http://archive.is/yXgHh

Once polio was cured, polio charities found new reasons to exist. Similarly, once feminism achieves one victory - such as unproven, public accusations being viewed as credible - it moves on to further techniques to harm men.

One, new technique is to equate a denial with defamation. Whether or not such "creative" tactics hold water legally, they defy common sense and are yet one more method for women to intimidate or stalk men.

Common sense says defamation is a false affirmative statement: (Male X): Ms Y is a prostitute.

Yet recently, simple denials have placed men in legal jeopardy:

Cosby accuser Y: Cosby done me wrong 356 years ago.
Cosby/lawyer: False.
Y sues Cosby/lawyer for "current" defamation, thus circumventing the statute of limitations for the original issue 356 years ago.

Trump accuser Z: Trump/lawyer physically threatened me. (No proof.)
Trump/lawyer: False.
Z sues Trump/lawyer for defamation.

If the accuser makes the statement in a court document, the accused/lawyer might hold a press conference and read from the denial response document in order to avoid the defamation accusation. But if the accuser has not made the statement in any court document, the accused is in a double-bind: If he doesn't deny the accusation, it will be said to prove him guilty. But if he denies the accusation, he gets sued for defamation.

If the woman's false accusation is made for revenge (say, for a failed relationship), then it's actually the woman offending, by stalking.

If the woman's false accusation is made for money or notoriety, then it's actually the woman offending, by extortion.

Yet, in either case, the feminist "defamation" tactic can be used not only to advance a pussy pass and deny the male justice, but to further intimidate the male.