Last CCC I attended a free Assange activist told me that a lot of people approached her asking her why she would defend a rapist.
Unfortunately for certain things one the damage is done most people will never notice when it changes. The thing that struck me as odd here is that the news article has photos and names. Not that it would make that much of a difference, but I do remember a time when suspects in the news would be named Ryan O. and Tiffany M. The people directly involved would obviously know who this is about.
In one of the valley startups I worked, I disliked a colleague, because I thought she wasn't good at what she did. I do mumble things(unrelated to people) when I think and I'm a generally distant person to strangers. I kinda knew the feeling was mutual, but what I didn't know until a year after I'd left was that she went around telling people that I talked about her boobs, which was such an odd thing for me to comprehend.
You make it sound like the allegations against Assange were completely fabricated and factually false. The charges were dropped because the statute of limitations expired, but that doesn't say anything about his actual guilt/innocence.
That's not quite right actually - charges weren't dropped, because no charges were actually ever laid. Allegations were made, the case was dropped for lack of evidence, he was allowed to leave the country, another prosecutor later re-opened the case and then an Interpol Red notice was raised for 'questioning'.
Anyway, if you change that to "the case was dropped" then that is technically correct, but the whole case was both so irregular and so politically convenient as to throw the allegations into serious doubt.
It'd take a book to list all the insanity in that case. A book which will get hard to write, because the CPS and the Swedish prosecutors have been deleting evidence like crazy.
One of the few things we do know was that the Swedish prosecutor was threatened when she wanted to drop the case ("Don't you dare get cold feet").
I think the claim is that one is innocent until proven guilty. If they haven’t been convicted of sexual misconduct then calling them rapist is inappropriate.
My last company punished a guy who was accused of some sort sexual harassment by a woman, and they wouldn't tell him who, when, or what the details were. He seemed genuinely confused what it could have been.
Just asking questions, here, but if, hypothetically he actually did do it, and they did tell him, do you think he have been honest with you about it?
It's entirely possible that everyone involved knows what's going on, and he's just trying to save face. People do that sometimes, after they misbehave.
Nope. I had that happen to me at least twice. If you get accused of something unwoke then the accusers identities are always protected, and if the accusation is proven to be false, nothing ever happens. It's a part of how the woke take over institutions.
Oh, it's a still thing, it usually happens when you submit a complaint against your boss to HR, are assured that it will be confidential, and next thing you know, your boss is retaliating against you, because of course the first thing HR does is to go to him, and the first thing he does is to hit you back.
Happens all the time, FAANG firms are constantly getting in trouble for it.
One difference between a courtroom and a workroom, is that a boss can often ruin his accuser's life in the latter. The justice system works because it treats all people as equal. In the workplace, you are not the equal of your manager.
Fortunately, you can always escalate your complaint into a courtroom. Unfortunately, proving retaliation is next to impossible.
There is this crime called "false accusation", you could have chased that?