[jakelazaroff]

A courtroom verdict doesn't "prove" anything. All it means is that a set of lawyers and witnesses were able to convince the people on the jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt (or not) that the events that were alleged actually happened.

Trials are the best way our society has figured out to come to the correct conclusion, but don't make the mistake of thinking the verdict always accurately reflects the events as they occurred. There are many, many cases with unjust outcomes.

[ksec]

>What if nothing actually happened? Reputations can be ruined.

Reputation will be ruined.

Let assume the just outcome, and those allegation were false. AND the reputation were ruined. Now do you go on and sue them back?

[jakelazaroff]

Yes, that is a thing for which you can sue.

[paulryanrogers]

The court of public opinion may be unavoidable, but how do we know when we've crossed over from informing the public of real and present danger to personal vendetta?