Comment by Over2Chars | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Over2Chars | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Sorry, I haven't followed Gibson's scandals, so I only know the drunken rant one. But I'm being kinda hypothetical here - where is the line?

I'm bringing up Ford and Gandhi because I think they're generally considered respectable, but could be accused of being in the category of those to "shun" based on verbal statements or opinions. I am not aware that either did anything. Are we shunning people because they've advocated opinions that in their time weren't controversial, but are now?

Bill Cosby's conviction was overturned on a technicality. Do we shun him even if the courts couldn't/didn't convict him?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-bill-cosbys-conviction...

Or similarly, "unconvicted" but alleged unsavory characters, perhaps pop musicians, TV hosts, presidents, presidential candidates, and so on.

Do you just shun everyone who has simply been accused of misconduct? What if the accusers recant or are found to be lying? It's happened.

Crystal Mangum, now incarcerated for murder, has recanted her rape accusation against the Duke la crosse players:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-falsely-accused-duke-lacros...

On the specific:

> Bill Cosby's conviction was overturned on a technicality. Do we shun him even if the courts couldn't/didn't convict him?

Yes, the public is well entitled to shun him on the basis of what he did indeed confess to .. that is entirely orthogonal to that confession being rejected on a technicality and thus not being part of a formal legal conviction.

Without delving too deep, a quick search suggests he only confessed to providing drugs to women, but not to sexual assault:

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/bill-cosby-quaaludes-s...

So he appears to have confessed at least to be a drug dealer.

Of the many (hundreds?) of women that alledge Coby drugged them very few (two?) had said they knowingly took a known drug with the intent of having sex.

With Cosby's testimony included he was convicted, it and the womens testimonies were found to be sufficient under law to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

When the testimony was excluded on technical grounds the statements by Cosby weren't demonstrated to be false or questioned in any way, they were simply set aside, as true as they ever were.

Again, the general public is entitled to shun Cosby on the basis of the testimonies presented including his own words which haven't been discredited, just excluded.

The rape charges were due to the women's testimony, not Cosby's confession of same as far as I can tell.

But my point is not the minutiae of Cosby's trial, but that he is "unconvicted" - and if you want to claim to not encourage rapists/murderers/the corrupt are we talking about:

1. THE CONVICTED: people who have been convicted of these felonious crimes (e.g. Stewart, Tyson, ),

2. THE UNCONVICTED: unconvicted people who have made statements relating to these crimes, which may not even be crimes in their country or era (Cosby, Ford, Gandhi), or

3. THE ACCUSED: people who have simply been accused of these crimes (i.e. #metoo or other public accusations with no conviction and public denials, Woody Allen, Sam Altman, etc)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com