[sigmaprimus]

>>>", because he now has a "previous CoC violation allegation" on his permanent record, regardless of his acquittal."

I wonder how much this has affected his lifetime earning potential?

Couple that with the "public apology" seems like an open and shut lawsuit that many lawyers would be happy to take on contingency.

[xab31]

EDIT: My reading was wrong, see below.

The thing that seemed to me oddest about all this is that Jeremy says the committee spoke to two reporters before hearing his side of the story, and before issuing a judgment. It is not totally clear if they were speaking to those two reporters about his case.

I would imagine that an obvious way for CoC committees to minimize their own liability would be to at least avoid talking to reporters before they have issued a judgment. Really, the process should be totally private until a guilty judgment has been made, and if the person is declared innocent, then the whole thing should disappear without ever having been made public.

[btilly]

I believe that "reporters" here means "one who reports a violation" and not "a reporter who can be expected to publish the story".

[xab31]

Yes, I think you're right. He refers to "the two reporters" (and previously mentions that there were two complaints).