[mathperson]

Are you asking for examples of the mob-like behavior? And lack of due process? Here are some:

-Duke Lacrosse, Rolling Stone, Columbia-guy,...

In the Lacrosse case there were legal repercussions in terms of the behavior of the prosecutor AND private entities ie. Gang of 88 issuing that infamous letter. Similarly in the Rolling Stone and Columbia cases.

False witch hunts like these are indeed relatively uncommon..but they do exist and are they definitely are a function of 'believe women.' Perhaps these are unavoidable consequences of a generally good policy..but it would be foolish to ignore discussion of them entirely.

Side note: Franken was clearly pressured out by the democractic party...I doubt very much he would be free of major repercussions if he had ignored that pressure. I think he was going to be ostracized by his caucus and he saw the writing on the wall. Once those senators published that letter...he was done.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it is morally wrong to disassociate from people whom you reasonably believe to have committed heinous crimes. In the words of Edward R Murrow responding to ongoing McCarthyism "We must remember always that accusation is not proof and conviction depends on due process of law." In practice, this simply becomes be cautious with leaping to judgement and exercise some common logic in weighing the credibility of accusations...like the fantastic reporters at the Washington Post did during the Roy Moore expose.

[joshuamorton]

All three of those examples significantly predate the metoo movement, and I'd argue that none lacked due process:

- Lacrosse, due process was followed, but the prosecutor acted in bad faith.

- Rolling stone: The police investigation cleared them, there were no charges or anything, the story was considered a hoax/fake/discredited ~2 weeks after it was released.

- Columbia mattress guy: Found not responsible by the university.

I think I can agree that there was mob like behavior in those cases, maybe, but I don't see a lack of due process.

> Franken was clearly pressured out by the democractic party.

Yes, I think its a bit more confusing because of the Moore election at the same time, ie. the pressure may have been in part manufactured to prevent cries from republicans about hypocrisy from the democratic party, but that's a lot of conjecture. In any case, I think its pretty much unanimous that Franken's actions are less heinous than Weinstein/Moore, or at least the things that are considered credible.

>like the fantastic reporters at the Washington Post did during the Roy Moore expose.

Indeed, but there's a significant group of people that appear to think that that expose wasn't due process, and that anything that doesn't pass through the legal system is by definition not due process (and this is what I object to). It appears that GGP is someone who holds that opinion, but they avoided directly answering that question.

[mathperson]

reading more of your comments I disagree with very little of what you said

[mathperson]

edit: sorry if I wrote too much. I guess I got excited.

Sure they predate #metoo but they are part of the same laudable impulse: to hold sexual predators accountable-often in the court of public opinion. I fail to see why you would make a dichotomy between them and this moment. Maybe this one is larger?

Before we continue: I am not lawyer and I am going to refer to due process roughly as "When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law." (wikipedia for due process)

Perhaps we should smear the meaning of due process a little bit for this discussion. I do not want to be too legalistic. Could we not expand our discussion to include due process on the part of media? I.e. skepticism, verification, basically making sure stories are well sourced and are as true as is possible given reasonable constraints. In short, good, professional journalism in the sense of Woodward and Bernstein.

Now onto the core of your comment. You are mincing your words very very finely. Due process was 100% violated in each of these cases.

Lacrosse-The prosecutor was DISBARRED and JAILED (briefly). Crystal Mangum LIED. MIKE NIFONG LIED. Just because justice won out in the end doesn't mean there were not significant due process violations during the case. Maybe lying isn't a violation of due process in the strict legal sense. But it sure as hell is a miscarriage of justice and that should be very frightening.

Those falsely accused still experienced real and lasting damages including being harassed verbally on campus by protestors, being shamed by faculty members. The press leapt to judgement and turned a bunch of rich, privileged, smart(?), white boys into monsters.

To me this case is incredibly concerning-because if rich white male lacrosse players can be falsely accused and have their lives turned upside down and possibly destroyed...what chance do the less fortunate members of american society have? how many poor black men, innocent of any crime, are rotting in overcrowded prisons? How many innocents are on death row? I think we have a duty to be cautious...I would rather we let some guilty escape than we punish innocents. I don't know where I would draw the line in terms of numbers.

Fun fact: one of the duke lacrosse guys now works for the innocence project.

-Rolling Stone: There are people who still believe that story...

-Columbia mattress guy- and no ONE cares. people still talk about that accuser as doing a profound service to the moral ethos of the republic. That guy's reputation was shattered. He had his education interrupted and experienced real damages.

Franken: Yeah.

Re: your last part. This could be partially my fault for conflating due process in a legal sense and due diligence and good journalistic practices a la Washington Post. I agree- those people exist and they need to be convinced otherwise.

Look- I just posted in another comment thread advocating for and supporting the fact that in the American press people have substantial freedom to make accusations and shame malefactors. It is essential to safeguarding our liberties. I treasure that right. However, that right imposes on us, as citizens and readers, certain responsibilities to ensure we do not falsely accuse and shame the innocent. I think that duty is simply to be restrained and be calm and reserve our strongest opprobrium until we have a reasonable degree of certainty. If you are ever accused of a significant crime or misdeed (in court or in the press) I am sure you would hope that you yourself be extended that same privilege.

Honestly do we really have any point of argument? I mean come on- do you really think duke-lacrosse didn't have due process issues? If so we need to talk more about the facts of the case.

Here is my tldr: false accusations are real, they do happen, and so I think it behooves the public to weigh the strength of an accusation and ponder the merits of each individual case before looking for witches to burn. Alternatively, sexual abuse/harassment are a real problem and I think all of us, men,women,non/binary, children, should be introspective about how our own actions can make things worse for victims and easier for predators. Most people accused of crimes are guilty.

Similarly, when we let false accusations stand we empower those lunatics who really and truly do believe that every accuser of roy moore is a paid liberal shill and that women should be returned to a state of powerlessness and legal bondage. This is not an academic point-I go on the /r/The_Donald to see what they are like and people there really and truly believe that.

edit2: I didn't really talk in detail about lacrosse/mattress but they had problems.

[joshuamorton]

To the majority of your comment, I agree. However, one thing that I want to note, and this is a bit of semantics, but I think very important here:

>Due process was 100% violated in each of these cases.

Your reasoning that due process was violated is that the accused (and the prosecutor) both lied. I'll point out that the reason we have due process in the US is in part to defend against false accusations. As a result, I think that the series of events false accusation -> investigation and case -> acquittal is the opposite of a failure of due process, its a shining success.

This extends to the Roy Moore/project veritas example too, but replace "due process" with "journalistic integrity", and remove the sort abuse of power overtones that make due process that much more important.

[mathperson]

Ah an interesting point about due process. I buy that.

Yes journalist integrity is a good term that I feel captures the scope of what we would like to discuss.

Side note watching the project veritas videos is so heartwarming. It really makes you believe in democracy and truth again. Seeing good fact-checking...glorious