> The threat was against false accusations.

If legal action is taken, of course it will be on the grounds that the accusations are false. Whether the accusation is actually true or false, may not have any bearing on whether or not legal action is taken.

But the accused knows whether or not the accusations are true, and the claim is that legal action will be taken only if the accusations are false. This is pretty normal. False accusations, especially about serious crimes or misconduct, are usually taken very seriously.

> the claim is that legal action will be taken only if the accusations are false

If someone wants to deny an accusation that is true, they will claim that said accusation is false. Claiming that legal action will only be taken if the accusation is false doesn't matter. Take this hypothetical:

  If the accusations against TPW are true, but he doesn't want
  the world-at-large to believe him. He will present to the
  world that the accusations are false. Claims that legal
  action will only be taken in the case that accusations are
  false don't mean that the accusations must be false for legal
  action to be taken.

  TPW could take legal action if he wants to present to the world
  that the accusations are false and smear the accuser. This would
  be a situation where the accusations are true, but legal action
  is still taken.

But the logical conclusion of your argument is that no individual or organization should ever threaten or take legal action against people who make false accusations.

I wasn't making an argument so much as stating that making only truthful statements does not indemnify one from being the target of legal action by someone that publicly states they will only go after 'false accusers.'

That's true, but not particularly meaningful, since any statement from any person or company could be a lie regardless of how specific it is.

The company's claim that they will pursue legal action against false accusations should not discourage people from making true accusations, because the statement provides absolutely no information about what the company intends to do with true accusations. An analogy would be the statement "we will pursue legal action against anyone who trespasses on company property." That shouldn't discourage employees from going into their offices.

I'm sure she'd be very reassured by the fact that, after a drawn out battle and legal fees she can ill-afford, she'd probably defeat the lawsuit in the end. Maybe. Assuming she can both prove her claims to the satisfaction of the courts and afford the lawyers to do so.

Well, like it or not, a lot of people (myself concluded) and courts aren't going to conclude that someone is guilty without some evidence.

Statements of a person in a position to know are some evidence.

Whether they are sufficient evidence depends on the standard of proof and what other evidence is available.

We have statements from the two most relevant people in this situation: the accuser and the accused. Their statements are contradictory. Without further evidence, I see no reason to believe one over the other.

> We have statements from the two most relevant people in this situation: the accuser and the accused. Their statements are contradictory. Without further evidence, I see no reason to believe one over the other.

Sure, and that's a legitimate conclusion to reach. Its different than a "no evidence" situation, and different reasonable people can reasonably view the contradictory claims as having different weights and not simply offsetting.

EDIT: And we actually have more than that, since we have statements from several individuals related to the events, plus the Github official statement in their press release on the investigation they commissioned, and those statements do not amount to simple direct contradictions of each other; but the point remains, there is a difference between a "no evidence" situation and a situation where there is a pile of evidence but where a particular observer doesn't find it sufficient to justify a particular conclusion or action.

Obviously it comes down to what we consider "evidence." I have trouble considering someone saying that something happened, as "evidence" if there is no other relevant information. If I stand up in the office and claim that I saw personA murder someone, does that suddenly constitute non-zero evidence that personA is a murderer? If I write a program to randomly generate claims and post them to my Twitter account, is each tweet a non-zero amount of evidence?

> I have trouble considering someone saying that something happened, as "evidence" if there is no other relevant information.

Witness testimony is generally considered an important form of evidence. Obviously, whether there is corroborating (or, OTOH, conflicting) evidence effects the conclusions that one draws, but that's true of any instance of evidence, not just statements.

> If I stand up in the office and claim that I saw personA murder someone, does that suddenly constitute non-zero evidence that personA is a murderer?

Yes, although standing on its own it would be extremely weak evidence.

> If I write a program to randomly generate claims and post them to my Twitter account, is each tweet a non-zero amount of evidence?

No, because that's not an person making a claim of facts about which they assert direct knowledge. Its kind of irrelevant to the present circumstance, given that no one has challenged the authenticity of the source of Horvath's (or of the other participant's) claims here.