Have we abandoned the principle of Innocent until prove Guilty?

[frazzled]

21. This isn't about a criminal or even civil trial

The charges that have been lodged by the women against the accused have been researched by professional journalists and found to be credible, based on multiple sourcing. (I'd say the exception is the Al Franken case, which does not even begin to rise to the level of the Weinstein and Roses and Louis CKs anyway, to the extent that neither of the two accusers was an employee or prospective job applicant, and an alleged pach on the tuchas during a photo snap or an ill-advised photo for a comedy shtick is not the work of a serial abuser, even if true; and Al Franken is not going to lose his job).

Employers don't have to prove guilt. They only have an obligation to assess the accusations (and believe me, large numbers already knew for many years) and to stop enabling and protecting the predators. You can get fired for taking home office supplies or sending lewd jokes or just about any reason, or no reason. Employees and job applicants need protection too.

My last point is this: sexual assault is almost never something that can be documented or corroborated directly: there were only two people there. So testimony from friends or family to whom the victim spoke at the time are about the best you will ever get. If you demand iron-clad proof, there will never be any escape from this predatory behavior ... and women will continue to suffer abuse and psychological damage and--most important--loss of jobs or career opportunities.

So while you cry for these men who have lost their jobs after decades of acclaim and millions of dollars earned, take a little time for those interns and job applicants who lost or never got their jobs because they spurned advances from powerful men.