I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean like the bad old days when a rape victim was practically put on trial instead of her rapist?
No. I think we've mostly passed that point, thank god.
What I mean is, it's obviously unfair for women to have to keep quiet or be ignored when they report harassment/assault to protect powerful predators. When there's clear evidence, including women speaking publicly, possibly multiple women or multiple events, I think that's enough for the public to agree that the men deserved their fates. I'm very glad the pendulum has swung against Weinstein et. al. (Franken's is a more complex case, tangled as it is in politics.)
However, when it's one anonymous person reporting something not described publicly and it destroys the entire career of a man who says they were just dating, I still think the accuser very possibly has a good case, but also feel like I need more information to really get behind it. "Always believe the accuser" is a nice guideline, and reliable in probably 99% of cases, but not quite all, human nature being what it is.
Of course, these are confidential personnel matters, not criminal charges, so the companies
is 19 and can do what it wants and it's not up to the public to decide. But the public decides anyway! So at some point, people may start erring on the side of skepticism, and I'm not really welcoming that.
As it is, a man banned from a mall was almost elected a U.S. senator!
I won't highlight or quote, but I agree that this situation is cause for concern. I wonder if Lizza has had or will have an opportunity to confront his accuser?
Well, he seems to know who his accuser was and as long as said accuser hasn't taken out a restraining order, I assume he can confront them in private if he has an opportunity. But unless the accuser files criminal charges, it won't happen in a courtroom.