Five members from Canada’s 2018 world junior team (Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote and Formenton) told to surrender to police, facing sexual assault charges

[orby]

Kinda confused about this, though. There is a freedom of speech, right? It should be legal to speculate. How could you get legal actioned for it? Do you have the actual laws that that speculation would potentially violate? Defamation or invasion of privacy don't seem to fit, for example.

If it's the forum rules, fine. But I'm not sure why you'd bring legal action here when that doesn't seem to apply.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. You can absolutely get sued for making false statements with the intent of maligning someone's character to damage their career - that is defamation (specifically, libel). Brian Burke successfully sued several HF commenters for defamation around 10 years ago.

 

[FinnLightning26]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. You can absolutely get sued for making false statements with the intent of maligning someone's character to damage their career - that is defamation (specifically, libel). Brian Burke successfully sued several HF commenters for defamation around 10 years ago.

So many people don't understand this simple concept.

 

[TheNumber4]

I really don’t want to open a can of worms here and I don’t really care about the lack of speculation. It is what it is and I will follow site rules.

But just a question, how is it that Twitter or Reddit can name names and have speculation without threat of being “legal actioned” but this place cannot? I don’t think a social media platform should be held liable for the comments of its users. If that was the case, wouldn’t pretty much all social media platforms be at risk of being sued or whatever? Maybe I’m missing something and there’s a distinction between what Reddit/Twitter is and what this forum is. Whoever legal actioned in the past shouldn’t be allowed to hold hostage and censor discussion IMO. I realize the mods have to avoid any such threats, but maybe these threats are empty and should be dismissed as such? Or maybe they are real and I’m missing something.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Question to the mods: as I don’t wish to further waste my time writing posts that will be taken down despite violating zero site rules, could you tell us all your position as to what specifically is allowed to be said in this thread? Apparently only one viewpoint is permitted - that of the players being rapists - and any opposing viewpoint or even argument that we should avoid rushing to judgement until the facts are known is immediately deleted despite zero violation of site rule or even mod request.

Obviously this site does not fall under the American protections of free speech as the moderation is not coming from the government. But it would make everyone’s lives easier - the mods’ included - if your enforced biases were made public so that those who disagree with them can go elsewhere, or at least not waste their time voicing their verboten opinions. Just a suggestion (and one I would have made privately if the option to PM mods existed, but since that doesn’t seem to be possible I’ve done it the only way that is available to me.)

Lmao. I know for a fact you and I would disagree on most things based off this idiotic rant

 

[jonlin]

Found guilty or not, theese guys should face justice. Not only the 5, but the guys watching too. As a dad of 2 daughters, I`m absolutely not ok with 8 guys taking advantage of 1 girl, no matter how drunk she was and if she said "no" or not. They should all face justice. In 1 way or another...

 

[JoVel]

But just a question, how is it that Twitter or Reddit can name names and have speculation without threat of being “legal actioned” but this place cannot?

Well, they don't. But they are huge corporations that have the resources for legal actions, this place probably doesn't.

 

[izzy]

I really don’t want to open a can of worms here and I don’t really care about the lack of speculation. It is what it is and I will follow site rules.

But just a question, how is it that Twitter or Reddit can name names and have speculation without threat of being “legal actioned” but this place cannot? I don’t think a social media platform should be held liable for the comments of its users. If that was the case, wouldn’t pretty much all social media platforms be at risk of being sued or whatever? Maybe I’m missing something and there’s a distinction between what Reddit/Twitter is and what this forum is. Whoever legal actioned in the past shouldn’t be allowed to hold hostage and censor discussion IMO. I realize the mods have to avoid any such threats, but maybe these threats are empty and should be dismissed as such? Or maybe they are real and I’m missing something.

$$$$$$$$$

 

[Osprey]

I really don’t want to open a can of worms here and I don’t really care about the lack of speculation. It is what it is and I will follow site rules.

But just a question, how is it that Twitter or Reddit can name names and have speculation without threat of being “legal actioned” but this place cannot? I don’t think a social media platform should be held liable for the comments of its users. If that was the case, wouldn’t pretty much all social media platforms be at risk of being sued or whatever? Maybe I’m missing something and there’s a distinction between what Reddit/Twitter is and what this forum is. Whoever legal actioned in the past shouldn’t be allowed to hold hostage and censor discussion IMO. I realize the mods have to avoid any such threats, but maybe these threats are empty and should be dismissed as such? Or maybe they are real and I’m missing something.

My guess is that there is no distinction except that Reddit and Twitter have the money to fight back and HF doesn't. The folks running HF are probably nervous because they can't afford a lawsuit, even one that they'd likely win, so they're doing everything possible to avoid legal action. Meanwhile, Reddit and Twitter can ignore such threats because they can afford to fight back if the threats turn out to not be empty.

 

[KevinRedkey]

Found guilty or not, theese guys should face justice. Not only the 5, but the guys watching too. As a dad of 2 daughters, I`m absolutely not ok with 8 guys taking advantage of 1 girl, no matter how drunk she was and if she said "no" or not. They should all face justice. In 1 way or another...

I would imagine the 'taking advantage' part is what's being contested by each individual man in this case. Because if a woman wanted to be with multiple men, and everyone consented properly, there would be no issue.

That said, the fact that this is happening suggests there's more evidence against them than a simple "he said she said". At least I believe and hope that's the case...

 

[CDN24]

I would imagine the 'taking advantage' part is what's being contested by each individual man in this case. Because if a woman wanted to be with multiple men, and everyone consented properly, there would be no issue.

That said, the fact that this is happening suggests there's more evidence against them than a simple "he said she said". At least I believe and hope that's the case...

Her original lawsuit was against 8 people in the room, it seems like 5 will be facing charges based on reporting on the issue. If this gets to trial, I wonder if the other 3 will be testifying to what happened in that room.

 

[Brooklyndevil]

I’m still curious as to why this investigation has taken 5 years, unless I’m mistaken.

 

[MXD]

I really don’t want to open a can of worms here and I don’t really care about the lack of speculation. It is what it is and I will follow site rules.

But just a question, how is it that Twitter or Reddit can name names and have speculation without threat of being “legal actioned” but this place cannot? I don’t think a social media platform should be held liable for the comments of its users. If that was the case, wouldn’t pretty much all social media platforms be at risk of being sued or whatever? Maybe I’m missing something and there’s a distinction between what Reddit/Twitter is and what this forum is. Whoever legal actioned in the past shouldn’t be allowed to hold hostage and censor discussion IMO. I realize the mods have to avoid any such threats, but maybe these threats are empty and should be dismissed as such? Or maybe they are real and I’m missing something.

Twitter. Reddit. HFBoards.

Two of these are significantly richer than the other.

I’m still curious as to why this investigation has taken 5 years, unless I’m mistaken.

It was interrupted.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I don't want to pitchfork. I just want to know what impact these players may have on their team when the race is so tight. I don't follow those teams, but I know some are tight in the standings.

We don't even know if this is some attention seeking fabrication con job by a bitter ex-person. But the impact this puts on teams could be significant.

Well, you do know as a reported fact that four players have taken leave of absences and you can reasonable infer that they will not be rejoining their teams this season.

 

[Icelevel]

This is massive speculation because you have zero way to know who did what, or didn't until everyone gets their day in court. Amazing post.

You’re not understanding what I said.

My post isn’t specific to any situation or person. It’s a general statement that you can apply here or not.

Us outsiders have no way of knowing anything about this case so I’m definitely not going to be making judgements at this point.

 

[Icelevel]

Wow some people have no comprehension skills. This is totally how misinformation spreads. What a total lack of education. Embarrassing times for hfboards.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I really don’t want to open a can of worms here and I don’t really care about the lack of speculation. It is what it is and I will follow site rules.

But just a question, how is it that Twitter or Reddit can name names and have speculation without threat of being “legal actioned” but this place cannot? I don’t think a social media platform should be held liable for the comments of its users. If that was the case, wouldn’t pretty much all social media platforms be at risk of being sued or whatever? Maybe I’m missing something and there’s a distinction between what Reddit/Twitter is and what this forum is. Whoever legal actioned in the past shouldn’t be allowed to hold hostage and censor discussion IMO. I realize the mods have to avoid any such threats, but maybe these threats are empty and should be dismissed as such? Or maybe they are real and I’m missing something.

The rules are the same for Twitter and Reddit, but they have large and salaried legal staffs to deal with these issues. HF does not and thus is much more vulnerable.

 

[FinnLightning26]

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking. I didn’t say that she was those things; I merely pointed out that there are other possibilities besides the players being rapists - which nobody seems to have a problem labeling the men alleged to be involved as, on the basis of absolutely zero evidence.

My use of those terms was intentional, to point out the hypocrisy of those who would be offended at the mere suggestion that the accuser could potentially be those things while finding nothing wrong with labeling the accused as something far more disgusting. And unlike the hypocrites in this thread I never called her those things or said she definitively was them - I simply gave a list of possibilities in which those were included, while at the same time pointing out that none of us know which of these many possibilities (if any) is the truth, and that we should therefore hold off on making any sort of judgement until we have more facts available with which to do so.

But apparently it’s ok here to label potentially innocent men as rapists, with zero evidence to support such a claim, but it’s not ok to even bring up the possibility that a woman could be other than a shining example of purity and good intentions.

In short, thanks to both you and the mods for proving my point.

I very much doubt there was a long investigation and charges to five men if there was "absolutely zero evidence".

 

[LeapOnOver]

I’m still curious as to why this investigation has taken 5 years, unless I’m mistaken.

I didn't read anything about it being interrupted. The article in London Times said that the incident was investigated in 2018 and charges were not brought after the investigation concluded. Then, there was a civil suit filed and a subsequent out of court settlement in 2022. Police decided to reopen the investigation.

This does not fall under speculation. I will say in cases in the past the willingness of the victim sometimes plays a role in the decisions on charges. No idea if that's the case here. But that has happened with sexual assaults in the past.

 

[ERYX]

The studies have been posted in this very thread, and only cover (naturally) reported allegations. No TARDIS required.

What methodologies do these researchers use to determine that “the vast majority of allegations are True?” They weren’t there either nor are they conducting trials. They’re just judging for themselves who they think is speaking truth. But they don’t know any better than you or I.

 

[Channelcat]

Let the courts deal with it. Which is what should have happened years ago. We need to stop with the payouts in these cases.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

I wonder if the reason it took so long to press charges is because one or more of the 3 other players in the room had a change of heart and decided to testify

 

[Cursed Lemon]

But apparently it’s ok here to label potentially innocent men as rapists, with zero evidence to support such a claim

Five dudes got brought in six years after the fact and you think law enforcement has "zero evidence"?

 

[Jugitsu]

I would imagine the 'taking advantage' part is what's being contested by each individual man in this case. Because if a woman wanted to be with multiple men, and everyone consented properly, there would be no issue.

That said, the fact that this is happening suggests there's more evidence against them than a simple "he said she said". At least I believe and hope that's the case...

What could that evidence be? All I can think of is someone who was there acts as a witness against their teammates.

 

[MessierII]

Not if you're reading carefully, they haven't.

For instance:

"Five players from Canada's 2018 world junior team have taken a leave of absence from their current clubs in recent days amid a report that five members of that team"

If the players were identified, they would have said "amid a report that THESE five members...".

Anyhow, it sounds like you've found what you're looking for.

There are tons of articles naming the players.

Police to hold news conference on probe of 2018 sex assault allegations

London police say they will hold a news conference to update its probe into an alleged sexual assault involving junior hockey players

lfpress.com

 

[tfwnogf]

I can't believe this thread is still open.

Anyway, I've been speculating in my head this entire time. Try and stop me