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.

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.

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?

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.