No, because Gacy was accused of things that were actually illegal, whereas much of what Pretty was accused of is clearly not illegal, just shitty. So, as I said in my comment and hardly “glossed over,” the court of public opinion (and the possibility of social / professional sanction) are entirely appropriate!

This idea that individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures, or report on their own experiences with public figures, is so painfully stupid that I find it astonishing that you are arguing in good faith. This is not something you would actually believe in other contexts (say, if a CEO is accused of verbal abuse).

> This idea that individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures, or report on their own experiences with public figures, is so painfully stupid that I find it astonishing that you are arguing in good faith.

Then maybe you should step back and consider the possibility that you are misunderstanding the point and arguing with a straw man. I never at any point said that “individuals aren’t allowed to publicly criticize the actions of public figures”, and I don’t think you’re acting in good faith by interpreting me as such.

I’m not saying the court of public opinion is the wrong venue for this sort of thing; I’m saying the court of public opinion is, by any reasonable standard, a kangaroo court, and we should exercise much more caution and skepticism toward its judgments than we exercise towards the judgments made by a court of law. Keeping this caution in mind is, in fact, what distinguishes a measured application of social/professional sanction from outright “mob justice”.