[on_and_off]

It is concerning.

I am not even sure what the attitude should be.

By default I would say that when there are serious allegations we should wait until a trial has been conducted.

But there are also cases emerging of dozen of people finally speaking out about an individual, where some kind of opportunistic fabrication seems very unlikely.

How should we balance the 2 ?

[1337biz]

I don't see how why this topic has become all of the sudden a crime where journalists are the judges and not a court of law. It saddens me that society has become so blood hungry again that there are almost seasonal public lynchigs going on. It hurts also the crime itself. In a few weeks nobody is going to care about it anymore as the next whitch is going to be hunted through the village.

[dragonwriter]

> I don't see how why this topic has become all of the sudden a crime where journalists are the judges and not a court of law

It hasn't. It still is a crime where criminal courts of law are the applicable courts.

It's also a tort where civil courts of law are the applicable court.

It's also a moral and PR issue where individuals in deciding their own personal business are the applicable decision-makers.

Journalists are relaying the information on which people make decisions on both responsibility and consequences, but they aren't making the decisions.

> It saddens me that society has become so blood hungry again that there are almost seasonal public lynchigs going on.

No one is getting lynched.

[astura]

Oh, give me a break, the decision to fire someone is not decided by a court of law and never was in the history of the universe. These stories broken by journalists in the last couple months are have investigations that are 10x more thorough than any HR department would ever conduct.

Conducting an investigation and reporting on factual information is not "lynching." Suggesting it is is a gross assult on freedom itself.