175
submitted 4 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Neil Gaiman — the best-selling author whose work includes comic book series *The Sandman *and the novels Good Omens and American Gods — has denied sexual assault allegations made against him by two women with whom he had relationships with at the time, Tortoise Media reports.

The allegations were made during Tortoise’s four-part podcast Master: the Allegations Against Neil Gaiman, which was released Wednesday. In it, the women allege “rough and degrading sex” with the author, which the women claim was not always consensual.

One of the women, a 23-year-old named Scarlett, worked as a nanny to his child.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

So what you're saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!

Edit: Just to note that parent comment has been ninja edited, multiple hours after my comment was made and a whole conversation was carried out. The original comment was something to the effect of 'Two people accused him, it MUST be true!'

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Yes, it’s a conspiracy! That’s a great first assumption. Classic misogyny

[-] awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 months ago

No, you're the one who started with the assumptions. The correct behaviour is to make no assumptions and wait for the legal system to sort things out.

Jeez, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to a mod on one of the biggest communities on lemmy.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.

Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.

Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?

Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?

[-] awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I'm all for supporting women. Give them a chance to speak out, make sure they are fairly listened to and taken seriously. You've gone a step beyond that, you've already decided guilt and innocence and proclaimed it. More, you're doing so from a position of influence (yes, as a moderator of a large community, that's what you are). This is the sort of thing that libel charges get filed for (ok, not gonna happen at our current size, but you may want to start keeping that in mind.)

Why would you default to that?

Because that's the basis of our legal bloody system! There's a thousand law professors out there who can explain it better and more eloquently than I could in a thousand years, but that's the gist of it.

You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.

That's correct. We do, however, need a conviction before stating it as fact instead of opinion.

Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence

I beg to differ. I have not sided with any party. What is it about people today that they seem unable to grasp the concept of neutrality?

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

So what you’re saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!

This doesn't insinuate it's a lie? You're being disingenuous now lol.

[-] awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago

No, it does not. I have not read anything about Gaiman's case, and have absolutely no opinion on it at this point. My comment was entirely a commentary on the absurdity of your logic.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

OJ is innocent, Cosby is innocent... cool

[-] awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

Dude seriously. You're a mod, act like it.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I won’t stop calling out misogyny just because I’m a mod. You’re stating that all these men are innocent despite mountains of evidence. Maybe instead of defending them until your last breath, you could read about the evidence?

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

No one forced you to watch the Amazon adaption of Good Omens. You can have just stuck with the book.

this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
175 points (100.0% liked)

News

23275 readers
2990 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS