You are free to judge for yourself, but from the Information and Axios article, there does seem to be a preponderance of evidence to suggest Justin is either a serial sexual harasser/predator, at worst, or a totally inappropriate jerk-douchebag, at the very least. Both deserve condemnation. Bad actors need to be rooted out and ostracized, especially bad actor VCs.

That is correct in cases where harassment has occurred, yes.

In cases of false accusation, though, the accuser has nearly all of the advantages. And it's not as if it never happens, either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estim...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexu...

Which is why due process is important both legally, and culturally. While I understand how people directly impacted by the event (and their loved ones) have neither the inclination nor the capacity to withhold judgement, mob-like indignation on the part of the public about every story which is reported is a dynamic that hasn't served us well thus far, and the situation isn't showing any signs of improving.

Else we're little better than places that hold mock trials and summary executions.

Serious accusations need to be tried in a manner that involves evidence, sworn testimony, counsel, etc., precisely because of their seriousness.

In the meantime, online conjecture by parties with no standing should probably presume innocence until guilt is found, because a mob mentality should be beneath us.

I know someone who was falsely accused of something serious–decades in prison type stuff–and the news coverage alone destroyed his business and put his family through hell.

Anyone who's opposed to capital punishment because it prevents the accused from ever finding justice should also be concerned about the effects the court of public opinion can have on someone's life, and err on the side of withholding judgement when, again, there's no reason for us to judge this person unless we have direct dealings with the individual and need to make our own estimations out of self-interest.

What's happening in this thread isn't about self-interest, it's about self-satisfaction. That's neither useful nor wise.

You're making a reasonable, but I would argue, pedantic argument (as it applies to this situation). Caldbeck is not being tried in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion. The standards are looser, that's just a part of living in a community with others, there is a natural bit of self-policing. It's part of our instinctual nature as humans; we pattern-match, it can get us in trouble at times, but it's gotten us this far as a species.

If he is innocent he is free to defend himself and provide counter-evidence. He is being rightfully pilloried given the many claims, over a long period of time, against him. The abundance of evidence, must be considered.

Look at the Bill Cosby case. Legally, innocent, but would you leave your daughter, wife, mother alone with someone with this kind of reputation?

Edit: here is his statement

Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my actions. There’s no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I hate that my behavior has contributed to it.

Judge for yourself. Innocent, non-harassers, don't apologize when accused of such vile things (especially married, "family" men with kids - a daughter nonetheless).

Why the need to judge? Whether he's guilty or innocent, it's a tragic story for all involved, and it's not our job to make that decision: this is why we have a legal system on which our society is founded.

Now, if I had a direct relationship with Mr. Caldbeck I would certainly make my own estimations and act accordingly, but I don't understand why everyone feels this need to act as judge and jury of everything that happens. That tendency isn't one of the better aspects of our nature.

No, we do not. Our society is not founded on the legal system; the legal system is one feature of our society, intended to deal with the most serious failures of normal operations.

Or are you also interested in determining sentencing and throwing the switch?

You had me up until this point. There are plenty of married-with-children men and women in consenting open/poly/swinger/etc relationships; we don't know enough to judge their marriage.

This doesn't make sexual harassment ok, but maybe sharpen your pitchforks with a little less glee?

Waiting for the facts/verdict though, and not forming an internet mob based on whatever one person or another said, SHOULD apply anywhere.

Well, how about the law?

>We can't just let everything slide because we're perpetually waiting for more evidence.

But it's not 'sliding', it's going to court.

And it doesn't concern us anyway -- it's not like we witnessed it in real life and didn't speak out.

Stopping sexual assault should concern everyone!

Well, some downvotes should come your way for misattribution too then.

I didn't say that "Stopping sexual assault should not concern us" (or anything to that effect).

I said the case is of no concern to us. First, it's not our place to make judgements of guilt or innocence without knowing what transpired and not even knowing those people. Ee don't even know for sure whether it was actually sexual assault or not -- that's for the law to decide.

(Of course we might be suspicious of the law, or a specific court result, or the way a trial was conducted etc. But we are not even at that stage yet).

Plus, you're not stopping sexual assault by saying you are against it in an internet forum (and concerning an undecided case). Heck, even rapists would say they are "against sexual assault" in public.

Rich people use their position to attract girls all the time, it doesn't change if they are VC or not. You can always tell them that you're not interested or to get the fuck off if they insist. Besides their riches are part of who they are (it's not like they just won the lottery) -- a struggling artist or fair-trade hippie activist will also use his being as such to attract girls who are into that sort of thing.

I don't find "explicit texts" of concern either. What is this, victorian morality police? Some texts are bad because they are naughty? "I want to have sex with you" might even be more open and honest than "Let's have some coffee" (when the main reason is ending up in bed).

Threatening texts or actual sexual assault on the other hand, well, yeah, that's of concern.

Due process is for any government action affecting life, liberty, or property, including civil proceedings.

But still not relevant to private reactions, though certainly one could argue that some of the principles which motivate due process protections have moral relevance in a private context as well.