View Comments (2)

• No good cause is ever served by suppressing the truth. If the accusation is false, regardless of all other factors, it needs to be shown for what it is. In no way does this damage the credibility of real victims giving honest testimony, nor will such a suit discourage anyone otherwise willing to come forward and report a crime from doing so.

  It's simply an attempt to silence someone whose particular truth is unpalatable to adherents of a certain illogical political philosophy who themselves gripe endlessly about being silenced when they try to tell their side of the story.

  Let all be heard and let all understand that the freedom to speak is not guaranteed to come with no consequences. If you misuse that freedom to lie and slander you may pay a price for it. Indeed, even if you speak the truth you may pay a price for it. No law can or should attempt to immunize one and all from the responsibility for what they say.

  That is a more important message these for a group that dares call itself Right to Speak Out to convey to those it wishes to encourage to come forward with testimony. Speaking the truth isn't just a right, it's an obligation. Those who have been assaulted and remain silent, while their reasons are understandable, nevertheless help create the kind of environment in which predators feel safe to operate. After the ordeals the victims have been through it's understandable that they would not want to subject themselves to the ignorance and cruelty with which their testimony may be met, but this does not acquit them of the responsibility to identify their attackers.

  Likewise, when false accusations are made, it is the obligation of those who have been unjustly charged to speak out against such persecution, which is often a hidden cost of celebrity, so that all will understand that freedom of speech isn't free. The exercise of it often comes at a high price and those who speak out should be prepared to pay that price whether or not they think it's fair.

  There is no such thing as a harmful truth or a harmless lie.

• As someone whom was falsely accused of rape myself I am obviously going to have some subjective bias in what I am going to say so consider this sentence the disclarimer. Right To Speak Out's logic for asking Oberst to drop his lawsuit is completely flawed and actually contradicts their mission statement. My argument is as follows:

  1. By saying Oberst is silencing victims of actual sexual misconduct (whether it be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree) they are permiting a rape culture of another sort. A revenge culture if you will. This is because they allow a culture where people can make false accusations without having to worry about any consequences. This also hurts actual victims because it will make the individuals whom comprise the justice system develop an unhealthy skepticism towards the subject of rape whether consciously or subconsciously.

  2. If Oberst is innocent then Right To Speak Out should actually be SUPPORTIVE of his lawsuit as what this woman has done, based on the assumption that Oberst is innocent, is a form of rape. By taking a stance to the contrary they are actually permitting one form of rape while disagreeing with another. I know that all people are hypocritical to some extent but openly making such a statement this group has lost all credibility and can be labeled as fanatic as well as terrorizing.

  3. It's also highly sexist since they are saying women should be allowed to make false accusations while men should be gagged. Rape is a crime that does not show a preference towards gender except for in the sense. There are all forms of rape besides those in the sexual sense. I mean do we want to promote such a culture?