Rape

The Judge That Ruled Against Kesha Is Right: Not All Rapes Are Hate Crimes

Whether or not Kesha is telling the truth, there isn't enough evidence to get her out of her contract with Dr. Luke.

|

Kesha
Screenshot via VEVO / Youtube

Pop star Kesha was dealt a major defeat in her lawsuit against Sony Music Wednesday after a judge ruled that she could not escape her contract with Dr. Luke, the record producer she has accused of raping her. 

A number of factors were working against Kesha: the statute of limitations on such claims, the fact that she testified previously that Dr. Luke did not date rape her (according to court proceedings reported by CNN), and the perception that Kesha was actually seeking to end an inconvenient business arrangement and was using the sexual assault allegations as a vehicle to achieve that. 

Her claims are difficult to judge on their own. Kesha says Dr. Luke abused her physically and emotionally, caused her to have an eating disorder, and took advantage of her youth—she was just 18 when she signed with him. Dr. Luke, on the other hand, maintains that they never even had sex. He is suing Kesha for breach of contract. 

In ruling against Kesha, Judge Shirley Werner Kornreich criticized the singer's contention that Dr. Luke had committed a hate crime. "Every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime," said the judge. 

Kornreich is already drawing significant criticism for this remark. 

"Well if that ain't rape culture in one fucked sentence," observed Vulture writer Dee Lockett. 

Indeed, it sounds like a heartless remark that cheapens the severity of rape. Nevertheless, it's true from a legal standpoint. Hate crimes, broadly defined, are criminal acts motivated by specific animus against a protected class. Murder, for instance, is a terrible crime, but not all murders constitute hate crimes—not even all murders against protected minorities, like people of color. If Person A kills Person B, who is black, Person A has committed murder, but he has not necessarily committed a hate crime. It's only a hate crime if he kills Person B because Person B is black. It is the same for rape. 

Kesha didn't present any evidence that Dr. Luke's actions toward her were motivated by gender-based hatred. On the contrary, she didn't actually allege that he hates women, according to Kornreich.

Crimes like murder and sexual assault, it should be noted, are horrible enough in their own right. While this isn't remotely unique to the Kesha case, it's nevertheless strange that the law seeks to probe the intentions of people who commit unspeakable crimes, as if their reasons for doing so could make matters worse. Hate crime legislation puts law enforcement in the bizarre position of having to read the minds of criminals: not to determine whether they are guilty, but to determine why they behaved badly. Since the decision to commit a crime often stems from a variety of complicated psychological motivations, the hate crime doctrine begins to resemble an attempt to punish people, not for committing crimes, but for harboring evil thoughts. For an exploration of this subject, read Jacob Sullum.

But back to Kesha. It's understandable that she doesn't want to work with someone she says abused her. And the outcome in this case doesn't mean she's lying, but rather, that there isn't enough evidence for a judge to declare her contract voided. Again, that's an injustice for Kesha, but one that makes sense from the court's perspective. If contracts were dissolved every time one party or another made accusations they couldn't substantiate, then contracts would be unenforceable. 

None of which is to say that victims of sexual violence and harassment don't deserve justice. If any good comes of this decision, perhaps Kesha's situation should serve as reminder to victims to report mistreatment and violence to the police immediately—not years after the passage of time has rendered justice impossible. 

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.

48 responses to “The Judge That Ruled Against Kesha Is Right: Not All Rapes Are Hate Crimes

  1. From what I’ve heard from other sources, the ‘singer’ is halfway through her contract with Sony, and after her initial complaint, Sony offered to change producers to get her away from any interpersonal issues with the current producer. The ‘singer’ declined, instead insisting she be let out of her contract. If true, this says to me that there are no merits to her accusations, as the true goal is to get out of this contract in order to shop for a better paying one.

    1. These little disputes about factual matters should not blind us to the absurdity of the argument employed in this article. The author states:

      “If Person A kills Person B, who is black, Person A has committed murder, but he has not necessarily committed a hate crime. It’s only a hate crime if he kills Person B because Person B is black. It is the same for rape.”

      Exactly, it is the same for rape ? and, contrary to the author’s foolish argument, rape is a hate crime, because when Person A rapes Person B, he does so precisely because she is a women. Arguing that rape is not a hate crime is like arguing that an offensive act of impersonation, whether it constitutes “parody” or not, is not necessarily engaged in with the intent to damage a reputation. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

      http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

      Let us all join in condemning the outrageous “First Amendment dissent” of a single liberal judge in that case, just as we should the preposterous statement of Judge “Kornreich” in this case. The easiest way to damage a distinguished academic department chairman’s reputation is to expose his alleged misconduct through inappropriately deadpan “Gmail confessions,” just as the easiest way to express one’s hatred of women is to rape them.

      1. “Exactly, it is the same for rape ? and, contrary to the author’s foolish argument, rape is a hate crime, because when Person A rapes Person B, he does so precisely because she is a women.”

        Wrong. He doesn’t necessarily hate her because she is a woman. He may rape instead of kill her because she is a woman.

        Let’s say there’s a toxine that only kills women. A man uses it to kill a woman. To your mind, is that necessarily a “hate crime”? I hold that it isn’t. He may hate a woman because she “stole” his bisexual wife, decide to kill the “thief” with a convenient tool, and thus use this sex-specific toxin. (Assume that he would also have killed a man who “stole” his wife.)

        1. That’s a sophistry if I ever saw one. It’s almost as bad as saying “the criminal NYU provocateur didn’t impersonate the distinguished department chairman because he wanted to damage his reputation, he did it because he wanted to call attention to serious allegations of plagiarism.” Everyone knows that people who want to accuse someone of plagiarism present their charges in an appropriate manner and not with mocking “Gmail confessions,” just as everyone knows that people who love woman don’t go around raping them.

      2. Ironically, If Person A kills Person B, who is white, Person A has committed murder, AND he has not committed a hate crime. It’s never a hate crime if he kills Person B because Person B is white.

        Think otherwise? See “The Wichita Massacre” where two black animals spent an evening raping, beating, torturing, robbing a group of white people. After they’d had their “fun” they drove them – naked – to the middle of a snow-covered field and one-by-one put a bullet in their heads.

        All of which they might have gotten away with – had not one of the victims survived.

        And yet – it was not a “hate crime”.

      3. Then you have the case of the four blacks in Knoxville who attacked a young white couple. “According to defendants’ statements, Newsom [the 23-year-old white male] wasn’t there long before he was taken away, sexually assaulted, shot in the back of the head, set on fire and left beside some railroad tracks a few blocks away.

        Over the next 24 hours, Channon [the 21-year-old female] was raped in every conceivable way, bleach was sprayed in her mouth to destroy evidence and, Coleman told investigators, Davidson “snapped” her neck. Medical Examiner Darinka Mileusnic-Pochan testified at Boyd’s trial, however, that the young woman died of suffocation after she was wrapped in plastic bags and dumped in a closed trash can.”

        Not… a… hate… crime.

        Personally, I think the whole idea of “hate crimes” is bullshit. I personally don’t care what a person “thinks” beyond whether they intended to do what they did. I really don’t care “why” they intended to do what they did. Is it any worse to murder person B because he’s black than it is to murder person B because he’s white? I say, “No”. Both are murder. Handle them the same and put an end to this politically-correct parade of bullshit.

  2. Well, it’s a hate crime in the “non-traditional sense”. Of course the idea is to treat it like an actual hate crime, legally. It’s fairly insane, & half fictional. Much like the idea of calling people “surivivors” for things that show no inclination whatsoever of killing them. We could all go, call ourselves survivors of traffic, daily, and of soft drinks.

    It’s rather accurate to call his hysteria, extending to affirmative consent and denying reality*, extending to intoxication, extending to defining the ridiculous as normal, in the case of behavior after alleged sexual assaults (staying over night, afffectionate messages, more dating and sex, the revenge). Fine as a rhetorical figure, insane when it becomes fiction treated as social and legal reality.

    *”Preponderance of the evidence” is worth a discussion all on its own. In the social setttings in question, it is utterly impossible to frame probability in units as small as 1 percent. This gives judges (broadly understood) free reign, arbitrary power over results. Couple it with a captured agency, one sustained by feminism (often: one where the agent, ideologically, is the principal), and you are bound to get nice results.

    1. “It’s rather accurate to call his hysteria,” – “[t]his hysteria”, was the idea. Though I’d be interested in an attempt of getting called out for hysteria.

  3. So in addition to rape, there’s now hate rape?

    *strings up noose* Welp, that’s it for me…. I’m out. Can’t deal with this shit anymore. Purge my internet history before you notify my family, please.

    1. *cuts noose*

      You’re not getting out of this so easily.

      1. *sighs…drags large cooler back out of the room*

        That’s a lot of work for nothing, thanks Swiss

          1. Oops, he’s usually the one ruining my meals.

            1. Don’t you mean ? “Tulpa”? *** nudgenudgewinkwink ***

    2. No, not in addition. It’s *the* feminist concept. Rape is not a crime of sex, of sexual desire, it’s a crime of hate, of power and punishment agaiinst women. That idea even has found reception in law. It seems there currently is the unresolved conflict over whether it’s a crime of hate against a single woman, or of hate against women as women. The tendency is toward the later, glimpses of which can be seen in the standard assumption of serial rapists (hating a “series” of women means hating women as such).

    3. We won’t tolerate your hate suicide.

    4. So in addition to rape, there’s now hate rape?

      *strings up noose* Welp, that’s it for me…. I’m out.

      You’re not even gonna hang around to see what unintentional hate rape and accessory to unintentional hate rape look like?

  4. “Every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime.”

    “English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?”

    1. No, they’re a lawyer, lawyers are incapable of speaking a real language.

      1. “Pardon me, I speak lawyer…. He says he needs whisky and a contingency fee case or two, can you please help”

        1. +1 “the fish”

  5. ..it’s nevertheless strange that the law seeks to probe the intentions of people who commit unspeakable crimes, as if their reasons for doing so could make matters worse.

    Yes, but it does make us all feel better because it changes people’s hearts and minds, and isn’t that what blind justice is supposed to do?

  6. I’ve got it! It’s new, improved, and mostly SFW:

    Labia License

  7. If some rapes are hate crimes, does that mean the others were done out of love?

    Such idiocy.

    1. Yes, Love Crimes are very common.

      Just ask Florida Man about what Florida Woman gets up to in the name of love…

    2. NEVER FEELS LIKE HATRED TO STEVE SMITH

    3. What about love games?

      /OldGregg

  8. I call bullshit. Nobody would want to fuck her, let alone rape her.

  9. Rollem over dude, lets go man.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

    1. Anonbot’s lack of self awareness is the only reason I don’t block it.

  10. Well, if Dee Lockett has their way, there is no necessity for government to read minds. That a rape is a hate crime is a tautology. Of course, if rape is by definition a hate crime it is unclear why that should a designation on top of the basic charge.

  11. should serve as reminder to victims to report mistreatment and violence to the police immediately?not years after the passage of time has rendered justice impossible.

    Ruh- Oh!

    Blaming the Victim Alert! Incoming!

  12. “A number of factors were working against Kesha: the statute of limitations on such claims, the fact that she testified previously that Dr. Luke did not date rape her (according to court proceedings reported by CNN), and the perception that Kesha was actually seeking to end an inconvenient business arrangement and was using the sexual assault allegations as a vehicle to achieve that.

    So it isn’t only that she has a clear motive for lying; she actually testified under oath previously that he never raped her?

    Why shouldn’t a motive for lying be taken into consideration when trying to establish the credibility of witnesses?

    Incidentally, these sorts of allegations are fairly common in divorce and custody cases. “My soon to be ex-husband abused and molested the children” is a great way to intimidate your ex-spouse into accepting an unfavorable custody arrangement–and capitulate to other demands, too. If family court judges didn’t take the motives for those accusations into consideration, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs.

  13. “If Person A kills Person B, who is black, Person A has committed murder, but he has not necessarily committed a hate crime. It’s only a hate crime if he kills Person B because Person B is black. It is the same for rape.”

    OMG, it sounds like a libertarian who thinks hate crimes have some kind of legitimate rationalization.

    Crime is violating someone’s rights. Criminals willingly forgo certain liberties if and when they willfully violate someone’s rights. This willful violation of rights is part of what I’m talking about when I talk about mens rea. The true purpose of a jury is to determine whether the accused willfully forfeited certain liberties when he or she willfully violated someone’s rights. Even in crimes of neglect, I would argue, the criminal willfully disregards someone’s rights–and someone’s rights are violated because of it.

    Apart from establishing mens rea, the government has no business punishing people for what they think. There is no justification for hate crime. Hating someone is not a crime. Hating someone doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, and the government has no business punishing people for it. Motive may help establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and mens rea, but motive is not a crime. I’d go so far as to suggest that every libertarian who says otherwise is wrong.

    1. Hate crime is a concept with an official legal definition, and you can judge whether some certain act meets that definition without actually endorsing the notion of hate crimes. Just like we can criticize police for imprisoning people for having “drugs” that turn out to be sugar or maple leaves, without actually accepting the legitimacy of the War or Drugs.

      1. The actual legal definition of hate crime is indistinguishable from horseshit.

        Using your example, whether taking drugs should be a crime is one question.

        Whether the government can differentiate between various motivations for taking drugs–and punish certain motivations specifically–is another question entirely.

        Pointing out the real differences between various motivations is to assume the differences are real and distinguishable by judges (or juries). It is one thing to show motivation to establish the existence of criminal intent. Quite another to claim the government can make qualitative distinctions between various motivations.

  14. “Again, that’s an injustice for Kesha”
    And, how – pray tell – Robby Soave do you know that? If she’s lying – and she may well be – then it’s justice, even if Keisha doesn’t like it.

  15. That awful judge! I blame George W. Bu….. I mean Donald Trump. And all men.

  16. Indeed, it sounds like a heartless remark that cheapens the severity of rape.

    Dammit, Bobby! No it doesn’t. It sounds like a true statement. It also sounds like you’re softening your remarks again so that you get invited to the right sorts of social gatherings. Don’t capitulate to these SJW shitheels! Stand your ground!

  17. There is a crime or there is no crime. There is nos such thing as a hate crime.

  18. I actually think Robby’s actually found something people care less about than whiny college students.

    1. actually actually actually actually

    2. It’ literally true

  19. Judge Shirley Werner Kornreich criticized the singer’s contention that Dr. Luke had committed a hate crime. “Every rape is not a gender-motivated hate crime,” said the judge.

    Kornreich is already drawing significant criticism for this remark.

    “Well if that ain’t rape culture in one fucked sentence,” observed Vulture writer Dee Lockett.

    Don’t ‘Advocates’ argue that any use of alcohol makes consent impossible, and therefore anytime a woman is drunk and having sex then “Rape” is occurring?

    Is *that* a hate crime?

    By contemporary “advocates” own expansive definitions of rape, they are clearly insisting that Rape happens when no one intends it to at all, and clearly isn’t a “hate crime”.

    Robby should know this better than anyone, yet leaps to tsk tsk tsk the judge for stating the obvious

  20. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  21. Jebus, Soave, stop giving aid and comfort to the fucking retarded assholes you’re writing about

  22. I think the judge’s point is closer to “sexual assault allegations are not a valid pretext for negotiating yourself out of a bad contract.” Her lawyers upping the ante of her unsubstantiated claims forced the judge to address them, but my guess is, it’s really that you don’t win lawsuits just to affirm universals truths like Rape Is Bad. The facts have to line up, and Kesha’s didn’t. I think the biggest lesson from this is that the notion that most sexual assault victims don’t come forward is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. I don’t entirely buy it anyway, but its not an Ace in the hole, it’s a crime.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.