The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[Catfin]

Scooch over, Church Honey.

[Nysha]

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

4 hours ago, Nysha said:

If the Duggars lived a normal life, I would agree that he probably had more victims, but their lifestyle was so internally focused, that he may not have had easy enough access to other little girls.

True, but the Duggars' insistence that the girls were only touched once, most of them while sleeping, is very likely untrue.  I suspect Josh molested his sisters many times in multiple circumstances and JB and Michelle coached the girls on what to say in the police interview to minimize chances of prosecution.

Doodlebug , I completely agree with you. I'm willing to bet that Josh's abuse of his sisters started much earlier and may have even continued after his so-called punishment. Given how his sisters were treated when it first came to light, I can't see them admitting any future abuse.

[toodles]

2 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

They put themselves on tv and have proclaimed over and over and over and over again that their way of life is the way to ensure that your children are totally safe from every evil of the world, and in particular from the sexual evils.

I realize that the girls didn't do that as children. However, as adults two of the girls proclaimed this on tv themselves, quite angrily and self-righteously, just like their parents. Their brother did nothing wrong, they've told us. They were not hurt by anything he did -- in the least. The family way has been great. It's the outside world and the press that are evil! 

 In my opinion it's absolutely in the public interest to warn people that, indeed, this is not the case with the Duggars' way of life.

The Duggars' way of life not only allowed this evil but fostered it. And punished the damn girls by warping their fucking stupid little minds by making them "forgive their brother." Publicly. In a church -- where they and all their godly friends winked at it and went on to pretend that it never happened and that it could be easily smoothed over and made harmless simply by requiring the girls to forgive. (And don't tell me this isn't the case -- because this is exactly what Gothard teaches and exactly what they did.)

And if it hadn't been reported -- even by a tacky tabloid -- everyone would still think that all Joshley did as a kid was steal a little kissy from a girlfriend.

Because that's what everyone thought for years -- even people who dislike and distrust the Duggars. Because everyone -- even Duggar haters at that point -- unwittingly bought into the idea that the Duggars' way of life is so wholesome and so sheltered that that's what they consider stringent sin. And for the non-Duggar-haters, that meant, "Oh, aren't they holy! Oh, aren't their little girls lucky! Oh, I'd like our family to be  just like theirs!" 

So, yeah, even though I have no love at all for tabloids, I believe that it is in the public interest for the truth about what their life philosophy actually fosters to be known by all. Because otherwise it can still be held up by many as a fucking ideal, without any pushback from people who've finally been alerted to the truth.

The girls were severely harmed by their parents and their brother. (and their brother was severely harmed by his parents, too)  And they were all particularly harmed by being forced to sweep under the  rug any consciousness that harm had actually been done to them. The fact that those same girls still proclaim that no harm was done to them by their family and that the only harm they've suffered is from having these incidents revealed shows clearly that the harm their parents and brother did to them still warps their thinking to this day. And that this warped thinking may well be carried on some day to warp and harm their own children.

There is no shame in being a victim of child abuse and sexual abuse. There is great shame in being parents who perpetrated the pure shit that Jim Bob and Michelle perpetrated and continue to perpetrate -- in the name of Jesus. So -- despite what the idiot Duggar girls think -- the only people who've been shamed by what the tabloids have reported are the perpetrators of a long continuing series of crimes against children. And well might they have been. I can only hope that Jim Bob's and Michelle's (and to a lesser extent Josh's) shaming has kept one or two people from following in their "religious" path. 

So, in the public interest to report this? When people set themselves up not only as public figures but as public-attention-hogging godly role models and "mothers of the year," then it's very much in the public interest for their unrepentant commission of such evil acts to be brought to the public attention, in my opinion. 

It is too bad about the girls. But their parents -- not the police or the media or anyone else -- brought all the evils on their heads. The blame should go to those to whom it chiefly belongs. 

Bravo.  This is a really great post.  The fact  that they STILL blather on and on about their stupid side hugs and how wonderful the Duggar life is just makes my blood boil.  

Edited October 14, 2017 by toodles

[GeeGolly]

43 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

There is no shame in being a victim of child abuse and sexual abuse. There is great shame in being parents who perpetrated the pure shit that Jim Bob and Michelle perpetrated and continue to perpetrate -- in the name of Jesus. So -- despite what the idiot Duggar girls think -- the only people who've been shamed by what the tabloids have reported are the perpetrators of a long continuing series of crimes against children. And well might they have been. I can only hope that Jim Bob's and Michelle's (and to a lesser extent Josh's) shaming has kept one or two people from following in their "religious" path. 

I respectfully disagree. I agree there should be no shame in being a victim of child abuse and sexual abuse. But unfortunately many survivors of sexual assaults wrestle with a lot of shame. Self stigma is real and not just within the shaming and blaming Fundy world. While this being made public may steer some families away from Gothardism, it also may steer young girls into not speaking up while being abused. 

I wish there was a better way to shine a spotlight on these patriarchal authoritarian families than this situation. We need Leah Remini. 

[Aethera]

We've asked everyone many times to stop speculating about other victims. Most of you are long-time posters here, and should know the rules. If you don't, remind yourselves here.

[Sew Sumi]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I respectfully disagree. I agree there should be no shame in being a victim of child abuse and sexual abuse. But unfortunately many survivors of sexual assaults wrestle with a lot of shame. Self stigma is real and not just within the shaming and blaming Fundy world. While this being made public may steer some families away from Gothardism, it also may steer young girls into not speaking up while being abused. 

I wish there was a better way to shine a spotlight on these patriarchal authoritarian families than this situation. We need Leah Remini. 

Leah would kick JB and Smuggar's asses without hesitation. She'd make Mechelle cry real tears. She'd get to the bottom of what is really going on in the victims' heads. I say this last because based in the lawsuit and the Kelly interview, Jill and Jessa are playing both sides of the fence, which I find to be disingenuous and a pretty obvious construct of KJB. 

[PikaScrewChu]

4 hours ago, doodlebug said:

While it might be a sleazy, crass move, it doesn't mean the tabloid is liable for publishing legally obtained material.  That's the crux of the issue.  Obviously, with the massive publishing conglomerate out of the suit, the odds the Duggar sisters will get a multimillion dollar settlement are substantially diminished.  Unless they've got evidence of legal precedent trumping a Supreme Court decision, they can try to re-file, but it probably won't go anywhere.

That's entirely it. They can keep on wasting their time and money appealing the decision all the way to the Supreme Court at this point. InTouch/Bauer Media brought one defense to the dismissal hearing. One. And that was a case heard by the Supreme Court. The dismissal ruling outright states that the court believes they cannot permit the Bauer defendants to be held liable for their conduct without defying binding SCOTUS precedent. Even the judge's statement noticed it was unusual for a defendant to only bring one defense but they made their case.

So the Duggars can keep on re-filing lawsuits against InTouch/Bauer Media but they are just wasting time and money in doing so.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

They put themselves on tv and have proclaimed over and over and over and over again that their way of life is the way to ensure that your children are totally safe from every evil of the world, and in particular from the sexual evils.

I realize that the girls didn't do that as children. However, as adults two of the girls proclaimed this on tv themselves, quite angrily and self-righteously, just like their parents. Their brother did nothing wrong, they've told us. They were not hurt by anything he did -- in the least. The family way has been great. It's the outside world and the press that are evil! 

 In my opinion it's absolutely in the public interest to warn people that, indeed, this is not the case with the Duggars' way of life.

The Duggars' way of life not only allowed this evil but fostered it. And punished the damn girls by warping their fucking stupid little minds by making them "forgive their brother." Publicly. In a church -- where they and all their godly friends winked at it and went on to pretend that it never happened and that it could be easily smoothed over and made harmless simply by requiring the girls to forgive. (And don't tell me this isn't the case -- because this is exactly what Gothard teaches and exactly what they did.)

And if it hadn't been reported -- even by a tacky tabloid -- everyone would still think that all Joshley did as a kid was steal a little kissy from a girlfriend.

Because that's what everyone thought for years -- even people who dislike and distrust the Duggars. Because everyone -- even Duggar haters at that point -- unwittingly bought into the idea that the Duggars' way of life is so wholesome and so sheltered that that's what they consider stringent sin. And for the non-Duggar-haters, that meant, "Oh, aren't they holy! Oh, aren't their little girls lucky! Oh, I'd like our family to be  just like theirs!" 

So, yeah, even though I have no love at all for tabloids, I believe that it is in the public interest for the truth about what their life philosophy actually fosters to be known by all. Because otherwise it can still be held up by many as a fucking ideal, without any pushback from people who've finally been alerted to the truth.

The girls were severely harmed by their parents and their brother. (and their brother was severely harmed by his parents, too)  And they were all particularly harmed by being forced to sweep under the  rug any consciousness that harm had actually been done to them. The fact that those same girls still proclaim that no harm was done to them by their family and that the only harm they've suffered is from having these incidents revealed shows clearly that the harm their parents and brother did to them still warps their thinking to this day. And that this warped thinking may well be carried on some day to warp and harm their own children.

There is no shame in being a victim of child abuse and sexual abuse. There is great shame in being parents who perpetrated the pure shit that Jim Bob and Michelle perpetrated and continue to perpetrate -- in the name of Jesus. So -- despite what the idiot Duggar girls think -- the only people who've been shamed by what the tabloids have reported are the perpetrators of a long continuing series of crimes against children. And well might they have been. I can only hope that Jim Bob's and Michelle's (and to a lesser extent Josh's) shaming has kept one or two people from following in their "religious" path. 

So, in the public interest to report this? When people set themselves up not only as public figures but as public-attention-hogging godly role models and "mothers of the year," then it's very much in the public interest for their unrepentant commission of such evil acts to be brought to the public attention, in my opinion.

When they become political figures -- as they have -- and when they act as political leaders, urging others to follow their lead, as they have, such as when Michelle was called upon as a godly leader to make robocalls condemning a class of people as a source of, yes!, sexual sin and danger to young girls! When they travel about in a bus, using their reputation as holy and virtuous people to support policies and candidates. Then is it in the public interest to reveal the harms to children that their thinking has already perpetrated? I don't see how anyone can deny that it is. 

It is too bad about the girls. But their parents -- not the police or the media or anyone else -- brought all the evils on their heads. The blame should go to those to whom it chiefly belongs. And in a case where the parents have made themselves into public figures and actively and persistently sought public power and influence? And been given it? Then, yes. It is in the public interest for everyone to be made aware of who they really are, what they believe and what evils those beliefs have led to.

I wish I could like this a million times. 

[floridamom]

andromeda331:  Wow!...That's it in a nutshell. Someone needs to read this to the Duggar parents asap. Great post.

Churchhoney: It was your post...great words. This is it in a nutshell...as always, you're spot on.

[floridamom]

If the offense was only once 'over the clothes when they were sleeping,' what about the sister who was confronted in the laundry room...she was quite awake. The youngest victim was awake being read to by her brother while sitting in his lap...that's not asleep. I highly doubt that Jessa and Jill were a one time thing. I also find it disgusting that although Jinger was legally an adult, she wasn't able to speak for herself in this interview because she was not a married woman. Joy, I believe had turned 18 already and also was a legal adult....ALSO single at the time and did not speak for herself in this interview. It supports my strong suspicion about how segregated single adults are from their married counterparts, regardless of age. It's so wrong. I also don't believe that Jinger and Joy didn't want to speak about it, but Jessa and Jill DID...???no, not by either of their behaviors in that interview. Jessa came across as wanting to just plow through it, get it over with and continue on with her TV show and $$ from it...Jill, didn't want to be there at all if you ask me.

[lascuba]

YES! I knew (well, as much as a non-lawyer can "know") that the case against In Touch was bullshit. They obtained those records legally...it's not on them to ensure that the government officials do their job correctly. 

I'm just thrilled that the Duggars aren't getting a big payout. 

And I'd love for that official who JB accused of taking a bribe to sue the shit out of him. Now THAT would be a legitimate case. 

[Absolom]

4 minutes ago, lascuba said:

YES! I knew (well, as much as a non-lawyer can "know") that the case against In Touch was bullshit. They obtained those records legally...it's not on them to ensure that the government officials do their job correctly. 

That could be why our relative who practices entertainment law laughed when I asked for an opinion on the Duggars suing In Touch.

[MsJamieDornan]

They should get nothing ! And, plastered all over the media.

Edited October 14, 2017 by MsJamieDornan

[PikaScrewChu]

I keep wondering what the lawyers representing the Duggars are thinking. It's not a tinker toy firm. Did the Duggars just pony up a lot of cash?

The two lawyers were listed as policymakers in the lawsuit and they were clearly not in a position to decide or determine policy within the government. They were only advisors. Which the judge commented on. Then InTouch and Bauer Media just bringing one defense in order to have the lawsuit dismissed against them which was a previous SCOTUS ruling.

I'm almost wondering what other little technicalities were overlooked when the suit was filed.

[MsJamieDornan]

22 minutes ago, Absolom said:

That could be why our relative who practices entertainment law laughed when I asked for an opinion on the Duggars suing In Touch.

I hope everything , all of it, gets tossed out ! And, it costs Boob a  ton in lawyer fees !

[doodlebug]

11 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

I keep wondering what the lawyers representing the Duggars are thinking. It's not a tinker toy firm. Did the Duggars just pony up a lot of cash?

The two lawyers were listed as policymakers in the lawsuit and they were clearly not in a position to decide or determine policy within the government. They were only advisors. Which the judge commented on. Then InTouch and Bauer Media just bringing one defense in order to have the lawsuit dismissed against them which was a previous SCOTUS ruling.

I'm almost wondering what other little technicalities were overlooked when the suit was filed.

I think the lawyers knew what they were doing.  I'm not a lawyer, but I know a bit about civil suits.  When they are filed, the plaintiff has to name every single defendant they hope to blame; no one can be added later, and defendants can be dropped as they either settle or get dismissed.  I think the Duggar legal team knew about the Supreme Court case and probably had some sort of argument for why it shouldn't have been applied here, even a lame one.  They figured that, if somehow the publishers' team missed the argument or if somehow the judge sided with them; there was a decent chance for a substantial settlement from the deep pockets of a media empire.  And, it undoubtedly cost In Touch' publishers tens of thousands in legal fees to get this dismissal.  In the world of civil litigation, more than a few defendants will offer to settle in order to avoid the drawn out legal process, costs and publicity involved in seeing a case to the finish.

I was involved in a malpractice suit and my carrier went bankrupt in the midst of it.  I had two options: the state insurance board would step in and settle the case for their limit of $350,000 per case (my insurance coverage was for over a million, the state max was much less).  If I chose to continue the case, the state would kick in up to $350,000 for it including fees for lawyers, experts, etc (at the time, the average winning malpractice case cost over $70 g to defend) and then I would be on the hook personally for anything else if I lost and a jury decided to award more than whatever funds were remaining.  I didn't feel I had done anything negligent, but when a jury sees a sick kid, there's no telling what might happen. There were literally hundreds of cases involved in this situation, and guess what?  When it came down, virtually every single plaintiff offered to settle for cash rather than go to trial.  And, when asked the value of the case, every single one wanted the max, $350g, and most of them got it.  Easy payday.

[kaleidoscope]

The story made the Washington Post:

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Three county officials in Arkansas have filed appeals after a federal judge refused to dismiss them from a lawsuit that alleges they improperly released information about an investigation of Josh Duggar abusing four of his sisters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/county-officials-in-arkansas-file-appeals-in-duggar-lawsuit/2017/10/12/8fb7386a-af82-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html

[Sew Sumi]

Pity that the Post wouldn't also uhm....POST the lastest refusals. Yes, the girls can appeal, but as I've said before, and has been reiterated, it will be pretty tough to bring a case that overturns a SCOTUS ruling. I think we all know that's what would have to happen for the girls to win against Bauer/ 

[floridamom]

So, is their case still alive at all or is it over for all of them?

[Churchhoney]

On 10/14/2017 at 10:19 AM, GeeGolly said:

I respectfully disagree. I agree there should be no shame in being a victim of child abuse and sexual abuse. But unfortunately many survivors of sexual assaults wrestle with a lot of shame. Self stigma is real and not just within the shaming and blaming Fundy world. While this being made public may steer some families away from Gothardism, it also may steer young girls into not speaking up while being abused. 

I wish there was a better way to shine a spotlight on these patriarchal authoritarian families than this situation. We need Leah Remini. 

I wish there was a better way, too. ..... 

I agree that self stigma is a big thing.

But I would argue that the reason it's still so dominant in many people is because the world at large still stigmatizes victims. i.e., it really comes from the outside and not the inside. So openly declaring that being a victim is not shameful -- over and over again -- is part of the answer, it seems to me anyway, and sunlight is required for that. The outing is yet another place where JB and M could have and should have done the right thing -- but instead they chose to put more burden on the daughters, essentially making them reassert that Josh and their parents were to blame for nothing and then take onto themselves the responsibility for reassembling the family's money train. Disgusting. And unfortunately, for me, that makes them the kind of people who it's in the public interest to out.

I mean, Harvey Weinstein has two young kids who may well come in for some attacks because he's been outed. too. But it was clearly in the public interest to out him. And I'm glad to see so many of the women he abused standing up and saying it -- if more of that happens self stigma can be lessened, I think. But if we just keep hush-hushing about it over and over then we're obliquely saying that victims should be ashamed, seems to me. 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Churchhoney

[PikaScrewChu]

2 hours ago, floridamom said:

So, is their case still alive at all or is it over for all of them?

Alive against three defendants who did not have the lawsuit dismissed against them. However the three defendants have filed another appeal to get the lawsuit dismissed against them.

Dismissed against InTouch, employees of InTouch, City of Springdale, Count of Washington, and the county's lawyer.

Basically chances of a million dollar settlement are nil.

I know it's easier just to sue everyone but there were even little technicalities that the law firm should have caught. The lawyers named were never in a position of being policymakers to the government. A quick search would have shown that. I think they were just happy to take Duggar money tbh.

[kokapetl]

I think there’s probably more scope for the daughters to successfully appeal than we are aware of. Their lawyers would know their shit, and so would Bauer Media’s, and both sides would know that the other knows. Josh’s lawyer would not know. 

“Fucking stupid little minds”? Delightful. 

[bythelake]

On 10/12/2017 at 7:16 PM, Churchhoney said:

Just because I've enjoyed reading this several times over the years, here's a piece in which Billy Graham's grandson bashes the Duggars six ways to Billy Sunday over their hideous handling of these events. http://religionnews.com/2015/06/12/responding-to-sibling-sexual-abuse-what-to-do-and-why/

This is such a powerful article. It boggles my brain that after reading this, people will still defend the Duggars. They did everything to protect Josh and nothing to protect his victims. Not only did they not value the victims and get them therapy, they pushed for them to reconcile with their abuser, which I believe. impacts them to this day.  What horrible parents. 

[GeeGolly]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

I wish there was a better way, too. ..... 

I agree that self stigma is a big thing.

But I would argue that the reason it's still so dominant in many people is because the world at large still stigmatizes victims. i.e., it really comes from the outside and not the inside. So openly declaring that being a victim is not shameful -- over and over again -- is part of the answer, it seems to me anyway, and sunlight is required for that. The outing is yet another place where JB and M could have and should have done the right thing -- but instead they chose to put more burden on the daughters, essentially making them reassert that Josh and their parents were to blame for nothing and then take onto themselves the responsibility for reassembling the family's money train. Disgusting. And unfortunately, for me, that makes them the kind of people who it's in the public interest to out.

I mean, Harvey Weinstein has two young kids who may well come in for some attacks because he's been outed. too. But it was clearly in the public interest to out him. And I'm glad to see so many of the women he abused standing up and saying it -- if more of that happens self stigma can be lessened, I think. But if we just keep hush-hushing about it over and over then we're obliquely saying that victims should be ashamed, seems to me. 

Yet they are speaking out themselves. Nobody but the victims are publicly saying he abused them.

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, Kokapetl said:

I think there’s probably more scope for the daughters to successfully appeal than we are aware of. Their lawyers would know their shit, and so would Bauer Media’s, and both sides would know that the other knows. Josh’s lawyer would not know. 

“Fucking stupid little minds”? Delightful. 

Far from delightful. And here's why -- Picture the most evil, sickest thing you've ever experienced and picture yourself experiencing that thing for years on end, for every minute of every day.

When I see the Duggars -- and especially when I see adult Duggar children continuing to defend their parents as blameless, as Jill and Jessa did in that sickening Fox interview -- that's what I see. I see many decades of first experiencing and then watching others experiencing evil, sickening constant mental abuse, and then watching them grown up and papering it over, saying that it wasn't abusive, saying that the people who did it were blameless.

That's why, when I hear the Duggar girls wanting to blame others while proclaiming their parents blameless and their brother merely "sly," I see the thing in life that enrages me viscerally more than anything else could ever possibly do. And I don't understand how in the hell they can't see the truth about their upbringing, just as I can't see how in the hell members of my own family couldn't see the same thing. And it sends my blood pressure through the roof, makes me want to shake them violently until they do see it and makes me think they must have minds the size of pinheads. 

Rage is all I've got when I think of adult Duggar kids defending their sick evil parents. Especially because they do it in public forums. thus spreading a particularly evil form of ignorance, in my opinion. 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Churchhoney

[bythelake]

47 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Far from delightful. And here's why -- Picture the most evil, sickest thing you've ever experienced and picture yourself experiencing that thing for years on end, for every minute of every day.

When I see the Duggars -- and especially when I see adult Duggar children continuing to defend their parents as blameless, as Jill and Jessa did in that sickening Fox interview -- that's what I see. I see many decades of first experiencing and then watching others experiencing evil, sickening constant mental abuse, and then watching them grown up and papering it over, saying that it wasn't abusive, saying that the people who did it were blameless.

That's why, when I hear the Duggar girls wanting to blame others while proclaiming their parents blameless and their brother merely "sly," I see the thing in life that enrages me viscerally more than anything else could ever possibly do. And I don't understand how in the hell they can't see the truth about their upbringing, just as I can't see how in the hell members of my own family couldn't see the same thing. And it sends my blood pressure through the roof, makes me want to shake them violently until they do see it and makes me think they must have minds the size of pinheads. 

Rage is all I've got when I think of adult Duggar kids defending their sick evil parents. Especially because they do it in public forums. thus spreading a particularly evil form of ignorance, in my opinion. 

You lived that kind of life, ChurchHoney, and those of us who didn't can't fully understand it, but, we are enraged as well at the treatment these girls received at the hands of their parents. These patriarchal sects treat women as nothing but chattel.  I would bet the farm, that Michelle drummed into their little heads over and over that their main purpose in life was to please their patriarch, and by the time they got to their teens, they were deep into the Kool-aid. Even their brothers got the message early on that the girls were the ones who did everything around the house. The Duggar girls were so brainwashed that they were told to forgive the ultimate betrayal, molestation by their own brother... Anna, who grew up the same way, forgave Josh as well. To grow up not being valued and loved for who you are puts a terrible burden on a child. How can one learn to give love when you've never received it? As I've said before, I think it's too late for the older girls. Jill, Jana and Joy don't seem too bright. They will sing the family tune forever. Jessa has a husband she can boss around so she's complacent for now.  Jinger has broken away a little, and maybe that will inspire the younger ones as well. What have they got to lose? Michelle has been ignoring them ( except Josie) for years.

[DangerousMinds]

4 hours ago, PikaScrewChu said:

Alive against three defendants who did not have the lawsuit dismissed against them. However the three defendants have filed another appeal to get the lawsuit dismissed against them.

Dismissed against InTouch, employees of InTouch, City of Springdale, Count of Washington, and the county's lawyer.

Basically chances of a million dollar settlement are nil.

I know it's easier just to sue everyone but there were even little technicalities that the law firm should have caught. The lawyers named were never in a position of being policymakers to the government. A quick search would have shown that. I think they were just happy to take Duggar money tbh.

I don't understand the "policy makers" stuff. Can anyone elaborate?

[kokapetl]

4 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Far from delightful. And here's why -- Picture the most evil, sickest thing you've ever experienced and picture yourself experiencing that thing for years on end, for every minute of every day.

When I see the Duggars -- and especially when I see adult Duggar children continuing to defend their parents as blameless, as Jill and Jessa did in that sickening Fox interview -- that's what I see. I see many decades of first experiencing and then watching others experiencing evil, sickening constant mental abuse, and then watching them grown up and papering it over, saying that it wasn't abusive, saying that the people who did it were blameless.

That's why, when I hear the Duggar girls wanting to blame others while proclaiming their parents blameless and their brother merely "sly," I see the thing in life that enrages me viscerally more than anything else could ever possibly do. And I don't understand how in the hell they can't see the truth about their upbringing, just as I can't see how in the hell members of my own family couldn't see the same thing. And it sends my blood pressure through the roof, makes me want to shake them violently until they do see it and makes me think they must have minds the size of pinheads. 

Rage is all I've got when I think of adult Duggar kids defending their sick evil parents. Especially because they do it in public forums. thus spreading a particularly evil form of ignorance, in my opinion. 

One can justly feel angry about how one has been treated, but it doesn’t make the Duggars girls feelings about how they’ve been treated right or wrong. 

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, DangerousMinds said:

I don't understand the "policy makers" stuff. Can anyone elaborate?

I didn't write the original post but I believe it is in reference to the county lawyer named as a plaintiff in the Duggar lawsuit.  The lawyer in question didn't write the rules on redaction of information concerning minors before releasing documents to the public which the Duggars are claiming was inadequate to protect the sisters from being identified.  If their point is the policy itself was wrong (because numerous individuals- including the lawyer named- reviewed the redaction and agreed it complied with the policy that was in place), then there is no point in suing the employees who simply went by what was written.  They should've named the people who wrote the policy in the first place.

I haven't read the original stuff lately, but, as I recall, the policy said no names of minors could be released.  So, the redacted documents didn't contain the girls' names and the family name was redacted throughout.  The problem was that both Jim Bob and Michelle were cited by first name, the ages of the girls and that they were the daughters of JB and M and were assaulted by their brother was left intact.  Therefore, due to the amount of information the family had put out there about the ages of their kids, where they lived and their circumstances (all the kids were sleeping in a single room before the TTH was built), it was easy enough to figure out which daughter was which.  Apparently, it didn't occur to those who'd made the policy that someone with a reality TV show would make so much information public that it would be possible to identify them without first or last names.

One can justly feel angry about how one has been treated, but it doesn’t make the Duggars girls feelings about how they’ve been treated right or wrong

However, it is completely wrong for an outside individual, even a parent, to tell someone how it is they feel about how they've been treated and not allow them any agency to access their own internal values and decide that for themselves.  The Duggar girls were never permitted to blame their brother or their parents for the molestation; therefore their insistence that they feel no blame or anger towards them is not a reliable indicator of what their actual feelings might have been.  Same thing with their anger towards the media/local government.  Do you honestly think that JimBob and Michelle would've been ok with any of the girls declining to participate in the interviews let alone the lawsuit blaming others?  Do you honestly feel that, after a lifetime of suppressing their emotions, 'staying sweet' and being told what to think; that the emotions the Duggar girls are expressing are an accurate representation of what they really feel?

Edited October 15, 2017 by doodlebug

[Arwen Evenstar]

42 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

One can justly feel angry about how one has been treated, but it doesn’t make the Duggars girls feelings about how they’ve been treated right or wrong. 

If the Duggar girls hadn't grown up in a patriarchal cult that looked the other way about such things and blamed the victim, we all might believe they had some agency regarding their feelings. 

They're going to feel whatever they feel, and you are right that no one else should tell them how they should feel and whether their feelings about it are rght or wrong. Feelings are feelings.  They just are and many of us have different feelings about it.

That said, most if not all of us likely believe that they have been told how to think and feel and were coerced into forgiving their brother, lest there be consequences. I don't imagine a Duggar consequences are pleasant. Because these kids have been so isolated, and their world is limited to their family wolf pack, life outside the pack is too scary to imagine because they have been brainwashed to fear the outside world and everything and everyone Not Duggar in it.

Some evangelical churches have what amounts to a public tribunal (when a matter is brought before the church) where there is peer pressure to "toe the line", lest you be outed as being less Jesus-y or you are the one with the problem because you can't/won't forgive your molester/rapist.  Then, the wrath of the church is upon you, followed by shaming and shunning.  

I remember reading about how a man in an evangelical church had impregnated a 13 year old girl, who had been forced upon by him.  When it was all said and done, they were both made to go before the church, with him asking for forgiveness for committing adultery, and she for being "the other woman".   So, this young lady is not only not believed, she's forced to confess before the church and slut shamed, instead of receiving the justice she so deserved, with this perv behind bars and not ending the shame himself of having to register as a sex offender and be outed wherever he goes. Another story of how a woman was forced into forgiveness, keeping her under the foot of the patriarchy.

[Celia Rubenstein]

38 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

 Do you honestly feel that, after a lifetime of suppressing their emotions, 'staying sweet' and being told what to think; that the emotions the Duggar girls are expressing are an accurate representation of what they really feel?

 I don't believe that just because these young women were raised in a nut ass cult means that anything they ever say about how they feel should have doubt cast upon it. Especially not when their reaction makes total sense to me. I'd be pissed and feel violated if I were them, too. And I would want to do something about it. 

I think they deserve to be applauded for their efforts rather than questioned, castigated and criticized. Even if their parents are the impetus behind the lawsuit, it is nonetheless a taste of empowerment for them, which is a good thing. I certainly don't begrudge them their day in court. 

I realize they may well lose because the law appears to be have been drafted very narrowly, requiring only the redaction of assault victim's names. But even if they do lose, perhaps it will lead to the law being rewritten so that all information that could lead to sexual assault survivors being identified would have to be more carefully redacted. And not just in their county either.  The Duggars are a famous family and this case is high-profile. It could have far-reaching effects. At the very least it could open up a dialogue about what constitutes meaningful redaction in cases such as this one. So in that sense, this case is larger than just the four Duggar sisters and the money grab people are accusing them of. It could actually change things for the better. I don't see anything wrong with it at all.

[Arwen Evenstar]

Good to see you again, @Celia Rubenstein.  Missed ya, and was wondering where you'd been hiding out and if you were ok.

i wouldn't have minded the girls getting money, if they got to keep it and use it to get as far away from the TTH as possible.  No money could even begin to give them back what was taken from them.  However, if it left Jim Boob and Xanaxia covered in shit from head yo toe as Worst Parents Ever and that was proclaimed to the whole world, I'd certainly enjoy that bit.

[doodlebug]

47 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

 I don't believe that just because these young women were raised in a nut ass cult means that anything they ever say about how they feel should have doubt cast upon it. Especially not when their reaction makes total sense to me. I'd be pissed and feel violated if I were them, too. And I would want to do something about it. 

Me too, which is why I don't understand how they could claim to never have felt anger at the violation that Josh inflicted on them nor their parents for not doing something to prevent if from happening repeatedly.

As far as the FOI release and subsequent publication, sure, its perfectly appropriate to feel anger and a sense of loss of control because of it.  That doesn't mean that every victim of it would appear on national TV to discuss it (while holding their parents and brother blameless for the actual molestations and lack of consequences) nor that every victim would want to sue the city/county media over it.

I know people file lawsuits all the time claiming that they hope it will serve the greater good and the laws will change everywhere, but that virtually never happens and the notion that the Duggar girls coming forward and suing the county will prevent this from ever happening to anyone else is mostly fantasy, IMO.  It just doesn't work that way.

[ariel]

What I find interesting is that the Duggars seem to be of the party that hates any kind of lawsuits and will call most frivolous, is going for this one.   

[cmr2014]

6 hours ago, bythelake said:

To grow up not being valued and loved for who you are puts a terrible burden on a child. How can one learn to give love when you've never received it? 

I like your entire post BytheLake, but I thought this was especially important. We see the results of that in the older children.

Josh can't really love Anna and ends up cheating on her and not really being engaged or present in his own family. A lot of what we interpret as patriarchy bs could, in fact, be the result of someone who genuinely doesn't know how to express love and affection.

Jana and John David are pushing thirty without ever having had any sort of relationship. Jana was only recently allowed to have a friend.

Jill is struggling in her marriage and doesn't appear to be bonding with her children.

Jessa chose a child for a spouse and reacted in a "cut and dried" manner (as she put it) to his gestures of affection. While she does appear to have a relationship with her children, we only see the surface of their lives.

Sister-Moms aren't mothers and endless talk about "loving Jesus" doesn't replace parental love. I think the older kids are a lost cause, too, but I actually think it may be worse for the younger one . . .

[kokapetl]

1 hour ago, ariel said:

What I find interesting is that the Duggars seem to be of the party that hates any kind of lawsuits and will call most frivolous, is going for this one.   

The best lawyer the daughters have working for them is a hardcore Republican.

“Tort reform” seems mostly about limiting the malpractice liability of medical practitioners. Not that I’m implying anything about Dr Doodlebugs competence or liability as an obstetrician (I have absolutely no knowledge about that), but considering obstetricians get sued the most, I’m sure she probably can provide a more informed opinion about the subject than me.

Of course, I’m Australian, so I may not be capable of understanding any aspect of American law. 

[queenanne]

4 hours ago, Arwen Evenstar said:

If the Duggar girls hadn't grown up in a patriarchal cult that looked the other way about such things and blamed the victim, we all might believe they had some agency regarding their feelings. 

They're going to feel whatever they feel, and you are right that no one else should tell them how they should feel and whether their feelings about it are rght or wrong. Feelings are feelings.  They just are and many of us have different feelings about it.

That said, most if not all of us likely believe that they have been told how to think and feel and were coerced into forgiving their brother, lest there be consequences. I don't imagine a Duggar consequences are pleasant. Because these kids have been so isolated, and their world is limited to their family wolf pack, life outside the pack is too scary to imagine because they have been brainwashed to fear the outside world and everything and everyone Not Duggar in it.

Some evangelical churches have what amounts to a public tribunal (when a matter is brought before the church) where there is peer pressure to "toe the line", lest you be outed as being less Jesus-y or you are the one with the problem because you can't/won't forgive your molester/rapist.  Then, the wrath of the church is upon you, followed by shaming and shunning.  

I remember reading about how a man in an evangelical church had impregnated a 13 year old girl, who had been forced upon by him.  When it was all said and done, they were both made to go before the church, with him asking for forgiveness for committing adultery, and she for being "the other woman".   So, this young lady is not only not believed, she's forced to confess before the church and slut shamed, instead of receiving the justice she so deserved, with this perv behind bars and not ending the shame himself of having to register as a sex offender and be outed wherever he goes. Another story of how a woman was forced into forgiveness, keeping her under the foot of the patriarchy.

 

3 hours ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

 I don't believe that just because these young women were raised in a nut ass cult means that anything they ever say about how they feel should have doubt cast upon it. Especially not when their reaction makes total sense to me. I'd be pissed and feel violated if I were them, too. And I would want to do something about it. 

The problem is, @Celia Rubenstein, "unless you were raised in said nut-ass cult", is the rules of the day, as @Arwen Evenstar points out.  Socializing near-solely with authoritarian parents telling kids and everyone else around them (a); how they believe; (b) that believing such things is the only true, right, and Christian way to think.  They go to church, and Person A in said church says, for example, "abortion is a sin and anyone who has one without repenting is going straight to hell", and everyone around them sits and nodsnodsnods and amen's.  And they never go anywhere, and they never see anyone, who would say or lead them to believe any differently.  They have no countermanding.  They have almost no chance to get to know someone who's had an abortion, and hear the issues being discussed from the point of view of someone who feels the decision personally.  They are like hothouse tomatoes being toted around in a crate that never leaves their father's arms.  

Who in that situation, and having to continue to live in said situation, would ever, for example, step up and say in the middle of church, "I think you all are wrong and I think there are good reasons for having an abortion"?  It'd be the equivalent of saying "I don't believe there is a God", in the middle of the town square in 1860's Oklahoma Territory.  You'd be ostracized as an apostate.  Products of this type of authoritarian parenting, don't countermand their programming.

Edited October 16, 2017 by queenanne

[PikaScrewChu]

16 minutes ago, queenanne said:

The problem is, @Celia Rubenstein, "unless you were raised in said nut-ass cult", is the rules of the day, as @Arwen Evenstar points out.  Socializing near-solely with authoritarian parents telling kids and everyone else around them (a); how they believe; (b) that believing such things is the only true, right, and Christian way to think.  They go to church, and Person A in said church says, for example, "abortion is a sin and anyone who has one without repenting is going straight to hell", and everyone around them sits and nodsnodsnods and amen's.  And they never go anywhere, and they never see anyone, who would say or lead them to believe any differently.  They have no countermanding.  They have almost no chance to get to know someone who's had an abortion, and hear the issues being discussed from the point of view of someone who feels the decision personally.  They are like hothouse tomatoes being toted around in a crate that never leaves their father's arms.  

Who in that situation, and having to continue to live in said situation, would ever, for example, step up and say in the middle of church, "I think you all are wrong and I think there are good reasons for having an abortion"?  It'd be the equivalent of saying "I don't believe there is a God", in the middle of the town square in 1860's Oklahoma Territory.  You'd be ostracized as an apostate.  Products of this type of authoritarian parenting, don't countermand their programming.

It also didn't help that the Duggars seemed to circle their wagons even closer after Josh had to "stand up" in church and the letter in the book describing what was happening to the daughters was discovered. I suspect that's when the "Your family are your best friends!" came into play with the Duggars and the idea of home-churching.

The Duggars were very isolated. They homeschooled. They limited their children's access to people outside of the family unless it was for photo-ops and the all mighty dollar. I've never believed that the Duggars and Bateses were best friends, I thought that was all for show. It hasn't been until recently that some of them have been exposed to other worldviews without their parents breathing down their necks about what is right and what is wrong. That "freedom" (if we can call it as such) came from doing their #1 duty. Getting married. Now if they are actually exposing themselves to other world views or not now, who knows.

Sure they may invite 1000+ people to their weddings but very few are probably true friends to the Duggar child in question. Even fewer would probably try to get them to think critically about any situation.

[Celia Rubenstein]

3 hours ago, queenanne said:

 

The problem is, @Celia Rubenstein, "unless you were raised in said nut-ass cult", is the rules of the day, as @Arwen Evenstar points out.  Socializing near-solely with authoritarian parents telling kids and everyone else around them (a); how they believe; (b) that believing such things is the only true, right, and Christian way to think.  ...

 ... Products of this type of authoritarian parenting, don't countermand their programming.

One need not be raised in the same cult to recognize that the sisters would likely have trouble challenging the religious dictates of their church or their parent's assertions of personal infallibility. But I have never seen any evidence that the sisters have been programmed by their parents or their church to blindly accept the actions of local government. I don't think the type of brainwashed deference of which you speak necessarily extends to city or county officials.  

Let's remember, Michelle Dugger certainly had no problem with making that Robo call trying to shoot down legislation she found offensive. Meek acceptance of whatever the government wants to do does not seem to be a "rule of the day" from what I've seen.

Given that, it does not seem like a stretch to me that the sisters would experience genuine anger and opt to pursue action against local officials who they feel violated their privacy.

It actually makes a great deal of sense to me. Their upbringing bars them from holding anything against their brother or their parents or their church.  The city and county are the only parties they have ever been able to have any recourse against. So they're going for it, they're trying to do something about it this time ... standing up for themselves in the only way they seem permitted to do. Is it ideal?  Maybe not. But I think it's a hell of a lot better than what they had to go through before when they were violated ...forced into forgiving their abuser, denied any meaningful help, and perhaps even blamed for what happened. 

Questioning the sincerity of their feelings now actually feels like a return to those days. Denying the impact of their experience and dismissing their emotions was how Jim Bob and Michelle handled things. It makes me sad to see that happening again. 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2017 by Celia Rubenstein

[Celia Rubenstein]

5 hours ago, doodlebug said:

I know people file lawsuits all the time claiming that they hope it will serve the greater good and the laws will change everywhere, but that virtually never happens and the notion that the Duggar girls coming forward and suing the county will prevent this from ever happening to anyone else is mostly fantasy, IMO.  It just doesn't work that way.

It happens all the time. Laws get changed, attitudes get changed ... all because cases have been brought which shed light on public policy shortcomings.  I would hazard a guess that the privacy law which the sisters are suing under is itself the result of someone bringing some kind of an action about their information being made public.

It's a law that needs some refining, obviously. Hopefully this case may bring that about regardless of the outcome.  

Perhaps it won't  result in keeping things like this from ever happening to anyone else, as you say,  but if it prevents it from happening to even just a handful of people isn't that good enough? 

[queenanne]

1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

One need not be raised in the same cult to recognize that the sisters would likely have trouble challenging the religious dictates of their church or their parent's assertions of personal infallibility. But I have never seen any evidence that the sisters have been programmed by their parents or their church to blindly accept the actions of local government. I don't think the type of brainwashed deference of which you speak necessarily extends to city or county officials.  

Let's remember, Michelle Dugger certainly had no problem with making that Robo call trying to shoot down legislation she found offensive. Meek acceptance of whatever the government wants to do does not seem to be a "rule of the day" from what I've seen.

Given that, it does not seem like a stretch to me that the sisters would experience genuine anger and opt to pursue action against local officials who they feel violated their privacy.

It actually makes a great deal of sense to me. Their upbringing bars them from holding anything against their brother or their parents or their church.  The city and county are the only parties they have ever been able to have any recourse against. So they're going for it, they're trying to do something about it this time ... standing up for themselves in the only way they seem permitted to do. Is it ideal?  Maybe not. But I think it's a hell of a lot better than what they had to go through before when they were violated ...forced into forgiving their abuser, denied any meaningful help, and perhaps even blamed for what happened. 

Questioning the sincerity of their feelings now actually feels like a return to those days. Denying the impact of their experience and dismissing their emotions was how Jim Bob and Michelle handled things. It makes me sad to see that happening again. 

 

 

Simply trying to point out that normal adults with their own agency who were allowed to slowly separate from their family of origin beginning the process as teens, may have forgotten or don't expect it to be like what it actually is like:  namely, how little of these girls' lives is actually carried on separated from or unaffected by their parents.  While I assume a lawyer would know and insist upon better, I'm sure minors have to be interviewed with their parents' smiling faces right in the same room; and of course all bets are off for news media interviews (didn't someone once report a scenario where they saw Michelle Duggar mouthing answers at one of the kids offsides during a televised interview?).  I spent a couple years living at home after college, and I still remember telling rafts of expected lockstep lies in order to avoid parental arguments telling me that I "have to" feel this way or essay that response.  "Yes, of course I think the smell of cigarettes is appalling", while I was simultaneously secretly following my grandmother around my parents' home hoping to catch a secondhand buzz.  "Absolutely, I'm appalled by the new insertion of a heathen percussion system in the morning worship service," like I could give a damn.  "Tsk.  Yes, horrible," as I field eye-rolling complaints about the "almost satanic" dancing of whatever group of lead singers/backup dancers is performing on the major networks' New Years' Eve broadcasts.  

In short, I don't think (when I do think that) the Duggar kids and kidults function as parental ventriloquist puppets mouthing whatever their parents want them to say, without some cold hard experience backing my point of view up. We all understand that in some families - healthy families - question and dissent is seen as normal and even healthy.  In this family, it gets you sent off to ALERT or Journey to the Heart.

Edited October 16, 2017 by queenanne

[mynextmistake]

Of course they're pissed off. Who wouldn't be? Would you want to open up In Touch magazine and see the worst thing that ever happened to you laid in a four-page spread for the whole world to gossip about? 

But being pissed off does not equal having a tenable legal claim for damages. In Touch followed established procedure in securing copies of the police report. They dutifully published only the redacted information they received in that report. The fact that it was really easy to figure out who the report was talking about wasn't their fault; it was a weird intersection between a lenient redaction policy and a family who had purposefully set out to make themselves famous. 

[doodlebug]

3 hours ago, mynextmistake said:

Of course they're pissed off. Who wouldn't be? Would you want to open up In Touch magazine and see the worst thing that ever happened to you laid in a four-page spread for the whole world to gossip about? 

But being pissed off does not equal having a tenable legal claim for damages. In Touch followed established procedure in securing copies of the police report. They dutifully published only the redacted information they received in that report. The fact that it was really easy to figure out who the report was talking about wasn't their fault; it was a weird intersection between a lenient redaction policy and a family who had purposefully set out to make themselves famous. 

However, the Duggars have repeatedly insisted that the molestations were NOT 'the worst thing that ever happened' to them.  They were no big deal, the girls were asleep, it was over the clothes,  most of them didn't even know it had happened until their parents told them which was only because saintly Josh confessed.  The two survivors who've spoken publicly have repeatedly told us that it NEVER affected them negatively because their perfect parents handled it perfectly and they forgive their brother for simply being sly and curious.  

They cannot have it both ways which is going to be problematic for them in court, I'd wager.  I agree with your second paragraph; this was a unique circumstance, at least partly engineered by their greedy famewhore parents, and they are going to have a tough time proving negligence let alone show how they were damaged by the public revelation of something they claim was never traumatic.

Edited October 16, 2017 by doodlebug

[bigskygirl]

2 hours ago, doodlebug said:

However, the Duggars have repeatedly insisted that the molestations were NOT 'the worst thing that ever happened' to them.  They were no big deal, the girls were asleep, it was over the clothes,  most of them didn't even know it had happened until their parents told them which was only because saintly Josh confessed.  The two survivors who've spoken publicly have repeatedly told us that it NEVER affected them negatively because their perfect parents handled it perfectly and they forgive their brother for simply being sly and curious.  

They cannot have it both ways which is going to be problematic for them in court, I'd wager.  I agree with your second paragraph; this was a unique circumstance, at least partly engineered by their greedy famewhore parents, and they are going to have a tough time proving negligence let alone show how they were damaged by the public revelation of something they claim was never traumatic.

You have hit it on the head. You cannot stay it was no big deal, I was asleep, and Ma and Pa Stupid took care of it, and then turn around and sue because your family's dirty little secret has been told to the world especially when you are running around telling the world certain people are child molesters because they do not follow your religious beliefs.

[kokapetl]

1 hour ago, bigskygirl said:

You have hit it on the head. You cannot stay it was no big deal, I was asleep, and Ma and Pa Stupid took care of it, and then turn around and sue because your family's dirty little secret has been told to the world especially when you are running around telling the world certain people are child molesters because they do not follow your religious beliefs.

When did Jill, Jessa, Jinger or Joy-Anna ever say certain people were child molestors? 

Edited October 16, 2017 by Kokapetl

[DangerousMinds]

At this point anything they win in court will be money right out of their local taxpayers' pockets.

[kokapetl]

11 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

At this point anything they win in court will be money right out of their local taxpayers' pockets.

Highly unlikely. 

The remaining defendants are being sued solely in their individual capacities. 

[Celia Rubenstein]

4 hours ago, doodlebug said:

However, the Duggars have repeatedly insisted that the molestations were NOT 'the worst thing that ever happened' to them.  They were no big deal, the girls were asleep, it was over the clothes,  most of them didn't even know it had happened until their parents told them which was only because saintly Josh confessed.  The two survivors who've spoken publicly have repeatedly told us that it NEVER affected them negatively because their perfect parents handled it perfectly and they forgive their brother for simply being sly and curious.  

They cannot have it both ways which is going to be problematic for them in court, I'd wager.  I agree with your second paragraph; this was a unique circumstance, at least partly engineered by their greedy famewhore parents, and they are going to have a tough time proving negligence let alone show how they were damaged by the public revelation of something they claim was never traumatic.

 I actually think they can have it both ways.

Their statements minimizing what Josh did come across as total and complete denial. It's not something that is unheard of in abuse survivors, especially ones who never received any kind of treatment. I don't think that interview is going to convince a jury that what they went though was not a painful experience so they shouldn't really care if the whole world found out. More than anything it strikes me is just sad and makes it clear these girls never got any kind of help for what they went through. It makes them all the more pitiable imo, actually. 

Add to that the fact that there is even a law in existence which says you can't reveal the identity of an abuse survivor ... that's a pretty strongest suggestion that it's basically a per se, given assumption that a victim will be hurt by such a violation of privacy. If it wasn't, there would not be a law against doing it. 

 Given those two things, I don't think the sisters  will have a difficult time establishing that they were harmed by their identities being revealed.  It's all going to boil down to whether or not the city/county is viewed as having followed the law by reacting only their names while leaving the names of parents and their brother (and if I recall correctly, even their address) all which in context made it completely clear who the victims were. 

 

56 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

When did Jill, Jessa, Jinger or Joy-Anna ever say certain people were child molestors? 

They didn't.  Their mother implied it in her little Robo-call. It's being mentioned repeatedly as if it has something to do with the sisters' case, the idea being that the public reveal happened because they were bringing negative attention or bad karma or whatever down on themselves - - essentially they invited the hostility with their asshat views and deserved what they got.

The fact that it was their mother who managed to piss off some people who then forwarded the abuse information to the media seems to have been lost and the sisters are being held accountable for it.  It seems terribly unfair to me.

[doodlebug]

23 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Highly unlikely. 

The remaining defendants are being sued solely in their individual capacities. 

Their individual capacities as government employees.  No one would ever take a government job if they weren't also guaranteed legal help and protection in the case of legal problems stemming from their jobs.  There is no way the lawyer or other city/county employees are paying for their own defense, nor that any settlement or award would come directly out of their pockets.  Presumably, the city and county have insurance to protect their employees in the case of a lawsuit stemming from their work; but any fees or awards not covered by their insurance will fall to the taxpayers.  These individuals wouldn't have been named if they hadn't been government employees, they are not going to be personally responsible for any of this.

The Duggar' attorneys would've never filed the suit if their only hope of payment was to try to get cash from the pocket of a low level government employee in rural Arkansas who undoubtedly makes a small fraction of what the Duggar family rakes in from all their enterprises in a year.  Bankrupting some barely middle class government employee so everything they own can be handed over to the Duggars is not going to fly with a jury, either.

Edited October 16, 2017 by doodlebug

[Celia Rubenstein]

What difference does it make if the money comes out of the taxpayers pocket? All damage awards that result from government wrongdoing essentially come out of the taxpayers pocket. That's just how it works. This case is not unique. 

The fact that the people end up paying for governmental malfeasance is the biggest incentive the public has to demand that their government act properly.  Outrage over having to pay settlements leads to changes in law and policy. It leads to people being ousted from office and to to new people being elected or hired. It's a good thing.