[mpweiher]

Well: a second person who was listed as a "victim" came forward to dispute she ever was victimised in any way, and that the account of her experience was severely manipulated. (It has since been taken down).

So that's at least 2 of the accusations that are somewhere between plain false and maliciously fabricated, with nothing on the veracity or lack thereof of the rest.

I don't know the guy, or what happened, but colour me suspicious, especially when you consider how the allegations were/are being made: not in any legal forum, but in a glossy PR website + campaign.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

[dalke]

As a general point of order, one does not need to have a "victim", in scare quotes or otherwise, in order to be in violation of an organization's policies.

For example, a school may prohibit a teacher from engaging in a sexual or emotional relationship with a student, even if both the teacher and the student want the relationship. Similarly, between a supervisor and employee, or between a military officer and a private.

Such behavior may be grounds for dismissal, even though a relationship between consenting adults is not illegal and therefore has no reason to be "in any legal forum".

As I pointed out, even when something is illegal, as when an employee steals from petty cash, the employer does not need to present the case in a legal forum before dismissing the thief. So your strong desire for presenting in a legal forum also does not pass the smell test.

[mpweiher]

The article is not about Applebaum's dismissal from the Tor project, it is about the rape/abuse allegations. Allegations that so far appear to be at best false (1 case apparently completely fabricated and withdrawn on request by the alleged "victim" [and FYI, the scare quotes are entirely appropriate here], 1 other case contradicted by witnesses).

Depending on the organisation and the relationship to that organisation, no reasons are necessary whatsoever to sever a relationship (for example in the US almost all employment relationships are "at will").

So what exactly is your point regarding the content of the article, which, again, is about the rape/abuse allegations?

[dalke]

I started "as a point of order" because my followup comment wasn't about the content of the article but about aspects of your reply that do not make for a useful argument. I will address only one.

You say you are suspicious because a legal forum wasn't involved in the accusations. But sexual harassment is a broad topic, and includes many things which are not illegal. There is no reason for a legal forum be involved for harassment which isn't illegal.

For example, you brought up the reports of an observed interaction between Applebaum and Bähring. Nothing in that interaction was illegal. Hence there is no reason to believe it will be discussed in a legal forum.

My point regarding the content of the article is that the author only mentioned the anonymous accusations. Anonymous accusations are generally treated as less reliable than those made by people who identify themselves - which is why I'm surprised you put so much trust in "River"'s story that you're now willing to reject the accusations of Honeywell, Macrina, and Lovecruft. My point is to question why the author didn't mention those named accusers, and remind HN readers about the named accusations.

My other point is to highlight how the author is concerned mostly with the legal topics, when most the issues accusers (I just read jacobappelbaum.net) have with Appelbaum appear to be sexual harassment, bullying, and other activities which are not illegal. I wish to highlight the author's omission, and remind HN readers that the accusations aren't limited to rape accusations or to illegal activities.

(P.S., it's "Appelbaum" not "Applebaum".)

[mpweiher]

This is getting ridiculous.

Once again: serious accusations were made. Where the most serious of those accusations were examined more closely, they did not hold up even one little bit. Of the two that were apparently examined more closely, one turned out to be made up completely, the other was refuted by witnesses.

The other (less serious, AFAIK) accusations were not examined independently. Instead the accusers were asked and action taken. So basically: accusation = conviction.

One of the incidents recounted apparently/reportedly involved a consensual BDSM threesome where he ignored the safeword. Hmm.. To me, this would be a completely private matter that those involved had no business bringing into the public sphere (except consensually), and it certainly has nothing to do with work. Yes, there are people overstepping bounds, but that would be the accusers. What you do is handle the matter privately, or, if the case warrants it, within the legal system.

> But sexual harassment is a broad topic, and includes many things which are not illegal.

Really?

"At the regional level, both the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (COE) address sexual harassment as illegal behavior"[1]

> (P.S., it's "Appelbaum" not "Applebaum".)

> you brought up the reports of an observed interaction between Applebaum and Bähring.

Hmmmm...nits to pick...

> how the author is concerned mostly with the legal topics

YES. That is the point of the article. The accusations that would have had legal ramifications were false. The others were not examined, so nothing was said about them. You keep criticising the article for things that it isn't about. Do you also criticise articles about Linux filesystems for not mentioning DB2? What is your agenda?

> activities which are not illegal

Well, here directly from the site: "Sex crimes are underreported", he is a "sexual predator". Pray tell me how sex "crimes" are not "illegal"? Them being crimes and such.

This whole campaign, and it certainly looks like a smear campaign, seems to be based on a motte-bailey technique[2]: it shouts and insinuates sexual predator and rapist, to inflict maximum damage, and when challenged retreats to "well, all we're saying is he's not a nice guy". Not being a nice guy does not warrant this type of smear campaign, whereas the type of behaviour insinuated needs legal clarification, otherwise it is slander. You can't have it both ways.

As far as I can see, all this is is anonymous slander, and that makes it clear why it's anonymous: slander is a crime and would have serious repercussions for the accusers. (And since two of the most prominent accusations turned out to be false, it really is slander).

[1] http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm

[2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...