Hacker News Reader

> In many countries there is a thing called "right of honor" (the right to not be difamated) and would turn things against the accusing part if no evidence of the claims is presented.

There are of course defamation laws that Grey could pursue if he really believes the statements made here are defamatory. But the kind of broader restrictions you're proposing would violate the First Amendment, so are unlikely to happen in the US any time soon.

The UK/EU doesn't have the exact same Constitutional guarantees as the US (certain policies like Right to be Forgotten are permissible in the EU, but would be unconstitutional in the US). However, I would still be fairly surprised to see a country like Britain adopt "right of honor" policies. In general, most people (both in the US and in EU nations) don't want the government to decide what personal experiences they can share online, or whether or not they can freely associate or disassociate with other people.

> Dear Talibans

:) The Taliban is, of course, famous for its participation in and support of the #metoo movement.

Have you experienced sexual harassment, or talked to people you trust who have? I ask because your post is the kind of thing that a person with very little knowlege and/or experience of human nature would write. Book smart and street stupid.

EDIT> As pointed out by others, he admits to sexual harassment of a minor. Maybe you should believe Aubrey instead of posting knee-jerk reactions to hot-button topics.

EDIT 2> This post comes off more attacking than I would hope to communicate at my best. I still believe the substance, but regret the tone of my original edit. I would say that I am definitely guilty of doing a partial pattern match on some topic, realizing that it is a hot-button issue for me, and then going off on some rant that is only tangentially related, or ignores key points of the actual situation under discussion. We should all try not to do this, but we should also have some tolerance for people doing this and stay engaged.

Yes, both. And I also have been falsely accused of things I dodidn't do.

He admitted to sending that email to a 17 year old.

What was in the email? I didn't see it posted and the short quotes she wrote didn't really have anything in them. I mean, inappropriate, possibly, but not on its own evidence of malice or predation.

People say dumb shit all the time, in person, over email, on the phone, etc. We know he said something he shouldn't have, but we don't know exactly what, his motives or whether it was just a "dumb shit" mistake, and I don't see enough evidence here in either direction. Maybe he's a predator, but without seeing the content of the email, I don't know whether sending it to a 17 year old is evidence of that.

After spending the last day watching my two comments here bounce between positive and negative karma, without a single reply, I have to ask the people that silently downvoted:

Do you have information I don't? Have you seen the email?

It seems my statement was rather divisive: plenty of people disagreed or disliked it enough to downvote, yet enough people agreed to balance it out again. But nobody replied. Nobody corrected my logic or gave a counter argument.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that the guy is innocent, I'm saying I don't know if he's innocent or guilty and that the information we have isn't enough to know. I don't care either way, I don't know any of the people involved, I have no skin in the game.

But I despise lynch mobs where people try to ruin someones life based purely on an allegation, without any evidence. The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that their allegations are true. This post didn't do that, it only showed that further investigation is required, it did not prove guilt. The email does not prove guilt or wrongdoing, just lack of judgement, which pretty much everyone is guilty of at one point or another. But these lynch mobs are dangerous, people have had and do have their lives ruined over an outrage mob, based on completely false, misinterpreted or blown out of proportion accusations. Until we know with absolute certainty that this isn't the case, we shouldn't try to destroy others' lives.

Not sure what the content of the email was, but in such situation this person should go to the police first rather than make a campaign.

Things that are not strictly illegal may still be unethical. Do you feel that individuals should never raise awareness about unethical behavior unless it is illegal?

This is a good point and I agree with you. Still not sure whether a public prosecution is the best thing as I completely ignore such email between both parties and this person as full grown adult still decided to go work with him.

You have no conception of how useless if not outright hostile police are to this kind of issue. In this case, the two accusers took the exactly correct action: once they compared experiences and realized there was a pattern here, not a one off isolated mistake, they raised the issue with the organization. The organization is taking what they're saying seriously enough to retain an independent investigator, though almost certainly their ultimate goal is organizational CYA.

> though almost certainly their ultimate goal is organizational CYA.

This is why it was not the correct action, although you are right that the police in America are worse than useless on these issues.

We aren’t in the age of rocks and stones and revenges. The police snd the justice is for everyone and if it isn’t that should be the top first priority before any social justice campaign individual moves.

Some people in this forum seems to depict people who just don’t agree in their modus operandi.

> if it isn’t

It isn’t.

> should be the top first priority before any social justice campaign individual moves

So you are saying that we have to fix the whole society before anyone can tell anyone’s boss that the person in question was creeping on them in a position of authority. Do we also have to solve poverty before or only the gender related injustices?

> Some people in this forum seems to depict people who just don’t agree in their modus operandi.

Sorry I don’t understand you. Who depicts whom doing what?

In some places, the age of consent is 17 (or lower), so without physical coercion, Aubrey may not have a legal leg to stand on depending on the content of the message.

Although that’s right I still totally ignore the content of that email and if it was ilegal that should be put in the knowledge of the legal tutors and authorities. The other thing is that this person as she turned an adult continued the contact with this person, so I don’t really think a public scandal is justified.