Are we to accept all allegations levelled against others as unimpeachable truth by default? If so, what legitimate means do the accused have to clear their names? You are calling a man a "rapist" solely on the basis of allegations. Presume innocence.
No we shouldn't, but has he charged the women who have come forward with slander? If not why not? Should we believe his denials? Shouldn't we presume the women to be innocent of slander?
Presumption of innocence is a red herring. It's a legal principle, not an ethical principle.
In real, messy situations without sufficient evidence or will to overcome the "legal" presumption of innocence, we are forced to make heuristic decisions (and inaction/ignoring the allegations is such a decision). THe decision can be more than black and white, too. For example that Applebaum is not rapist, and maybe hasn't done anything outright illegal, but has probably exhibited ethically questionable behaviour that would more than sufficient grounds for not wanting him associated with your project.
People in the movement describe him as someone who likes to experiment with sex. As one who usually gets what he wants. "I’ve also seen him be inconsiderate of other people’s feelings," said one person who knows him well, "or be overly persistent about asking for permission to do things other people didn’t want to do." But, he added, Mr. Appelbaum asks for permission.
===
As an aside: Presumption of innocence is not how society works. Say a friend tells you that a particular plumber in your village cheated him out of some money, so you should avoid that plumber, would you disregard the advice because your friend didn't secure a conviction against the plumber? If you're hiring and a trusted friend tells you that XYZ was harassing women at his last job, nothing outright illegal, but definitely toxic atmosphere, would you disregard that advice because of a presumption of innocence? So the real question isn't presumption of innocence, but the trustworthiness of (sometimes anonymous) sources. That's a hard judgement call to make. People who parade "presumption of innocence" around instead of thinking about that judgement call essentially advocate never trusting any allegations of improper behaviour. Tellingly I have seen that fallacy used overwhelmingly when it comes to sexual misbehaviour. Calling it victim blaming misses the point as well of course, because that presumes that the accuser is a victim. Anyone have a good term for that?
> Tellingly I have seen that fallacy used overwhelmingly when it comes to sexual misbehaviour.
This is because unlike most other categories of criminal conduct, allegations of sexual misconduct are particularly damaging to the accused, owing to the enormity of the crime and its effects on genuine victims. We might expect, then, to require a higher quality or quantity of evidence versus 'lesser crimes', no? But this isn't the case.
If somebody in the public sphere is accused of shoplifting, f.i., you would hear many a person declare said somebody "innocent until proven guilty!". In the case of sexual assault and rape, however, there exists a very loud minority that appear to hold we should accept all allegations without reservation – or, at least, those we deem "trustworthy" based on a vague nothingness. After all, if they were a friend of yours, you would take their word for it. Right?
Regardless, I am not in fact saying we should necessarily require evidence before we believe any allegation. I am more concerned with how we communicate our beliefs, especially in public. I might happen to believe Appelbaum's accusers are telling the truth, but it's decidedly not okay to assert that he is "a rapist" on the basis of nothing. People like to turn rape accusations into a little game of odds, but at the end of the discussion the fact remains: anybody can accuse anyone of anything.
If your standard for private individuals censuring someone is unimpeachable truth of wrongdoing, there is pretty much no way for that standard to be met. Private individuals can't conduct criminal investigations, compel testimony, or do any of the things that make it possible for courts to do their jobs. (And in the case of sexual assault, courts are terrible at punishing the guilty.)
Innocent until proven guilty is a thing because the cost of a wrong criminal conviction are absolutely devastating to an innocent person.
In a civil situation, the cost of not censuring a sexual predator is absolutely devastating for the people hurt by them. The converse cost of a wrong censure are much lower then they are in the criminal case.
The fact of the matter is, given how rare rape accusations are, if one person accuses another of rape, you can think of it as a tossup. If ten people accuse one person of rape, odds are much better then 50/50 that they are a rapist.
50/50 odds shouldn't put someone in jail, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to ever see that person as part of my community. The personal cost of this to them is nothing, compared to, say, a felony and a decade in state prison.
I'm not suggesting that is my standard. I'm suggesting, before declaring an individual to be a "rapist" and discussing their alleged crimes as if they were the unimpeachable truth, we ought at the very least to require something more than mere allegations. Ideally, this would of course occur in a criminal trial.
What if I were to accuse you, right now, of rape – having others corroborate my story? Are you ready to accept being 'censured', being the subject of despicable verbal attack, based on the "50/50 odds" I am telling the truth? Abominable.
> The converse cost of a wrong censure are much lower then they are in the criminal case
I suggest you read up on the effects false sexual assault allegations have on the accused. People lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their friends. Is being falsely imprisoned worse? Yes. Much worse? No.
I've directly known 2 people whom I believe were falsely accused of rape. Might be my region; southern Ontario. Also one did go as far as getting thrown out of court (in favor of the presumably falsely accused)
Not by multiple people, true. & both are completely unrelated people. Case was thrown out because the girl's story was completely inconsistent & lacked any evidence
To be clear, I'm not responding about Applebaum. I don't know much about the situation, but yes, multiple accusations does imply much more than a single case. I don't know how much opportunity there was for collusion. I was responding to your assertion that rape accusation is rare. Similarly many, including myself, think Assange was victim to a smear campaign. Sex gets muddy, especially if alcohol is involved
Getting removed from a leadership position in the TOR project is not losing your livelihood. If you're any good, you'll have little trouble getting a day job.
Far more employers are willing to hire someone with a history of harassment, then they are to hire an ex-con. If worst comes to worst, there's always flipping burgers. A few years from now, most won't remember. A felony, on the other hand, will always be on your record.
Losing earning potential is one thing. Losing your freedom is something entirely different.
>If you're any good, you'll have little trouble getting a day job.
This makes no sense. What you are advocating for, that extra-judicial punishment corrects for cases where judicial punishment isn't likely to occur, would equally apply to the next job he would be a candidate for. Being kicked from TOR isn't a one-off thing. His name is now permanently associated with a crime from which has had neither a fair hearing, nor any ability to defend himself. If TOR is justified in booting him without any sort of objective process, so is every subsequent company. You can't absolve yourself from the consequences of what you're advocating.
>Losing earning potential is one thing. Losing your freedom is something entirely different.
Not really. How free are you if you must become a low wage-slave just to survive?
Half this country are low wage-slaves - comparing their lives to doing a decade in prison is hyperbolic, and quite demeaning.
Being a lead of a prominent public project carries with it a lot more scrutiny of your behavior then being a line code monkey in an insurance corp. And it's not like he is blackballed from making a living.
Of course, if the many scathing, independent accounts of his behaviour are to be believed, he probably would have been fired long before things got to this point in any serious organization.
As it turns out, he did get his day in social court - the TOR project reviewed the allegations, and found enough of them to be true to fire him.
Consider the consequences of what you're advocating for. We have a prominent community figure that is accused by over a dozen people of harassment and sexual harassment (Let's leave the rape accusation out of this). And the right response it to shrug our shoulders, and say: "No conviction, no censure?"
How will you get a conviction, when harassment, and sexual harassment are not crimes? What kind of behaviour would justify social censure, exactly?
>As it turns out, he did get his day in social court
Unfortunately they're certainly more concerned with publicity and image rather than considering the evidence objectively. Which is the problem here.
>What kind of behaviour would justify social censure, exactly?
To me, not much. I honestly can't think of anything off the top of my head that should warrant "social censure" that wouldn't rise to the level of criminal behavior. One of the problems is that social censure does not inherently recognize proportionality. And so once the mob is unleashed, it often reacts far more than is warranted. We invented the notion of a judicial system precisely because of this problem. We should not be retreating back to mob justice now.
We need to accept that we cannot provide justice or retribution for all forms of bad and unjust behavior.
Really? You wouldn't throw out a creep who makes half the room feel uncomfortable from your next gathering with friends? A hobby club? A conference? A workplace?
What you're doing is creating a safe space for predators - they can do whatever they wish, without repercussions.
> We need to accept that we cannot provide justice or retribution for all forms of bad and unjust behavior.
Which is exactly why we need to look at the bigger picture. Sexual harassment is a huge problem. Compared to it, the human cost false accusations of sexual harassment is small.
There's a difference between setting a standard of behavior for a particular event and enforcing that behavior, and what you're referring to when it comes denying someone the possibility of working in tech because of things he may or may not have done in his personal life. There is a wide chasm you must bridge before throwing out creeps in conferences means we should prevent them from getting employment in tech.
