Rape Tort Law

I thought this was really interesting: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11438558

It's about that Columbia University girl with the mattress protesting that rape which we now know probably didn't happen back in 2012. Now the guy she accused is sueing the university for failing to protect him from her slander and even passively endorsing it.

Is this duty of care gone too far? Knowing American courts I know they'll think so, but still, it's an interesting case.

admin: Dear United States Taxpayers,

Some chick slandered me and the university we attended did nothing to help me fend off her "words." Please support my legal case to take money from the school, because words suck, and the only just reparation is your children's tuition.

Sincerely
A greedy bastard

Blackflag: I think it's actually legitimate if the university could be seen to promote her message. If the university was siding with her over him rather than remaining neutral, I could see why they'd be party to the slander. The university clearly owes care to the student as they're basically responsible for his safety on campus, and since that was apparently compromised, tort law can be applied.

Yet I still feel that this "greedy bastard" line of thinking is more or less how Americans would take it. The guy is a German exchange student presumably used to the German legal system, which I'm pretty sure would apply the tort. But in America people asking for money are greedy bastards unless proved otherwise.

Removed duplicate comment

admin: Slander is an imposition to free speech. That is why I mimicked how pathetic it is to not be able to "fend off words."

Blackflag: And yet slander is a law. And being a law, judges have no choice but to apply it.

Of course, for the record, a general right of free speech does not mean unlimited freedom to speak. There can still be specific instances that override it.

admin: There can be. There shouldn't be.

Blackflag: Why?

admin: Because the right to talk without limitations is far more beneficial to societies growth than the right to have others protect you from "Words."

Blackflag: No it's not. If I claim some poison is medicine and kill a bunch of people with that lie, how does that help society's growth?

admin: That is why you do not use medicine just because someone told you. I am convinced there isn't one reasonable scenario where words should be restricted by law.

admin: Get back to slander. Slander is not physically harmful. What is your justification there?

Blackflag: So then you're saying we shouldn't listen to people who tell us to use medicine, ie doctors. In other words, let the whole population get sick and die. SO conducive to society's growth.

admin: Prescribing people poison is murder. Telling people to take any unprescribed medicine will get you fired. Being stupid enough to go to the store and pick up unprescibed poison and drinking it is outright retarded. Social darwinism, those people should die.

Blackflag: First of all, slander can be physically harmful. If I lie and say somebody's a witch, the rumor can spread and the person be banned at the stake.

Second, it can also result in material losses, such as financial, in a similar way to fraud.

And third, because people's minds matter. The whole reason why we have laws against physical injury is out of compassion. The same can be extended to verbal attacks. When I was being bullied, things people said about me hurt far more deeply than when I was being beat up.

Get back to slander admin. You are arguing through one example, and it isn't even a good one.
Why should slander be illegal if it doesn't actually physically harm people? Btw, "telling" people to take poison isn't what kills people either.

Blackflag: You know, I've never understood why a social darwinist could possibly oppose abortion. I mean, it's not like unborn babies could ever know this sort of thing.

admin: First of all, slander can be physically harmful. If I lie and say somebody's a witch, the rumor can spread and the person be banned at the stake.
Slander is not harmful. The idiotic people who are going to try and kill you because someone spread a rumor are what will harm you.
Words are words. This isn't the 9th century. No one is going to get killed over a lie, and if for some reason people can get killed over a lie, then it is not the lying which is the problem.

admin: You know, I've never understood why a social darwinist could possibly oppose abortion. I mean, it's not like unborn babies could ever know this sort of thing.
What does abortion have to do with freedom of speech?

And third, because people's minds matter. The whole reason why we have laws against physical injury is out of compassion. The same can be extended to verbal attacks. When I was being bullied, things people said about me hurt far more deeply than when I was being beat up.
I am calling bullshit on this one. Words do not hurt you. Your emotional weakness and instability is what hurt you. I could call you a terrible name, and it would be a personal choice to get offended.

Blackflag: No one is going to get killed over a lie
Then how do you explain every single falsely accused person who's ever been on death row?

if for some reason people can get killed over a lie, then it is not the lying which is the problem.
You can claim its the lying or other people acting in response to that lie. Basically your worldview has people being smart enough to not accept things at face value until proven. Frankly, they will. They always do.