[helveticaman]

You're presenting a false dichotomy between staying completely silent and putting something on the internet. A victim can limit him/herself to talking to the police, his/her community, HR, the principal, his/her friends, his/her acquaintances, etc. The victim can also blog about it once the accused party is found guilty. Until then, putting something like this in writing is considered "bad" (if it's false), broadly speaking, by society, which is the reason behind libel laws.

> As to your "shit like this shouldn't be blogged about" comment,

He didn't write what you quoted.

> Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that victims of sexual discrimination stay silent?

No, he's not.

[jamesaguilar]

> He didn't write what you quoted.

Yes, he did:

"Personally I think shit like this should not be blogged at all but whatever. I am not ready to fight this battle again."

It's in the first damn comment. Read it.

> No, he's not.

He's advocating that they not speak about their experiences in a public forum. That's a type of suggesting that they stay silent.

[jsprinkles]

Even though the false dichotomy has been presented to you you are still sticking with it.

I am advocating that the soldier's story of a grave misstep by a person not be presented one-sided with no opportunity for recourse in a very public manner on a very high-traffic blog.

[potatolicious]

If the conference organizers issued a response, is there ANY doubt that it will make it to the front page of HN?

I agree that it would likely end up being an endless series of accusations and counter-accusations, but it is not as if an accusation is being made with no chance to respond.