there’s a tipping point and all hell breaks loose.

          2. Relatives of Dondi Johnson Sr., who was left a paraplegic after a 2005 police van ride, won a $7.4 million verdict against police officers. A year earlier, Jeffrey Alston was awarded $39 million by a jury after he became paralyzed from the neck down as the result of a van ride. Others have also received payouts after filing lawsuits.

            Holy shit. Now they’re going to claim that they don’t do this and their employer is going to claim that they didn’t know about it?

            1. Man, those cop vans have really crummy suspensions if the ride causes paralysis! Need more money for new vans!

    3. The “western district way” was bound to eventually cause a problem.

    4. “It has to stop. It really has to stop because it could have been any one of us,”

      No, it doesn’t. In fact, it has to continue as long as you have an over bearing govt. You give power to a rapist, sit back and enjoy it.

      1. Where are you getting that quote from?

        1. Is it from the comments?

        2. “It has to stop. It really has to stop because it could have been any one of us,” a young male adult member of Gray’s extended family told the crowd.

          In the linked article.

          1. Geez, I read the entire story and I didn’t remember that. My bad.

            1. Nobody’s perfect. Now slap one of your monocle polishers for not finding the quote for you.

              1. Let the orphan off with a warning. I half assed that quote.

              2. I’ll just wait for the weekend when my friends come over and we have a around of orphan tossing. I’ll toss one of them extra far. Of course we put large padded mittens on them first. Can’t injure the nimble little finders, monocles ain’t going to polish themselves.

    5. My parents live just down the street from Camden Yards. In one of the highrises that much resembles a fort. My dad said the crowd has only now completely dispersed (O’s game went to extra-innings.)

      Baltimore’s a bizarre town. The “L,” as its called, cutting through the center of the city and then along the water, is as rich as Boston or Seattle or Brooklyn. Then there’s the rest..

      Hope that part of town doesn’t turn into Ferguson.

      1. It’s really been screwing up traffic getting onto the JFX the last few days. Taking me twice as long to get home as normal.

        I love the area near the harbor and east harbor, canton, locust point, all of those places are very nice.

        West Baltimore is like an post apocalyptic hell. And I’m afraid that just is not going to change as long as the Democrats are running the city. At this point I really don’t know what could change it. A fleet of bulldozers maybe.

        1. I lived in West Baltimore back when the towers were still up. Had a job cutting fish for a market guy who moonlighted as the neighborhood fence. It… convinced me to get my GED and go to college, actually.

          If you were there at the time, they were trying to make SoWeBo (area around Hollins Market and the Mencken House) into a huge arts district. Sorta worked for a while. Then the towers came down, the folks who had been living there got a whole bunch of Section 8 rentals, and everybody ran like hell for Hampden.

          We used to think SoWeBo was a lot safer than North Avenue, for example.

          1. Most of North Avenue is pretty damn scary. I don’t even drive on that street. But most of West Baltimore is so bad, and it’s huge, it’s like a seemingly endless slum.

            Hampden is pretty nice, to be so near the city, I would live there.

            1. Oh, and I wasn’t here when you’re talking about. I’ve only been in MD 7 years. But I have friends who lived here their entire life so I get interesting history trivia a lot.

              1. My vision might be skewed ‘cuz I remember how that shit used to be. North Avenue is a suburban paradise to me these days.

                The guy who owns Atomic Books, now in Hampden, was in Sowebo for a lot of period. He’s also on the Mencken House board. Definitely worth chatting with. Atomic Books has beer now, unless they’ve been selling to coeds again.

                1. My wife and I go walking around in Hampden occasionally. I’ll have to check it out next time I’m down there. I’ve heard of it, but I’ve never been in there.

                  Man, North Avenue, I’ve drove down that a few times, and maybe I was just a little too far west or something, but it was scary looking, lots of boarded up building. I think you must be referring to an area of north farther east towards 83?

                  1. Just looked at the Google Maps streetview and I see what you mean. I’m surprised at the lack of graffiti. Is that normal?

            2. I lived in Hamilton for a short period and thought it was better than when I lived in Woodlawn in the county.

              If it turns out the cops would make good linebackers for the Ravens all would ve forgiven.

              1. Woodlawn, I would consider a fairly bad area.

                1. Very bad. Rented a room from a family. The wife took money from her husband to give to her sister to support her drug habit. She had done this before and the husband said he’d kick her out if she did it again. She did it again. Before he found out she orchestrated a fake home invasion. He intent was to split the “proceeds” with the accomplices and put the money back into the checking account. He fought back and was shot in the head. He died in their bedroom in front of the two kids.

        2. Also, holy shit. Never saw Jamaica colors on the American flag before. That reminds me of ’95, when Schmoke went against Clarke and things were a bit… divided.

  24. Stupid fishmouth fuckhole Allen West – “football injuries due to lack of school prayer”.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online…..ol-prayer/

      1. Yeah, what you said.

    1. Palin’s Buttplug|4.25.15 @ 11:11PM|#
      “Stupid fishmouth”

      Stupid turd comment.

      1. I know you Peanuts like to draw race into everything. Like how Obama is a “scary Kenyan”. We all know what you want to say. An uppity Harvard law man who is more educated than you are.

        But Allen West is the real ghetto thug.

        1. Palin’s Buttplug|4.25.15 @ 11:53PM|#
          “I know you Peanuts like to draw race into everything.”

          Yeah, turd. I always draw ‘race’ into my comments.
          Now you’ve been busted claiming I defended Bush, you’ve been busted claiming I’m a ‘conservative’. Now, try to find where I’ve ever ‘drawn race’ into an argument.
          Or try posting sober and admit you’re a slimeball.

    2. Oh good! You are here! Are we going to play or what?!?

      1. What? I don’t play your games.

        1. Your game. I’m just along for the ride.

        2. PB

          Have you considered changing your name to Sulkowicz’s Buttplug?

          1. Ding, ding ding…that’s a winner Chumby, golf clap well earned.

  25. “It’s ridiculous that he would read it as a ‘bullying strategy'”
    If she really can’t see what she is doing (including demanding he either be expelled or leave the university voluntarily and “liking” a comment suggesting he commit suicide) as a form of bullying, then she must be some sort of sociopath. If her claims are true she might be able to argue that he deserves to be bullied, but its still clearly bullying.
    But its “art”. I guess that gives us a new excuse to commit all sorts of crimes. No officer, I didn’t commit burglary. My taking money out of that bank at gunpoint was an artistic expression of, um, the injustice done by greedy capitalists? Sure, thats it.

    1. So anybody protesting against Obama and saying he should be impeached or resign is “bullying”?

      1. Porque Pig|4.25.15 @ 11:30PM|#
        “So anybody protesting against Obama and saying he should be impeached or resign is “bullying”?”

        So a shitpile using a new handle should be granted some slack as that same shitpile hopes not to be recognized?

  26. So his entire case rests on the fact that the university didn’t enforce a policy against another student (which is none of his biz) and didn’t prohibit another student from doing an art project because its claims hadn’t been proven. That’s pretty damn weak.

    This lawsuit is clearly about going after somebody who has money as opposed to somebody who doesn’t. If the accusations are false in this case, the accuser is responsible for destroying his reputation, not the uni.

    I know you guys love thought experiments, so try this one. Suppose Jordan Miles wanted to do an art project about being beaten up by cops, and the professor in the course said no, it was never proven that they beat you up, so you can’t do that project. What would Reason’s reaction be?

    Why is it not the same in this case?

    1. TTTTUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPAAAAAAAAA

    2. I know you love thought experiments, so try this one: What if you decided to shut up?

      1. I was (obviously) joking when I said you love thought experiments. What today’s H+R wants is an echo chamber for screaming at SJWs, cops, or whoever the villain of the day is… not a place where they’re asked to think critically.

        As evidenced by the 4 out of 4 responses being ad hominems.

        1. Porque Pig|4.25.15 @ 11:59PM|#
          “I was (obviously) joking when I said you love thought experiments”

          Fuck you, porky. The reason 4 of 4 were ad homs is that you deserve it. When the world says you’re a piece of shit, it’s not the world’s mistake. You’re a piece of shit.

          1. It’s still a fallacy whether the hominem is deserving it or not.

            1. Porque Pig|4.26.15 @ 12:04AM|#
              “It’s still a fallacy whether the hominem is deserving it or not.”

              When you’re an asshole and the world says so, it’s not a “fallacy” at all.
              By your own posts, you have proven you can be trusted only to lie, mislead, misdirect and in general, engage in every possible activity to avoid being honest. And you still hope that someone here would grant you some relief.
              No, it’s not a “fallacy”; you are due no examination of any post you make. It can, prima facie, presumed to be lies. Any honest, rational person can, properly, assume you are a lying asshole and thereby ignore any comment you make.

              1. Really? You think ad hominem is NOT a fallacy?

                I want to coauthor the paper proving this with you, since it kind of turns the entirety of logic on its head.

                  1. Heroic Mulatto|4.26.15 @ 12:30AM|#
                    “Moti Mizrahi already beat you to it,[…]”

                    I wasn’t gonna claim originality here, just recognition.

                  2. Not quite. In the case Mizrahi discusses, the person the argument is against has based his argument on claims of his own expertise or authority. So arguing against the person’s expertise or authority IS arguing against his argument; it’s ad argumentum, not ad hominem.

                    1. You think ad hominem is NOT a fallacy?

                      In this paper, I argue that ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious.

                    2. Well, that’s his assertion. The arguments he’s defending are ad argumentum arguments primarily. They attack the content of the argument (which happen to involve the original arguer only because he based his argument on his own credentials). I don’t know of anybody who would question the validity of such arguments, so I’m not sure what the point of his paper is (other than the circle jerk suspicion I voice below).

                      And of course none of it relates to the current situation since my argument had nothing to do with me or my credentials.

                    3. I want to coauthor the paper proving this with you,

                      It’s been 30 minutes and you still haven’t gotten the joke.

                    4. Heroic Mulatto|4.26.15 @ 12:57AM|#
                      I want to coauthor the paper proving this with you,
                      “It’s been 30 minutes and you still haven’t gotten the joke.”

                      He’s still shoveling away, hoping the hole doesn’t get deeper. Not real bright.

                    5. Well, it’s never funny if you have to explain it. So my bad.

                      I’m turning in for the night.

                    6. Porque Pig|4.26.15 @ 12:52AM|#
                      “[…]And of course none of it relates to the current situation since my argument had nothing to do with me or my credentials.”

                      Ha and ha.

                    7. Porque Pig|4.26.15 @ 12:39AM|#
                      “Not quite. In the case Mizrahi discusses,…”

                      Shitbag 4.26.25 @ 1239AM#
                      “Here, I prove once again that I can find some irrelevant detail, which (polishes nails) I hope makes you all understand how wonderful I am!”
                      Fuck off.

                  3. as have a few other people.

                    My God, the academic philosophy community has become a complete circle jerk. I guess when you have to send out hundreds of CVs every year to have a shot at finding a job, you get pretty generous with accepting papers.

                    1. the academic philosophy community has become a complete circle jerk

                      Well, I can’t disagree with you there.

                    2. Porque Pig|4.26.15 @ 12:44AM|#
                      “My God, the academic philosophy community has become a complete circle jerk”

                      Uh, what was that about ad homs, shitbag?

                1. When ‘shitbag’ is applied to a specific shitbag, and that shitbag has proven to never be trusted, it is not a fallacy.
                  And you may quote me, so long as you mention that it applies specifically to you.
                  You’re welcome.

        2. Why change your handle all the time? That is a telling sign you don’t argue in good faith. Don’t want your contradictions brought up? That’s some sleazy stuff.

          1. That and tulpa’s sockpuppeting.

            1. There was a thread where he got busted for that a year or so ago. Posted under the wrong handle IIRC.

                1. Yes, thanks.

          2. It’s hard to hide when you’re the only one willing to question the prevailing zeitgeist of the blog.

            1. Porque Pig|4.26.15 @ 12:25AM|#
              “It’s hard to hide when you’re the only one willing to question the prevailing zeitgeist of the blog.”

              It’s even harder when you’re a lying piece of shit. I’m not even gonna bother to point out the arguments among the regular commenters here, since facts were not what concerned you anyhow, you lying piece of shit.

            2. How about a voluntary solution. I don’t want to interact with you and you shouldn’t use deception to get me to interact with you. Without use of coercion we can agree to not interact. That means we voluntarily agree not to use socks. Agreed?

            3. Why bother then, sir knight?

              1. Eternal optimist? Plus I don’t like kicking delusional people. This guy is causing me to rethink that.

                1. “Plus I don’t like kicking delusional people.”

                  A noble sentiment when they are delusional for reasons other than active dishonesty.
                  Tupla is nothing of the sort and deserves all the kicking anyone can deliver.

      2. FUCK YOU TULPA!

        You made me side with Eddie.

    3. You should go back to pretending you’re a feminist. It’s more entertaining

      1. Or s/he might pretend to have a POV other than some ‘clever’ sophistry. Maybe even pretend to some degree of honesty. Who knows? Bo might buy it.

      2. And you all should go back to pretending you give a damn about rational argument and intellectual honesty. Of course it would be even better if it weren’t pretending.

        1. Fuck you, porky. The reason 4 of 4 were ad homs is that you deserve it. When the world says you’re a piece of shit, it’s not the world’s mistake. You’re a piece of shit.

          1. The fact that you think this blog speaks for the world is hilarious.

            1. Porque Pig|4.26.15 @ 12:06AM|#
              “The fact that you think this blog speaks for the world is hilarious.”

              The fact that you hope someone other than ‘here’ thinks otherwise is hilarious, unless mommy told you something.
              And your pedantry of interpreting my use of ‘the world’ is only one more example of your assholery.

        2. Oh, and:
          ” intellectual honesty.”
          This from some slime ball who spent an hour dancing around why Wiki shouldn’t have ads for ‘reasons’ and finally admitted it ‘didn’t look good’ to the slime ball.
          “intellectual honesty”, asshole? Stuff it.

          1. Your summary of the discussion is wrong as usual.

            1. Porque Pig|4.26.15 @ 12:06AM|#
              “Your summary of the discussion is wrong as usual.”

              Yeah, I’m sure you can find a misplace comma that might affect the meaning if you hold your mouth right.
              Fuck you slime ball; that’s the reason you’re despised.

    4. The burrnnn, it hurts, Fuck off Tulpa.

  27. Christian bakers in Oregon face $135,000 fine for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake.

    In eight hours, supporters raised $109,000 for the bakers. Then GoFundMe closed down the fundraising because the funds are being raised “in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.”

    At least the bakers get to keep the $109,000.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..me-drive-/

    1. Too bad the money still goes to the couple that filed the complaint…

      1. Too bad fucking tulpa is stinking up the place.

  28. Have either of these people taken a lie detector test? It would be interesting to see the results. If he took one and passed, he’d probably win in the court of public opinion.

    1. Polygraph tests are about as reliable as the dog-sniffing drug searches. In the first case, the entire outcome is subject to ‘interpretation’ by the operator, in the second we are to presume the dog didn’t respond to signals from the handler.
      In either case, the claims are totally non-falsifiable and have no real cred as “evidence”.

      1. Fuck, dowsing is more accurate than polygraphs.

        1. Fuck dowsing should really be a thing.

          1. If it can find jug wine. AMIRITE?!?

              1. Funny, but the first image I had was of Bob Ley. So thanks for that waking nightmare.

  29. This chick is disturbed.

    1. Ya think…

  30. She denounced him by name, in violation of certain privacy policies.

    So explain to me, for my tiny brain to understand, why does Nungesser not have a case against her? And please don’t use the “she never named him” response because as initially suspected and confirmed, oh yes the fuck she did.

    1. He could, but suing her allows her to relitigate her allegations. She can attempt an “it was true” defense. There is a very real sanger that the jury could buy it, which would be a disaster.

      The university, having judged her allegations as unfounded, cannot use that defense. Thus, a litigation only involving them already starts with the premise that the accusations were false.

      Additionally there’s really no remedy that she can provide to make him whole. She has no money. She has no degree to bestow. All she could provide is a public apollogy. Lots of risk for mo benefit.

      1. And, as seen in Robby’s post, she can’t stand not being the center of attention. Having this lawsuit about her behavior and actions but leaving her in a minor or non-existant role crying salty ham tears is as much punishment as a monetary judgement would ever be.

        1. Irregardless of whether she’s an attention-craving liar or not, she has a freedom of speech right. Even attention craving liars have free speech rights.

          1. Libel is not free speech.

            The second amendment does not grant permission to shoot up a shopping mall.

            1. He has to prove it’s libel, first, Chumby. He hasn’t done that, and apparently has no intention of doing that.

              1. Has no intention of proving it is libel? He is taking Columbia et. al. to court for that very thing. Thanks for the derp.

      2. That doesn’t make him look very good.
        I can see suing her directly as a moral action, regardless of whether he gets any money out of it.
        But he’s actually suing a third party to get them to shut her up. Like she doesn’t have the right to call him a rapist because she happens to be at the same school as him.
        This strikes me as incorrect.

        Regardless of how we feel about whether she is lying or not, she’s got a free speech right to call him a rapist unless he wants to sue her for slander. If he’s not willing to do that, I don’t see how he gets the right to compel a third party to shut her up.

        1. He is suing Columbia because they have money, she doesn’t. I imagine if Columbia loses they may expell her. It won’t stop her from libeling but it would end Columbia being used to facilitate it.

          I suppose her right to libel someone is the same as Adam Lanza’s right to shoot at people…

          1. Yes but it also allows him to neatly avoid facing her in court, or more importantly, having any sort of actual legal proceeding determine if what she is saying is, in fact, true or not.

            In other words, it looks like he is trying to force the university to shut her up without proving whether what she is saying is really libel or not.

            You can’t be slandered if what it being said about you is true.

            1. Had Columbia suspended or expelled her for lying he wouldn’t have been as damaged. And would have had zero case against them (not the only condition for this but probably the most concrete). But instead, they joined in and nurtured the libel.

              If there is a chance it really occurred you can count on Columbia wanting that to come out in court. They examined it and found no merit. Based on the text messages she continued to send him afterwards it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than it didn’t happen.

              Professionally I have had an unstable person with limited assets and little to no gravity to his statements border on libel. He was ignored. I have also had a business owner that has some clout do the same: this person received a warning from the staff attorney and (1) discontinued down that path and (2) apologized.

              Please share how Columbia would be able to “shut her up” and include what they can and would do if she wanted to use Twitter, Facebook, speak at Brown University, meet with her state rep, etc.

              1. Columbia can’t legally expell her for “lying” if what she is saying hasn’t been proven to be a lie.
                Columbia’s interal procedures don’t count as a legal judgement that would allow them to stop a student from saying them.

                You’re talking about Columbia expelling a student for saying something about another student that they can’t prove is false, and the other student isn’t willing to take to court as libel.

                1. While I don’t know Columbia’s internal policies I imagine if they found merit in her claims I imagine he would have been expelled. Without waiting for a court ruling. So why not the reciprocal?

    2. Who said he doesn’t have a case? He’s not pressing it because she’s a broke college dimwit. He’s going for the money.

  31. If you have experience with these kind of women its so easy to read her mind.
    She is a typical neurotic sociopath vicious avenging angel. She needs attention, because she thinks she deserves it…because she is so special.
    Its a game of power and control. As long as everything runs like she wants and she gets what she wants she can be the cutest most understanding girl in the world.
    But if she feels used, degraded or refused her vicious mind turns into an avenging angel.
    Please read their conversations: Even before they got together she told him very very intimate details about herself, about her feelings and her sex life. Also at that point she suggest him to “f*** me in the bu**”. He replys with “eehm…maybe not? I miss your face tho”.
    Later they start a platonic relationship, have sex two times and she obviously falls deeply in “love” with him. Then he spends the summer in germany and she writes him 100s of love-messages. She tells him “I’ve officially had sex with all of John Doe’s best friends…” to make him jealous. Also typical…
    Still in germany he tells her that he had been seeing another woman and she asks immediately it they are in love. He replies that he doesn’t know yet.
    They come back to Columbia campus on August 21, and on 27th the “rage night” happened. On 29th and a few days later they met again twice. On September 9 she writes him “I wanna see youyououyou”. Later Paul sends her a birthday message and she responds “I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!”

    1. So here starts the avenging-angel-part. He obviously doesn’t show too much interest any more and likes to date other girls instead in the next months. She starts to feel bad and regrets having spent so many feelings for him, having told him all these very intimate things and thrusting him so much. The feelings of being used and refused get bigger every day and her vicious mind starts to work, which results in her evil plan to destroy his life at Columbia. After her accusations have been dropped by the university court she gets even angrier of course.
      She can’t bear to be a loser…and of course she had told all of her and HIS friends already that he has raped her and how bad he is. How does she look like now?
      So her vicious mind comes up with the next plan and unfortunately she finds a accomplice in her Professor Mr. Jon Kessler, whom she had already twisted around her finger. They both knew that this would be the end of his studies at Colombia!
      I just hope that he is completely rehabilitated and Columbia Univ. has to pay for what they have done to him!

      Sorry for my bad english…

      1. Don’t apologize. Your English is vetter than many who comment here.

        Your guess is very plausible.

        1. Your English is vetter

          Heh.

      2. Spot on, brother. I did laugh a little at this:

        She starts to feel bad and regrets having spent so many feelings for him, having told him all these very intimate things and thrusting him so much.

        Whether this is a typo or not, it’s hilarious. Very well said!

      3. You may be 100% correct about all of this. But that still doesn’t give him the right to compel the university to shut down her “art project”.

        If he wants to stop her from publicly accusing him of rape, then, from a moral perspective, he should be suing her directly, not suing a third party.

        Suing the university to get them to stop her from speaking without addressing her directly seems wrong to me.

        1. They gave her credit for the art project. If I wrote a paper about how Obama raped little boys I’d expect no grade other than an F because that is untrue.

          Her project wasn’t generic “rape happens and it is bad”; instead, it was “this particular guy raped me” after which Columbia already ackowledged that it did not occur. Columbia can’t stop her from posting lies on Twitter but they certainly had an obligation to disallow lies to be perpetuated as a sanctioned class project.

          1. There hasn’t been a legal judgement as to whether her accusations are true or not. The university hearing doesn’t qualify, as it’s not a court of law.

            As far as the law is concerned, right now we don’t know if her accusations are true or not.

            1. Given that Columbia felt it had no merit that is a fairly substantial data point for Columbia to act on. Unless of course they feel their sexual assault reviews are inadequate. And the local police chose not to pursue the case. So as far as the law is concerned, he is not a rapist. Thpugh he has never been declared “not guilty.” Because it never made it to court. Because the police and DA felt it either had no merit or had no chance of getting a guilty verdict.

              She needs to prove or have proved that he did it. This has not occurred and will likely not occur. He won’t have to prove he didn’t rape her; the default position in this country is that an accused is innocent. He will only need to prove that Columbia particiated in labeling him as a rapist and that damage could or has occurred. Again, he doesn’t require a court of law to prove he isn’t a rapist. Someone else will need to prove that he is. And currently, those odds are awfully low.

              1. Their sexual assault reviews don’t give them the power to silence a student who is saying things that havn’t been proven false. It’s a free speech issue. Just because she lost the internal review, doesn’t mean she isn’t permitted to say anything about it. Unless he wants to sue her for libel, he doesn’t have a legal right to stop her from speaking. He certainly can’t use a suit against a third party to force them to silence her without facing her in court.

                1. Once again. He is not trying to stop her from running her mouth. And he is not trying to get Columbia to stop her either. You made both of those strawmen up. He is suing for damages caused. He has never been proven to be a rapist. Therefore he is not a rapist in the eyes of the law. So he has to prove that he was referred to as a rapist by the school and that there were potential or actual damages.

              2. Heck, even if he was found not guilty in a court of law (which he hasn’t), she STILL would have the right to publicly say “that guy raped me”.
                The standard for libel isn’t that you can’t say anything unless it’s proven to be true. it’s that you can’t be STOPPED from saying things unless they are proven to be false.

                1. Actually, it is the responsivility of the speaker to ensure the veracity of the speech. You have the ability to lie. Not the right.

                  Keep thinking 2+2=5…

  32. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is what- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  33. I’m not sure the guy has a case against the university. The “art project” can be seen as a first amendment issue. If he feels he had been defamed, he should be suing HER, regardless of the dangers that might pose to himself.

    But I don’t see how the “right” action is to sue the university to force them to shut down her speech. She has a free speech right, and if he’s afraid to sue her directly, that doesn’t make him look too good.

    1. Damages were caused. She has no means to pay for those damages. Columbia participated in causing those damages and they do have the means to pay for those damages.

      1. The damages are that his reputation was affected by her accusing him of rape. He wants to be paid for those damages without actually having to face her in court and have the court decide whether what she is accusing him of is true or not. If he actually is a rapist, then he doesn’t deserve any compensation, because the damages were caused by his own actions. The fact that the university hearing cleared him doesn’t qualify as a legal judgement.

        Now maybe if he sues her FIRST, THEN he can go on and sue the university.
        But he can’t bypass the entire legal matter of whether her accusations are true or not by going directly to suing the university to get them to shut her up.

        1. Once again, she or the state would need to prove that he is a rapist. He does not need to prove that he isn’t.

          Second, there is little upside for him to sue her since she has no means to amend those damages finacially. It doesn’t mean he can’t sue her, just the opportunity cost to not sue her is currently greater than that to sue.

          Third, if he did do it (or ot looks like that was the case) Columbia ought to name her as a defense witness. And he and his legal team should know this. If there’s an appreciable chance he did rape her there’s a good chance Columbia wants her telling this in court.

          Parts of this are not dissimilar to the Jesse Ventura – Chris Kyle libel case. Kyle had to prove he knocked out Ventura, not Ventura proving that it couldn’t have happened. Ventura also sued the publisher and won since they printed a book without performing due diligence on the facts. Columbia did this and found no basis for the clai so it is even worse fpr them to support the claim. Ventura named Kyle in the case because Kyle profitted from the book. Sulkowicz hasn’t made any money so there isn’t a finacial incentive to sue her. IANAL but I think all one can get from a libel suit is money. So why spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees to win a judgement that cannot be paid? And a win against Columbia is basically the same thing. Except he will get money as well.

          1. So your saying you think it’s morally okay for him to win a lawsuit that compells Columbia to forcibly shut her up, without ever proving in court that she’s a liar?

            You think that’s good libertarian policy, to stop people from speaking things that havn’t been proven to be false ?

            1. Please cite where I posted that the intent of the libel suit is for Columbia to shut her up. When you can’t find anything consider sunsetting that strawman.

              It violates the NAP to fabricate rape allegations. And if it really occurred then knowing that (a) the university found no merit in the allegation and (b) the local authorities found insufficient evidence should have made Columbia not endorse it as fact. From Columbia’s position, it violates the NAP to support the claim he raped her. In what libertarian society does an unsubstantiated “he said/she said” claim tirn into guilt that needs to be refuted for the opposite to be accepted?

        2. The NY District Attorney’s office also cleared him. He interviewed with two separate district attorney’s actually. When she found out that she was being cleared by them as well, she made up another fake story saying that she dropped the charges. (not the case) You should familiarize yourself with the facts more.

          Also, one doesn’t need to sue someone else to prove your innocence. I don’t know what country you are from, but that is not now it works in the US. SHE has to prove that HE is a rapist. HE does not have to prove that HE is not a rapist in order to sue HER for calling him a rapist. Until she can point to a judgment or verifiable fact that shows he did in fact rape her (or the other two women she tried to frame him with…who were also dismissed as false) then she is defaming him.

          In fact statements that someone is a criminal if it is presumed by the audience that they are true is per se libelous. It really isn’t difficult to ‘get’ this.

    2. Her speech was libelous. In effect the university rewarded and encouraged her for the libelous speech.

      I do think he should have named her in the suit as well, but the university did enough to warrant a lawsuit.

      1. It has not been proven in court to be libelous. In order for him to get such a judgement, he has to sue her, not the university.

        1. He is suing the univeristy, its president, and a professor. I think we find out whether a third party repeating an unsubstantiated claim that likely will bever be substantiated falls under libel. I believe it does. Note that “Sulkowicz has claimed that…” Is vety different than “He raped Sulkowicz…”

  34. I think this woman belongs in an asylum, not at college. She is just yet another case of the quickly growing mountain of false rape accusations that are coming out of colleges recently. I just wish we had people in positions of power who actually had some courage to do something about it. Setup some harsh consequences of false rape claims and half of this crap would just melt away.

  35. ” But I can’t understand why Sulkowicz would bother addressing this aspect of the dispute, when her position (at least previously) was that Nungesser brutally raped her. If that’s true, it trumps any disagreement over artistic expression.”

    What’s not to understand?

    She had to make the claim on artistic grounds instead of truth because:
    a) Her charges were not true.
    b) SJWs don’t believe that the truth of your statements are an affirmative defense in any case.

    One day she’ll write some personal bio admitting that all her original charges were “performance art” to “raise awareness”, where she’ll congratulate herself on her “courage”.

    Force and fraud are entirely are seen as entirely legitimate weapons in the arsenal of the Progressive Theocracy. Duh. They’re not *libertarians*, they’re *theocratic totalitarians*.

  36. “but one of my past professors for allowing me to make an art piece”

    Paul’s lawyer says “Merci beaucoup. Keep em coming.”

  37. This bitch is a fucking liar !! It is NOT art !! She did it as a means of protest regarding her false rape accusation !! She is just trying to capitalize on the mattress fiasco by claiming it’s art. If there were no case, there would be no mattress-carrying.Paul is NOT ridiculous for suing the school; he is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED!! Emma Sulkowicz , just STFU AND ACCEPT YOUR DEFEAT !!!

  38. Why is it all the feminist authors lock their articles against commenting the fastest, and / or have the most hoops to jump through in order to comment on the article? This the first ‘news’ website I have actually had to register entirely by manual information without being able to just streamline it with social media, like every other relevant and current news outlet with online content.
    I guess it goes to show just how current and relevant ‘reason.com’ and it’s authors are…

    That aside
    artistic expression < privacy rights and no, having a vagi–I mean a victim card, doesn’t mean you can play it in order to turn someone who doesn’t have a vagi–I mean victim card, into your victim. That’s called sexism, but is often if not always synonymous with the 20 century concept of ‘third wave feminism’ in the 21st century (likely why it’s fizzling out faster than a feminists sex drive with an assertive male who doesn’t tolerate childish bossy attitudes)

    This is not a criminal courtroom where you can testify without evidence and hope to convince the jury–I mean audience that your story isn’t as much a creative fiction as the rest of your ‘artwork’
    The double edge sword cuts both ways. Your rights are not allowed to overrule another’s rights, even if it makes you feel really bad and #triggered not being able to do so.

  39. btw : it’s highest time for men to unite and protect each other, to formate own, extrasystemic courts to hunt down and catch, trial and punish criminal women on our own, or there will never be justice let alone savety for men and children !

    Time to act before it’s even more too late !

    Men unite ! The lazy parasitic fascist gender still is totally dependent on men ! Men to 99% of all survival and civilisatioon- relevant work. women only work so little, that they make only 30% of the money, but they spent 70% of all money ! The jobs women to are always ( with insignifical exceptions ) only the save and comfi works with regular working times, no dirt and danger involved. All the unnecessary and useless work in terms of survival !

    so let’s all united boycot the fascist parasitic toxic scum gender !
    NEver suport any woman ! never support any woman, never ever spent a dollar on a woman ! never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever Marry ! etcetcetc : let those toxic disease be strong and independent on their own, the lazy fascist parasites they are !

    Boycott women now ! they say they dont need us anyway 😀 lets make them choke, respt starve on their toxic parasitic lies !

    Starve a parasite today, make the world a lol better, less evil and more humane !!

    Thank you for your kind attention, good sirs 🙂

  40. The Emma “The Mattress” Sulkowicz celebrity story may be the most outrageous false campus rape allegation of all time, even surpassing the Duke Lacrosse Team scandal and the Rolling Stone fiasco for the rape fable with the most traction. Google: Model of Campus Gender-Based Harassment: The Columbia University “Mattress” Story.

  41. She doesn’t address it because she lied about it. She and others keep trying to make this some free speech issue. When in fact it is not. The man was cleared of charges on several occasions. Free speech doesn’t give you a shield to defame people. Imagine if he walked around campus with a sign that said ‘Emma Sulkowicz is a baby killing slut who fucks children.’ With nothing to suggest that any of that is true, no one on Earth would dare call that appropriate or legal whether he called it art or not.

    Sadly in today’s society if you remotely challenge that someone was raped you are part of rape culture. You probably raped 20 people yesterday if you even slightly entertain the notion that that the claim was false. That is as big of an issue as anything else in this saga.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.