the horrible tragedy is that the real damage such women do is not to the man they want to hurt, but to the 100 other cases of genuine rape their false rape charges now put into doubt but a handful of charges of rape are made by women who's motivations are completely false. most charges of rape are indeed cases about a real rape, that needs to be punished harshly. It's sort of like some of the problems surrounding allegations of rape. if you think it is impossible to leak and lie at the same time, you've never encountered a disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client before the bank's efforts at defending itself are certainly vile, but this doesn't mean the leaker has virtuous motivations either. disclosure of private data).Īctually, yes you can. This protection has to extend to the original whistle-blower, and the reporting agents (journalists, wikileaks, etc.), even though they may be technically breaking certain laws (e.g. But unauthorized publication of data which unequivocally proves that some bigger crime has occurred has to be allowed and protected if we are going to fight big crimes. If the information can be shown to be false, then yes it should be removed. This is why we consider it reasonable for a reporter to 'not disclose a source' and why Wikileaks should be protected. I don't know to what extent this has been legally codified, but the consensus has grown to be that whistle-blowing should be somehow allowed, or even encouraged and protected. Nearly all whistle-blowing is illegal, since someone is violating a confidentiality agreement, breaking a contract, publishing private information, etc. Well this is the fundamental question of whistle-blowing. I'm not sure if exposing some tax fraud is a goal high enough to disregard legal standards. If the facts seem to show that I am guilty, I think the way a truly innocent person would counter that would be to say 'No, here is the real story, and here's the explanation for the suspicious facts.' To come up with alternate, inconsistent explanations is practically ADMIT Any of the three could be true, but it is impossible for all three to be true simultaneously. Yeah, but I think that, if I was on a jury and heard a lawyer make a set of arguments like that, I would have to assume he or she was lying. you can have multiple starting points for your arguments, they don't all have to start from one premise). You could think of each alternative argument as a root to an individual tree (i.e. It may seem to logically conflict, but each argument stands by itself. * in the further alternative, I was there, saw it happen but was unable to intervene or identify the culprits * alternatively, I was at the scene of the crime but was not involved and did not see the crime take place from my vantage point.

In law you can have 'conflicting' statements via alternative arguments.

Data stash on jotspot