In the court of public opinion, Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor of Slate.com, is getting frustrated over people drawing legal conclusions from Twitter conversations. In the case of Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow, Lithwick maintains it's absolutely clear Dylan should be allowed to say what she needs to say and that her rights were not vindicated by the justice system but that if we believe that this is how we're going to get the truth, that might be a mistake.
Read her article here
In fairness Lithwick has been criticized for this point of view. The Atlantic's Noah Berlatsky maintains Lithwick is overlooking an important fact "The person who wants this to be tried in the court of public opinion—the person who has invited, and even demanded, comment on the family's personal struggle—is Dylan Farrow. And she's done so because she's well aware that the court of public opinion is the only court open to her."
One other fact being overlooked, Lithwick maintains, is "we don't know the facts."
While Lithwick thinks this is a good public policy conversation, "when you dress it up as a legal fact in a non-legal forum with no rules of evidence and no way to test credibility or reliability, we're conflating two processes," she says. It becomes a "cathartic bloodletting." "We can all say we've sided with the victim but we've changed nothing and not only have we not changed the legal outcomes for Dylan Farrow but we haven't changed a policy or made anything different," she adds.
Dahlia Lithwick is a Senior Editor at Slate.com. To read more on what she has to say on Woody Allen vs. Dylan Farrow, click here. She spoke with The Legal Broadcast Network, providing online, on-demand legal video content. The Legal Broadcast Network is a featured network of Sequence Media Group.