Quote Originally Posted by Pinsir View Post
The issue though is that really no one thinks, "Oh, OJ was found not guilty by a court of his peers so didn't knife his ex-wife." Yet, we are essentially being told by objectors that this is how we should treat women who raise claims of sexual harassment, that their claims need to be treated with a layer of extra caution and need to be verified by a judge and jury. I can say Henry Kissinger is a war criminal and Bill Cosby is a rapist, with or without some court decision.
The difference is that in OJ's case there was a mountain of evidence that was presented to the public. Whereas these all come under a "he said, she said" and it's very easy to say something happened and it's just as easy to say it didn't. And when that is the case, it is slippery slope to auto condemn the accused based off a he said she said. That's why rape and sexual assault has been such a grey area in the court system because it ultimately devolves to each side slandering each other's character and looking for reasons to discredit the other.

Cosby and Weinstein are outliers where you have so many people independently saying the exact same thing that it's hard to envision conspiracy scenario. That said, I'm not so sure if you went through every single accusation against them that they'd all hold up. But in other people in one off instances, again it's a grey area.

And we know that false sexual assault and rape accusations actually happen. So it's difficult in every single instance to take a he said she said and ere on the side of the accused and completely trash someone's career and reputation in the interests of remaining sensitive to a potential victim. Again it's an incredibly difficult area in law.