Rape is a crime. A crime of nonconsensual sexual activity with another person. That, by necessity, requires consent for uncriminalized sex. Children can’t give consent and that’s why sex with children is called statutory rape.
That’s their point: Rape being an explicit crime makes the whole thing a legal minefield.
Accusing someone of something opens you up to being sued for defamation. Truth is a defense against defamation. If I slander my neighbour for taking photos of my bedroom windows and they sue me, I can produce the photos where they are visible in the reflection as evidence that what I said is true.
However, an accusation of committing a specific crime is considered true if and only if the defendant has been judged guilty in a court of law. Until then, they are considered innocent in the eyes of the law. Proving the truth of your accusation would first require the accused being criminally charged, tried and found guilty. By then, you might have lost the suit for defamation or poured a lot of money into legal defense.
So a major news outlet accusing a sitting, immune and known to be vindictive president of a crime that he can’t be tried for for the next three years and might never be convicted for by the justice system he rigged would be gambling with much to lose, little to win and awful odds.
Saying he had sex with children is essentially the same content, but a different packaging that doesn’t paint as much of a target on your forehead.
Is it fucked? For sure. Is it possible they’re just trying to sanewash the crime? Absolutely. At the very least, it’s spineless. This isn’t me defending their choice of wording, just elaborating on the reasoning behind it potentially being a CYA.
What are you on about?
Rape is a crime. A crime of nonconsensual sexual activity with another person. That, by necessity, requires consent for uncriminalized sex. Children can’t give consent and that’s why sex with children is called statutory rape.
That’s their point: Rape being an explicit crime makes the whole thing a legal minefield.
Accusing someone of something opens you up to being sued for defamation. Truth is a defense against defamation. If I slander my neighbour for taking photos of my bedroom windows and they sue me, I can produce the photos where they are visible in the reflection as evidence that what I said is true.
However, an accusation of committing a specific crime is considered true if and only if the defendant has been judged guilty in a court of law. Until then, they are considered innocent in the eyes of the law. Proving the truth of your accusation would first require the accused being criminally charged, tried and found guilty. By then, you might have lost the suit for defamation or poured a lot of money into legal defense.
So a major news outlet accusing a sitting, immune and known to be vindictive president of a crime that he can’t be tried for for the next three years and might never be convicted for by the justice system he rigged would be gambling with much to lose, little to win and awful odds.
Saying he had sex with children is essentially the same content, but a different packaging that doesn’t paint as much of a target on your forehead.
Is it fucked? For sure. Is it possible they’re just trying to sanewash the crime? Absolutely. At the very least, it’s spineless. This isn’t me defending their choice of wording, just elaborating on the reasoning behind it potentially being a CYA.