Community contribution

"*that's not up for you to decide*" Actually it is. It was placed on us, as a society, to judge Lucy by her own attorneys' actions. Her attorneys wanted wanted us to judge her as a victim, to take their word for it, and to protest and demand that the "culture" at Cornell be given an enigma that is only favorable to his consignment fee. However, if we take the position that is fundamentally wrong, that we must judge, having been invited to do exactly that by her attorneys' 5,000 million media appearances, then all of sudden we are not supposed to "judge". The attorneys want the population to be sheep and just accept their version without any questioning. We are okay to judge her favorably as a victim, but we are not okay to mention her name if we do not accept her narrative. Sorry, but I will indeed judge her as a whore, based on the same evidence that she wants us to disregard and just take her lolwyer's word that she is a "victim". The first amendment would be useless if we did not judge her, either favorably or disfavorably to her position, because we have been invited by her representation to do exactly that, and when we did, and when we saw the discrepancies and omissions and implausiblility of her narrative all of a sudden we have become "begots" in the eyes of her attorney. An attorney who has just labelled half the country as "bigots" merely because they do not buy his famefag narrative cannot be trusted with anything else because he has shown that he cannot be trusted with the vital and most meaningful aspects of stewardship of the first amendment. He has shown that he only cares about the first amendment if it is favorable to his client and his media narrative and his case, but if you challenge that, well you are automatically a bigot.