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".
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.
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.