The original complaint claimed that he was a groper. That's sexual harassment. It's illegal. It's incredibly toxic and creepy, and people who do it are out of touch cretins who make everything worse.

Citing that no one officially lodged a criminal complaint isn't a counterpoint. Most sexual assault isn't pursued. Serial creeps are plying their trade right now.

But yeah, if he's associated with a brand and he's going to important trade events for that brand and being a despicable creep, in every dimension that is grounds for being fired.

Mob mentality and so-called cancel culture are deeply unfortunate, often doing more damage than the things they are angered about. However creeps have negative consequences when they come under scrutiny, especially when it encourages others to note other creepy incidents.

> Citing that no one officially lodged a criminal complaint isn't a counterpoint. Most sexual assault isn't pursued. Serial creeps are plying their trade right now.

Actually it is a counterpoint. If someone accuses me of a crime, then refuses to pursue any prosecution of that crime, and then expects me to suffer consequences for that crime, that's a gross injustice.

That's why we have a justice system.

The problem is that there is no justice system for things that are not illegal, but are ethically or morally bad.

Society in the US and in much of the western world has agreed that the only official punishments due for anything are when laws are broken. No law broken, no punishment. This is actually a weakness of our society when the lawmaking bodies choose to sit on the sidelines when the ethical or moral values of the society change, but the laws do not.

This is not to say that I endorse lots of new laws to accommodate punishments for people that break moral or ethical values that our society holds, but that without a system that can handle these problems in any capacity, society picks up the slack using whatever tools necessary. As of right now, our society has picked up and run with the idea of ostracism.

Trying to guide how our society treats people who break moral or ethical values is a right we have mostly all agreed that lawmaking bodies are in charge of. Unfortunately, most lawmaking bodies in the US, and maybe other parts of the world, are too concerned with outrage-farming for trying to win re-election. I wish I had a good answer here, but honestly, our society has a lot of social problems we are dealing with poorly right now, and this seems like a low-priority one, unfortunately.

> The problem is that there is no justice system for things that are not illegal, but are ethically or morally bad.

That's not a problem, that's a feature!

After all, do you want to be punished for breaking someone else's moral code?

Whether you like it or not, the legal system and the sets of laws is the only moral and ethical yardstick we have gotten society to agree on.

If you want your particular set of morals to have a punishment then work within the guidelines to get it made into a law.

If you can't garner enough support for your moral position to be made into law then maybe it's not as moral as you think.

How far do you want to take this argument?

Warning people about someone's creepy behavior isn't a punishment, it's a warning that they might violate my moral code and I should probably avoid them. Is me avoiding them punishment? Should I then be punished? not punished?

Define punishment...

> Warning people about someone's creepy behavior isn't a punishment,

Until someone goes around warning other people that they think that you act creepy around children?

How do you define creepy? It's completely subjective. That's why the courts are objective.

Making the argument for mobbing and witch-hunts almost never ends well.

it's telling that you think courts are objective...

> it's telling that you think courts are objective...

So, if you think that the court system, with it's experts, and centuries of experience, with fallbacks and checks and balances, with emphasis on applying the law with regard to precedent and societal input, with appeals and formal processes that must be followed ... is unable to be objective, what makes you think that random people with an actual specified bias is more objective?

I dunno about you, but I'll take my chances in court over someone who literally shouts their bias to the world any day.

All the arguments for mob justice that you are attempting to make are the same arguments the KKK made for their justice.

There’s a difference between able to be objective and being objective. Anyone who believe that’s American Courts, or rather, courts are objective is someone I hope has a really good lawyer if they ever go to court.

Are you aligning yourself here to the "master's tools will never dismantle the master's house" and proposing we distrust the systems in our society?

In fact, it is not the purpose of a justice system to ensure that you retain all your clients when you're accused of misconduct. In our justice system, it's rather the opposite: most of the function of the justice system we have is to ensure that people retain the freedom not to associate with people, with only very narrow exceptions.

You can lose jobs, friends, and clients simply for being a jerk. There's nothing illegal about being an asshole, but plenty of people refuse to work with assholes.

> You can lose jobs, friends, and clients simply for being a jerk. There's nothing illegal about being an asshole, but plenty of people refuse to work with assholes.

Sure, but the current cancel culture results in people refusing to associate with the accused out of fear, not because they think he or she is a jerk.

I heartily support freedom of association. I don't support a mob of people, completely unrelated to either the victim or the accused, exacting punishments for any third party who exercises their own freedom of association. Made all the more worse when the mob then moves on in a coordinated fashion to the next "accused".

I cannot see a future where I ever support mobbing and witch-hunts, even if I happen to believe their accusation.

I guess I think you can coherently believe that without somehow implicating the justice system. People have different thresholds for this stuff.

> I guess I think you can coherently believe that without somehow implicating the justice system. People have different thresholds for this stuff.

So why are their thresholds more important than others'?

This is literally why we have a justice system - people have different ideas about what is wrong and what is right. The justice system, with its set of laws, is the final arbiter o right and wrong.

If you cannot get enough support for adding in your personal moral code to the set of laws, then perhaps it's not as universally moral as you seem to think it is.

It doesn't have to be universally moral. People are free to retain professional connections with this person. In effect, what people seem to be arguing on this thread is that people should be enjoined from exercising their own freedom of association when someone is deemed to be unfairly targeted online. I think you can coherently argue that, but I don't think you can reasonably argue it.

What's muddying the discussion is the invocation of the criminal justice system. We all implicitly understand that you can lose your job for being incompetent (not a crime), for calling your boss names (not a crime), for disparaging your company (not a crime), for flying a swastika flag from your car's antenna (not a crime). But because sexual assault is in fact a crime, people move the goalposts: now, for someone to face social and commercial consequences, they need to first be found guilty in a court of law.

That's a strange and, I think, indefensible standard.

> People are free to retain professional connections with this person.

Only if they want to also be mobbed. I did say earlier that the mob ensures ostracization via fear.

There is nothing redeeming or respectable about being in a mob, but the current cancel culture is attempting to overturn generations of social norms by trying to portray mobbing and witch-hunting as the moral high-ground.

Believe me, no matter how many big words are used to philosophize about the moral superiority of mobbing, at the end of the day the mobbers are no different to any other mobbers.

> But because sexual assault is in fact a crime, people move the goalposts: now, for someone to face social and commercial consequences, they need to first be found guilty in a court of law.

Well, yes. It's much more serious to be a criminal than a non-criminal. You are equivocating non-criminal acts with actual criminal acts and then appear surprised that for accusations of actual criminal acts people require evidence.

It's not shades of gray - there's a thick and visible line between "He's a criminal" and "he has different opinions to me".

You're damn right - for someone to face serious consequences, there had better be evidence that convinces a court that the person committed the crime of which they are accused.

I don't think this response is very coherent. As I pointed out, you can face the same "serious" consequence simply for calling someone a bad name. What you're saying would make sense if we were discussing convicting him of a crime, but that's not what we're talking about; instead, his defenders are moving the goalposts, so that we use the standards of evidence of criminal conviction and imprisonment to enforce standards of social and commercial behavior. That doesn't make sense, sorry.

> coherent

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

> instead, his defenders are moving the goalposts, so that we use the standards of evidence of criminal conviction and imprisonment to enforce standards of social and commercial behavior.

No goalposts are being moved. The "defenders" as you put it, are simply saying "You are accusing that person of a crime. Where's your evidence?"

We're literally at the point where you appear to be claiming that asking for evidence is "moving the goalposts".

Not coherent, in that it doesn't cohere. For instance: your argument accepts implicitly the fact that you can be fired just for being a jerk (as happens every day in every field), or otherwise hard to work with. But if someone commits an actual sexual assault, an organization seeking to terminate them assumes a heightened burden of proof. That doesn't make sense.

The fact is, nobody is required to meet a standard of proof to choose not to associate with this person. You can keep associating with them if you'd like.

An irony here is that the law actually provides this person with a tool, if people have stopped associating with him commercially because of false statements of purported fact ("he groped someone", or "he attempted to have sex with someone too intoxicated to consent" certainly qualifies, per se in fact, as both are crimes): he can sue for defamation.

>Not coherent, in that it doesn't cohere. For instance: your argument accepts implicitly the fact that you can be fired just for being a jerk (as happens every day in every field), or otherwise hard to work with. But if someone commits an actual sexual assault, an organization seeking to terminate them assumes a heightened burden of proof. That doesn't make sense

Well, yes, there is a higher burden of proof required for criminal accusations. Why do you want it any other way?

> An irony here is that the law actually provides this person with a tool, if people have stopped associating with him commercially because of false statements of purported fact ("he groped someone", or "he attempted to have sex with someone too intoxicated to consent" certainly qualifies, per se in fact, as both are crimes): he can sue for defamation.

Sure, unless the person making the accusation simply responds with "that was my opinion, which I stand by". You can't win a slander/libel lawsuit in many jurisdictions against someone for holding an opinion.

It's also free to make the accusation, while it is costly to defend - the element of fear is what makes the mob powerful.

There's a burden of proof for criminal convictions.

And that's not at all how defamation defenses work.

The justice system's mechanism for protecting from the "someone's speech cost you clients" scenario is libel (or slander). Both protect a person from defamatory, factual, untrue statements.

"That guy is an asshole" isn't one of those, and the only protection American law offers in that case is "People should think for themselves."

And, of course, the mirror image of the terribly stupid argument that if there isn't a criminal trial, no assault could have occurred is the argument that if the accused doesn't win a suit for libel, the accusation must be valid.

Okay, counterpoint. Say you were 50yo a restaurant owner, and launched a party for the arrival of your new cook. At the end of the party, you proposed to the 19yo apprentice to drive her home while she was waiting at the bus stop. As she live outside town and don't really want to wait an hour for the night bus, she accept. In the car, you managed to rape her, then throw her out. Devastated, she go home to her then boyfriend, who drunk, said something like "with how you dress, i wouldn't be surprised". Oh, also, this "boyfriend" work in your friend's restaurant. She managed to get herself up three day later (two and a half), but it is too late to take a sample, and since you threathened her, no bruising was found. Even if a sample was recolted right after the act btw, it would not have been a clear evidence of a rape, as she could have given her consentment (after all, she was in your car).

So you can sleep easily, nothing to fear. Well, until somehow, people keep shouting "rapist" when then pass in front of your restaurant, and tell your client to call the cooking institute and ask them about which restaurant in town their female apprentice to avoid. Oh, and the girl you raped shared her story on facebook with your 18 yo daughter, who is not estranged to you. All that, that's gross injustice, too?

> All that, that's gross injustice, too?

Hold on, in your little narrative, how are the accusers sure that there was a rape?

No, seriously, that's the point of the justice system - determine if the crime happened.

So, if anyone ever calls you a rapist, then you are one? Or are you arguing that these rules are only for other people, not for you?

I someone calls you an asshole, and people listen, you have no recourse to the justice system to recover your reputation and retain your professional connections.

I never groped anyone.

Hey man - be careful reading stuff alright? Probably best to just take a breather from reading stuff about yourself, it can't feel good. Humans weren't designed to be yelled at by more people than you can fit in a room.

Public apologies are the new porn and bullying people into providing them is a real addiction for some.

These depressed people use "consequences" as a brief hit of superiority, allowing them to escape the reality of their own failed lives.

...and as quickly as it picks them up, it is gone again, and they then need to search for that next dose of "justice".

Complexity, self-reflection, nuance, are all distractions from what is an emotional addiction.

And like any addiction, you cannot satiate it by giving it more of what it craves. Apologies attract more of them, and they go back to hit the apologizer for more "consequences", like trying to get the last little hit, even if they can see there's nothing left.

Don't engage these people. They are worthless.

This is either a weird rhetorical device you're using to discount opposing viewpoints (they're all just trying to "escape the reality of their own failed lives"..."they are worthless"), or some sort of Jungian projection.

Sexual harassment is an enormous problem in every industry. People who just want to do good work and be a part and contribute become targets for predators who objectify, diminish and harass. Culturally it became not okay and people realized they were heard and that these people could have consequences.

A lot of people get riled up about such cases because they have faced similar situations themselves [see also how instances of racism/bigotry can become viral -- it taps into a latent anger]. It becomes cathartic and representative. A movement.

And the creeps of the world surely must have taken notice by now. The imagined Lothorios can stick to actual social events because it's pretty established that it's not a good idea at work, or anything remotely work related (including trade shows and conferences).

> This is either a weird rhetorical device you're using to discount opposing viewpoints (they're all just trying to "escape the reality of their own failed lives"..."they are worthless"), or some sort of Jungian projection.

This is the long winded version of "no you".

> Sexual harassment is an enormous problem in every industry. People who just want to do good work and be a part and contribute become targets for predators who objectify, diminish and harass. Culturally it became not okay and people realized they were heard and that these people could have consequences.

You think OP is guilty here, with no basis.

> A lot of people get riled up about such cases because they have faced similar situations themselves [see also how instances of racism/bigotry can become viral -- it taps into a latent anger]. It becomes cathartic and representative. A movement.

It's cathartic - exactly. It is for THEM. No one expressing their outrage truly cares about the victims - it is just porn.

> And the creeps of the world surely must have taken notice by now. The imagined Lothorios can stick to actual social events because it's pretty established that it's not a good idea at work, or anything remotely work related (including trade shows and conferences).

You think OP is guilty here, with no basis.

>You think OP is guilty here, with no basis.

The basis is his public admission that he was guilty, no?

> This is the long winded version of "no you".

I'd say it's much more accurate than the weird caricature you propped up.

> You think OP is guilty here, with no basis.

A bunch of people cited problem. Employer fired him. I don't assume he's guilty, but I have absolutely no reason to think him innocent, or somehow the victim in all of this.

Being a creep has consequences. His own confession admitted to being a creep (the largest red flag being the claim of doing "dumb things while drunk", which is a go to in every obnoxious behavior). Eh.

To be honest, this is a toxic point of view, and I'm not going to engage it.

I don't think this is the only reasonable reading of the situation, and your framing here is pretty inflammatory. We're supposed to get calmer and more careful in our writing as topics get complicated; see the guidelines at the bottom of the page.

This person's career was destroyed because of an online mob.

...and that mob is not psychologically healthy. The online vengeance mob is a toxic and destructive part of our world.

I don't think "online mob" is the only reasonable reading here, and the claim that the people telling the other side of this story must be psychologically unhealthy is also inflammatory, as is talking about its "toxicity" and "destructiveness". This isn't shedding any more light, or rewarding curiosity, which are the goals of the site.

I wasn't there. I don't know you or any of the other players. I know nothing about this beyond basically the synopsis.

Yet what is cited as the origin of the torch mob -- a twitter thread -- has a lot of pretty clear accusations by long time Twitter users, some of whom are fairly well known figures.

"Long time twitter user" is a pretty awful metric for credibility.

Someone with a chip on their shoulder didn't create a bunch of accounts to invent a narrative is the point. It's absolutely an input to consideration.

And FWIW, to use Animats' argument that lack of court proceedings is evidence, surely there's a lot of actionable libel in some of those twitter threads if they are invented. If there isn't such proceedings, is that proof that they're all true? I think we've hit a halting problem!

Noah you are saying this now but your original apology says the opposite. Which is it?

Where do you see that in the original apology?

https://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/2020/06/noah-bradley-admi...

Follow the links from his Wikipedia page and you can see Twitter threads where he responded directly to allegations like this with links to the apology.

Not very helpful, even with digging I don't see what you are talking about. Please post the link.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Bradley

Live Twitter reference Link

https://twitter.com/Blackdeerly/status/1274715678444945412

Dead Twitter reference Links

https://twitter.com/noahbradley/status/1274670378296774658

https://twitter.com/abigbat/status/1293860934600003585

You can simply follow the first Wikipedia footnote on "cut all ties", in the opening paragraph of the article.

Ok since you don't post links I'll assume you are referring to:

'Bradley’s statement came the morning after concept artist Betty Jiang posted accusations on Twitter about a “bald headed crusty assed ‘well known’ artist who went around groping female devs,” saying that she hoped “to never see you and your shitty v-neck shirts at any workshops or conventions.”'

He apologized for a lot of things, but I don't see him admitting to or apologizing for groping anyone.

https://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/2020/06/noah-bradley-admi...

As I said: you can see screenshots of threads where he was accused both of "groping" and of taking advantaged of intoxicated women at events, and he responded with a link to the apology. Follow the first footnote from the Wikipedia article, and then click the screenshot on the first message in the Twitter thread.

I have no way of judging the veracity of either side of this argument, but it sure looks like the allegations against him were specific --- at the time.

So the tweet paraphrased above, here is the link... Which again he didn't directly reply to and didn't say anything about groping anyone in his apology... Is it really that hard to link?

https://twitter.com/BettyDesuJiang/status/127450059571858227...

I think you don't see Noah's reply because he deleted that tweet? At least, I can't find the "a long overdue acknowledgement" tweet on twitter any more. So what tptacek says seems accurate to me.

> I think you don't see Noah's reply because he deleted that tweet?

Several times above, I have included a link [1] with both a screenshot and description which in no way indicate that... He was accused of being a known groper but that was not a behavior he explicitly apologized for.

[1] https://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/2020/06/noah-bradley-admi...

No, I mean deleted the reply tweet that you see in this screenshot: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbCzIRoU0AcR8Qk?format=jpg&name=...

This is what tptacek was referring to when he said that he used this apology in response to groping allegations.

It's hard to tell what's going on in twitter threads though. Twitter sucks at archiving this kind of info.

Yes that is the same tweet referenced above. They accused him of multiple things such as "groping female devs", "trying to pour drinks down the throat" of a drunk girl who bit his face. He apologized for SIC "shitty, creepy" behavior, but he never explicitly apologized for groping & wasn't accused of groping anyone specifically. I don't see how any of that is inconsistent with the author saying above that he didn't grope anyone.

I was just responding to your statmeent that Noah didn’t ‘didn't directly reply’ to the groping allegations. As far as I can tell, he did, as you can see in the screenshot.

I don't use twitter and they have multiple UI for platform but AFAIK when you reply it usually says "replying to @...", which it didn't have in the screenshot or archive.

https://archive.vn/69yo0

You've just demonstrated conclusively that he never claimed to grope anyone.

I don't think anyone is inclined to believe one way or the other. It is a gray area and with the way you described what you did, it certainly seems plausible.

You even say you were drunk and did stupid things. It is plausible that you wouldn't even remember doing it.

Right, but until someone, you know, actually comes out and accuses him of it, shouldn't we assume he didn't?

I know of at least 5 women who stopped attending these events because of you, and their (near-)contemporaneous accounts of your behavior does not match your current recollections of your past behavior.

I'm not inclined to believe 3rd party rumors.

If anything, your comment is exactly the problem OP is talking about.

In addition to actually witnessing Noah act like a drunken idiot, I was made aware of Noah's more inappropriate behavior contemporaneously with it happening...in two cases, within minutes of him playing drunken grab-ass, and in the remaining cases, the next day.

That being said, I'm also not surprised that people on HN side with a man with a history of sexually harassment over his victims.

For inexplicable reasons, the HN crowd seems to think that because they're awkward around women that the same thing that happened to Noah can happen to them, but being awkward around women is not sexual harassment. Just don't grab a woman's body without her permission or try to proposition her within minutes of meeting her, and you'll be fine.

In Noah Bradley's case, a lot of people just disliked him because of a reputation that he was a self-important jerk who jumped on every opportunity he could to self-promote and had some annoyingly devoted fanboys (a similar dynamic follows Elon Musk).

When the cancellation was in full swing I got the distinct impression that a lot of people were piling on to settle scores or because they just hated seeing him and his fanboys spamming up his stuff all the time, regardless of whether they actually knew him to be a creep or not.

> Citing that no one officially lodged a criminal complaint isn't a counterpoint. Most sexual assault isn't pursued.

Your argument here is that he's guilty until proven innocent.

If we're going to use that terminology, note that the common phrase "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the court, and only to the court. That it must treat you as innocent until a guilty judgment is rendered.

It isn't some universal right or something, and has zero bearing on this conversation.

I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent. But if someone says "he did nothing illegal because he hasn't been charged" [which the comment I replied to claimed], eh... By some estimates only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to police, so it's a sensitive topic.

But that's orthogonal anyways. My core point was that if someone was a creep and causing discomfort at trade events while associated with a brand, it doesn't need to be illegal to have negative consequences.

> "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the court

No. The legal system codifies societal values we have. One of those values is that accusations without evidence, like rumors and gossip, are poor reflections of reality, and should never be used to judge someone's character.

Witch hunts were real, remember?

There's plenty of evidence in this case, just possibly not enough to pass the threshold for a successful criminal prosecution. People get fired all the time for doing things that aren't illegal, and where there is strong but non-conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. For example, if I consistently take time off for being "sick", I'll eventually be fired, even though the company obviously won't be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I wasn't sick on the relevant days.

I definitely agree with you there.

If my child came to me sobbing that someone abused them, I would not wait for a court to decide the "truth" before I started caring for and protecting my child. Whether the person who hurt them was ever convicted wouldn't me material to my opinion on the events.

In his apology he also referred to himself as a "Sexual Predator" and said that he pressured people into sex... These are pretty loaded terms to be throwing around and no surprise people on Twitter took the worst interpretation.

He might be worse than Prince Andrew at PR.

https://www.hipstersofthecoast.com/2020/06/noah-bradley-admi...

Sometimes people say that kind of thing out of shame, for example if they feel humiliated and are trying to make the humiliation stop by agreeing with the person shaming them. Such statements should not be taken as factual confessions. I don't know anything about this situation, but that language sounds like that to me. Also, the first sentence of the current article makes me think that the author is given to overstatement.

> Such statements should not be taken as factual confessions

What does this even mean? Don't apologize for coercing people to have sex if you didn't do that.

I think the comment is pretty clear in its meaning. Do you really not understand it?

No I don't understand. The author published a written apology, and has said nothing about it not being sincere, what shouldn't be taken as "factual".

There is a very big difference between not taking his apology as truthful and other people distorting what he said ie; people equating apologizing for "pressuring someone to have sex" as the same thing as apologizing for rape.

Ok, so you do understand the comment. You just don't agree with it.

He's accused of more than being a jerk in social situations, but being a jerk in social situations is by itself absolutely grounds for being fired. The list of things you can do that aren't illegal but will reliably get you fired is long.

> being a jerk in social situations is by itself absolutely grounds for being fired.

That runs contrary to most companies I've worked at.

I'm not sure I can think of a team I've worked on with more than 10 people on it where someone didn't get let go for noncriminal bad behavior that wasn't simply work incompetence. Obviously, it happens all the time. That there are extreme assholes that manage to retain (or even improve) their positions isn't evidence against my argument, because it's not my claim that there's a consistent standard; in fact, the lack of such a standard is part of my point.

Were these professional teams, or high school/college/food service jobs?

I went to work in tech right after high school; I've never worked a food service job.

I’m saddened by the pushback against the notion of firing assholes. There are some people I just did not want to work with, and on a few occasions management came to the same conclusion.

And I wouldn’t want to work for a company that wouldn’t fire people who were acting terribly in public. Who wants to sit next to someone awful all day?

It's not grounds for being fired because there are no grounds for being fired. You can be fired for depositing your first paycheck in a bank that starts with the letter A, if your boss wants.

There is a specific set of things for which you cannot be legally fired - "wrongful terminations" - because terminations are by default rightful. And there are a specific set of things for which you effectively must be fired if the organization doesn't want to be seen as approving of your behavior, which is what the abusive workplace stuff is about. Note that the links you provide are about laws that apply to companies, not to individuals.

Between those two extremes, there's a whole lot of stuff for which you can be fired. Reflecting badly on the company and making their customers unhappy, while breaking no laws and exposing the company to no legal risk, is an extremely common case.

It is pretty unfair that people lose their livelihoods because of their employers' whims, and it happens to a whole lot of people who have not even done anything worth apologizing for, and I think our society needs to address this problem in general.

>It's grounds for being, say, thrown out of a nightclub. But not fired.

In the US this broadly isn't true, employers can fire someone even if they haven't done anything illegal

FYI, in most states, for most jobs, in most situations, you can be fired for pretty much any reason or no reason at all. If you are interested in workers' rights, please support collective action for labor and politicians that support workers' rights.

My brother-in-law is 24 years old, autistic and worked at the local grocery store. He was in the union. One time, he made a stupid joke about “juicy melons” he was physically holding to a female co-worker.

She claimed sexual harassment and he was immediately fired. No investigation, no support from the union.

There was no third party witness, just he said-she said. Don’t think unions are there to protect you.

His mother also works at the same store in a different department. Didn’t matter.

The mob had judged him expeditiously. The poor kid has never even kissed a girl.

>What he's supposed to have done: “I was terrible to women. I preyed on them. I ceaselessly hit on them. I pressured them into sex. I got too drunk and did all manner of dumb things.”

He could start by not posting a long diatribe about how he's the victim here?

Do not associate with people who have tribal Twitter bios and you'll avoid said slander.

If pressuring women into sex is not illegal, I really want to know which country you are living in.

You might be playing on the word "pressure". I don't think semantic debates are worthwhile.

"pressuring" isn't a word used in legal texts anyway.