Linda Farstein former head of the Sex Crimes unit of Manhattan has filed a lawsuit in the Federal court of Florida against Netflix/Ava DuVernay/Attica Locke I've defamation.

I've spent probably at minimum, 50+ hours researching this case. Watching films, reading court documents, the interrogation tapes, others analysis of the cases. etc.

I'm so glad the 'Woke' crowd is more commonly being held accountable for misrepresentation and defamation.

My guess is Fairstein comes out with millions.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/netflix-deserves-to-pay-up-for-smearing-central-park-five-prosecutor%3f_amp=true

(Below is a link to lawsuit)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Central-Park-Five.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi65t2Z9dzoAhXUVc0KHSkhAtsQFjALegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0b5MSYAXXlZhNz-7WOF1tc

Defamation of a public official is a famously high bar to prove.
The movie undoubtably impugned her falsely, and it cast a completely bullshit presentation of the central park five that ignored all the facts establishing their guilt and turned all law enforcement into one dimensional villains.
But is that enough? Establishing actual malice is hard when the director can hide behind "interpretation". Its not enough to say that the truth is different and they should have known it.

Its possible, but its a long shot. Stuff like this was easier to fix in older times when the defamed person would just challenge them to a duel

That was my worry as well.

However, I've read through her lawsuit, it's about 119 pages. It's a very strong case. They have her portrayed as a Prosecutor for the case, which she actually wasnt. As well as leading investigations, saying racist quotes that she never did. She lost employment opportunities, received death threats, lost publishers, membership on Boards, etc.

She has lots of quotes from the director and Locke on Social Media and emails, which established malice and hatred towards Fairstein and knowingly misrepresenting her, avoiding looking at the case files or wanting to create an accurate depiction.

One example, contacting an award company to get her award withdrawn. Seems like they're going out of their way create damages on Fairsteins life.

https://twitter.com/atticalocke/status/1067463803187560448?s=20

That's just one example. There is so much in that lawsuit.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Apr 11 2020 10:58am

the right wing at it again with their crusade against free speech, trying to police thoughts and expression. what a bunch of whiny little snowflakes really...

Here's a source for you.

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=22049495&f=119

https://imgur.com/aap9WoM

This post was edited by Santara on Apr 11 2020 11:27am

Historical revisionism in my opinion is really damaging.

You will have millions formulating their opinions of real life events based on dramatized half truths which will further fuel hate and persecution complexes.

What are the ramifications of community-police relations when you have popular shows playing up the cops racist narrative?

I don't really like the use of the term "historical revisionism" in this context because revising our opinion of history is what should happen when new information comes out.

I think a better description of this would be historical dramatization, which can be useful for getting a larger narrative across but is generally done at the expense of historical accuracy. A movie that condenses 16 scientists into two scientists to tell a story isn't really bad, it's basically what we have done as a culture with Albert Einstein and all his collaborators, but when you turn a group with a lot of internal debate and moral gray area into one scientist who is definitely right and knew it all along and the bureaucracy was just keeping him down then that's dramatization at the expense of accuracy and should be avoided. Seems this was that latter case.

There's a difference between omitting detail due to time constraints or other unbiased reasons and molding a story based on a narrative that you want your audience to form. The current flavor of historical revisionism pretty much focuses on portraying the people who are viewed as privileged as objectively bad meanwhile other groups who aren't part of the privileged group who also shared in the reprehensible behavior are omitted.

Kind of a tangent but really obvious example is slavery. White people by in large are blamed for slavery and if you ask most people today they will tell you white Europeans essentially enslaved blacks and used them as slave labor. Although that's true and undeniable, it fails to share the objective blame considering many years after slavery was abolished in the Americas and Europe it was still widespread in Africa with Arabs enslaving other ethnic groups. Slavery in Africa predates European colonialism and it persists to this day. It's no longer making news but you literally have Islamist groups like Boko Haram enslaving people to this day. You also had widespread slavery in places like Sudan where thousands were being enslaved by the predominantly North Sudan Arabs as recent as the last 20 years.

I'm not defending the colonialists actions and share of blame, but i don't think iv once heard how North African Arabs actions and partaking in slavery ever discussed in the context of slavery, even though it persisted a century after the Euros stopped. The discussion for so long has been framed as white euro slave owner vs black African slave that in a way we've excused by omission what the Arabs have been doing.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 11 2020 12:31pm