| 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... |