Daily Collegian Article On Starrocci Allegations
- Thread starter Misalorales
- Start date
Exactly, nobody makes "young people" share their personal lives with social media - it's no different than email at work. If you're not sure you want it recorded for posterity, don't type it..... don't record it..... don't post it....
feel invincible or that they somehow inherently 'know it all' in comparison to their elders, 'who just don't get it', but somehow that's the way things always seem to go.
One would think the elders would get that much already to have learned to live and let live, but somehow that's the way things never seem to go.
Syd, Mineo and Palacio all have the exact same personality.
1) You're comparing (alleged) sexual assault to posting cringeworthy stuff on social media. That's insane and gross. You've told us a lot about yourself right there.
2) In regards to the quoted tweet at the bottom, is she not right? Is it legal to rape someone because they post vulgarly on social media?
These are young adults we're talking about and who precisely is suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to "live and let live"??? You're suggesting that adults aren't responsible for the decisions they make (like leading their life on social media) - essentially, you're suggesting that these adults should be treated like children when they make bad decisions, which isn't the way it works my friend. Once these adults decide to make 1000s of social media posts - hundreds of them pertinent to the subject at hand - these videos become admissible in future legal actions be they criminal or civil. There is no question that Syn's habit of just going off half-cocked and spewing unsubstantiated allegations against anyone, and everyone, she chooses is not going to play well for her credibility in Court - especially when it is explained how she is literally making $$$ from these salacious allegations and follow-on salacious posts via people following her and playing the posts (which is what advertisers who pay her for the number of views she gets are solely intrested in).
Is it possible that we all refrain from posting opinions on the future/quality of the Bartlett's marriage? It is so cringe that it makes me want to stay away from this forum. No one here can judge a relationship between two people and what will or won't work.
I have one of my best friends that married one of the toughest (bitchiest) women I know. Everyone thought it was a mistake. But my friend was wild, and frankly would probably be dead right now if he didn't have her keeping him in line. They are happily married after 38 years and raised 2 happy and successful young ladies. And yes, she's still tough and bitchy. But he needs that.
When I told my parents that I was getting married my father said (and I quote verbatim) "You have been heading down the wrong path your entire life, and you're still heading down that path". So opinions are just opinions. None of us is entitled to publicly disparage another's choice in spouses or significant others. If you feel the need, do it in person over a beer where it belongs. Not in a public forum designed to support/discuss our favorite sport.
P.S. My father is embarrassed to this day by his reaction. Imagine how he would feel if he posted his opinion on a public forum.
I have one of my best friends that married one of the toughest (bitchiest) women I know. Everyone thought it was a mistake. But my friend was wild, and frankly would probably be dead right now if he didn't have her keeping him in line. They are happily married after 38 years and raised 2 happy and successful young ladies. And yes, she's still tough and bitchy. But he needs that.
When I told my parents that I was getting married my father said (and I quote verbatim) "You have been heading down the wrong path your entire life, and you're still heading down that path". So opinions are just opinions. None of us is entitled to publicly disparage another's choice in spouses or significant others. If you feel the need, do it in person over a beer where it belongs. Not in a public forum designed to support/discuss our favorite sport.
P.S. My father is embarrassed to this day by his reaction. Imagine how he would feel if he posted his opinion on a public forum.
Didn't you just post his opinion for him?
I’m with @82bordeaux as I’ve signaled a number of times - there are a lot of cringeworthy posts here, and I’d rather not be associated with them. I know what comes next - multiple “tough guys” will tell me to just leave. That’s nuts: the bad actors shouldn’t be the ones making the rules.
Alleging sexual assault without any hard proof and no police report is okay though?
Are you aware of the phrase "adulting is hard" and its origin?
Funny, I thought most of Syd's statements were hearsay, so they would already be inadmissible. As such, no need to attack the credibility of said non-witness.
Re the bolded part of CarolinaFan1's post, that's not how defamation lawsuits work in the US, and most other places for that matter. The burden is never on the defendant to prove truth, the burden is on the plaintiff in a defamation case to prove that the defendant knew or at least should have known, that allegation was false, and intended to defame with "actual malice." And it's not merely two different ways of saying the same thing, b/c the former approach would make defamation cases ridiculously easy to win and would sharply conflict with the first amendment.
El_Jefe is mostly right about defamation being unlikely here, with the caveat that sometimes hopeless defamation cases are filed as spectacles to garner public sympathy--to be seen as defending against the claim--then quietly dismissed when the headlnes disappear. But that tactic is typically employed by highly public figures who can afford to throw money at big problems. (Brief mention of the converse problem too--the Streisand Effect--suing for defamation could backfire by delivering the statements you're trying to refute to a wider audience.)
An additional caveat to the damages question is that Starocci wouldn't have to show damages for sexual assault allegations b/c sexual assault allegations are classified as "defamation per se," a term pertaining to types of allegations that are inherently presumed to damaging to one's reputation. Plaintiffs would be smart to show damages anyway, but in a hypothetical defamation suit premised on SA allegations, unnecessary.
As to these particular allegations, they would be defamatory if, again, the speaker knew or should have known that they were false. The common law rule that a republisher (here, The Collegian) of defamation stands in the same shoes as the speaker has long given way to exceptions to publishers exercising due diligence and care in the course of reporting. So even if every allegation was an elaborate, calculated smear (which seems farfetched) The Collegian is covered is they did the requisite amount of work to ascertain the viability of their sources.
As for those making the allegations, they could be sued, sure, and the most relevant legal question, again, is whether they knew their statements were false, which would be Starocci's burden to show. Realistically, Starocci's only hope in a successful defamation case would be if everyone was making everything up from whole cloth. If it's merely a matter of competing reasonable intepretations of the same incident, that's probably not defamation.
I should mention too the sliding scale in defamation--the burden for public figure plaintiffs ("actual malice") is higher than the burden for private figure plaintiffs (negligence). Sometimes the line is fuzzy, which is why sometimes that's the only legal question fought over (i.e., where both sides recognize that it probably would be actionable defamation if held to a negligence standard as opposed to actual malice). Here, while many guys on the Penn State wrestling team are probably still private figures, Starocci has achieved enough notoriety that there's little question in my mind that he's a public figure and would need to prove actual malice.
Fantastic film on this topic -- Absence of Malice. Paul Newman & Sally Field. Then Wilford Brimley shows up at the end and in ten minutes steals the movie with one of the greatest movie dialogues ever written. Link below for details from IMDb. If you find it uncut on one of your channels, watch it.
Absence of Malice (1981) - IMDb
"You had a leak? You call what's goin' on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat!"
You must be new to this forum.
If you point us to your friend’s and his wife’s Insta, we’d be happy to provide free psychoanalysis for them! 100% accurate!
No, I'm not making any such comparison, your attempt to conflate two things aside. Only a very limited mind would make the suggestion.
Psycho Syd (apologies to the late Mr. Euly) isn't the unimpeachable representative of actual Jane Does. Discussing the dilated circumference of your veejayjay is the behavior of an attention-seeking trollip. Far from accentuating the serious nature of SA, she trivializes it with her digitally tramp-stamped, trailer trash pronouncements.
All I've observed is a woman of demonstrated poor judgment publicizing private matters for anti-social media dopamine hits and making salacious accusations with not a shred of corroboration or contemporaneous support.
I remember the best advice I ever got regarding women. It's not the face you are f***ing, it's the f***ing you are facing.
Unfortunately, BB didn't get that advice or chose to ignore it. Poor guy. Of course he seems fine playing Steve to her Bobbie Dooley.
Don't Ignore Bobbie
Last edited:
Your wife is the coolest
People will always protect their own. But the lengths people have gone to bash Syd and say she's not credible because of social media is wild. Protecting Carter is one thing but bashing Syd is something totally different. We all know who the woman haters here are now. Most are probably divorced or they hate the wife they have life isn't a guarantee so enjoy it
Mike is there a bridge in Evanston that I can meet you at? Hopefully with a ping pong table instead of fisticuffs.
Definitely a “generational difference” between old-schoolers and “run of the mill Zoomers” ready to discuss “every single orifice of my body in detail, circumference AND diameter” to make a point. The internet/social media marriage created today’s attention-centric careers (podcaster, influencer, soft-porner, clickbaiters, etc..) and Beau’s wife happens to work in one. Doesn’t make her a villain, bad spouse, or foretell divorce. Nor does it stop others finding it demeaning and sexually exploitive for an intelligent, attractive young woman of ANY generation to film herself in a bathtub, play-acting a scene with her husband comparing a drain plug to the width of her "diva cup"?. . . all in pursuit of the almighty click.
Two worthless takes from an old hiker eagerly awaiting his next wolf, bear, or mountain:
I hope all men guilty of sexual assault pay a heavy price, either behind bars or otherwise.
I hope all women find meaningful careers that aren’t based solely on attention drawn to their bodies or virtual personas.
If those thoughts make me old school, then I’m a damn proud alum.
A fair point of correction on poor wording in my post. I did not intend to imply that the Barlett's would have the legal burden of proof to prove the truth of the SA claims in a defamation case. Tikk is absolutely correct on this point. I was suggesting that in my opinion the Bartlett's have a clear desire to establish themselves as social media influencers (well beyond the Starocci matter) and in doing so, they are, among other things, very aggressively attacking Starocci and highlighting the SA claims against him in a very public way. I believe that could be risky and used against them which would ironically hurt their intended goals of being influencers (both reputational and financial impacts). I personally think there is much more of a debate on what standard of proof Starocci would have to show to find the Bartlett's liable for defamation than many are considering. While it is true that Starocci is well known in the small world of the wrestling community, I do not think he is a universally well known beyond that so if he is deemed a public person, I think it could very well be more limited in scope (within wrestling related activities). If he is a limited public person the actual malice standard would apply to the activities in which he is a public person but not to everything in his life. So if there were claims he cheated to enhance his wrestling performance, the actual malice standard would apply. SA claims outside of wrestling may not be as clear cut, and if so, a lower negligence standard could apply. Additionally, even if the actual malice standard applies, Starocci may be able to show that the Bartlett's acted with a reckless disregard for the truth -- I don't believe the standard is that they had to know the statements were false -- if they had a high awareness or suspicion of doubt of the truthfulness they could be found liable. We don't know what they know or don't know about those claims but the article indicated that they at least had somewhat of an indifference to the truth in that they stated they did not know the allegations were true or not but still repeated it and continue to repeat it aggressively anyways. While that is not in itself enough to show actual malice it may be enough to open up an evaluation of what actions they took to obtain/confirm the information, how they acted upon that information, and the urgency of publishing the information, etc. which could expose them to risk and their social media posts could very well work against them here. None of us know what that review would show. Based upon the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of your review, I would suspect, if you represented them, you would tell them it would be in their best interest to not continue to make statements on this matter in such an aggressive and public way as it may open them up to risk -- but maybe I am wrong. So back to my original point -- in my opinion, the very aggressive public attacks against Starocci, likely being done at least in part to advance their own personal goals of being social media influereners, could be used against them and result in them failing at the very thing they are trying to achieve if it turns out they were sufficiently negligent or reckless in making them. I don't know what the facts are or if any of the allegations are true or not. I just think there are better ways to address these matters than through a student newspaper and social media accounts if you are trying to get to the underlying truth -- file a complaint and let the formal process handle. I do not plan to comment on this matter any further unless and until a formal complaint is made. I am ready to get back to wrestling and look forward to the upcoming worlds. As always, just my opinions. Feel free to disagree.
So in reading most of Carter's public persona on social media, that means I actually know him. And that means he is an egotistical and megalomaniac bad boy. Maybe hyping his persona to get the followers to push his numbers up.
I have never met him so I have to assume he is the *** he wants to personify for this image, but I have also read on here, this social media site, that he is cordial and polite when in actual social situations. At his camps he takes time to work with kids to promote the sport and the kids listen to him and want to wrestle like him.
It appears to me it goes both ways. Anyone can accuse, I can say that my wife's best friend says that her sister was sexually assaulted by @js8793 and judging by his social media I would probably disagree because I don't want to judge especially because I do not particularly know him. But I don't know Beau, I don't know Syd and I don't know Carter and I should not judge.
I am amazed at your certainty of Syd's motivation.
Are you aware of how "rage baiting" works in social media to increase one's engagement metric?
It seems to me the erstwhile objectors here are acting in such a way that could only improve those metrics for Syd, JS. I am guessing she appreciates it.
So which account on this board is Syd the OF's burner account?
As, more likely than not, Syd understood the allegations included use of the wrestling facility for grooming future would be victims (my notional paraphrasing of what I understand her position to be), I think Syd would have the higher bar of need to show malice covered. But I'm no lawyer.
Allegations, by definition, are assertions that have neither been shown to be true or false. So I am not sure how anyone could assert an allegation as true.
Last edited:
On my wedding day I asked my dad if he had any advice for me. He thought a moment and then said, ‘just remember, you’re doing this on purpose’.
We’ll be married 45 years next month.
This is supreme histrionic bovine excrement. Actually, the only people revealing themselves here are the Gammas.
Disagreement with public conduct by an adult isn't hate. Accusations of such are leveled by people who emote, rather than reason.
Assume for the sake of argument that there are in fact, one or more real SA victims-who for whatever reason have chosen NOT to make police reports or first party public allegations. Instead, there trauma is being publicized by an immature, indiscrete woman.
Here's questions NOBODY has asked. Did Syd get permission to publicize these allegations? Did the alleged victims discuss this with legal counsel before making her their spokesmouth? If she was aware of criminal acts, why didn't she report to the police contemporaneously, rather than to the Daily KIndergartenian?
And what the hell was this? I don't know about you, but if life in the room was so bad, would I be making this sort of ringing public endorsement of the program or just avoiding the camera and mic until I was able to get out?
Next we'll hear how this was coerced.
Beau Bartlett talks Big Ten schedule, how PSU has helped him [Penn State wrestler interview]
Here’s to your “old takes” Old Hiker.
If you don't understand the mechanics of social media, I can't help you.
Gotta give her credit though. She makes me long for the gratuitous BTN shots of Moriah...
Please consult with Bushwood regarding the use of paragraph breaks.