Not coherent, in that it doesn't cohere. For instance: your argument accepts implicitly the fact that you can be fired just for being a jerk (as happens every day in every field), or otherwise hard to work with. But if someone commits an actual sexual assault, an organization seeking to terminate them assumes a heightened burden of proof. That doesn't make sense.
The fact is, nobody is required to meet a standard of proof to choose not to associate with this person. You can keep associating with them if you'd like.
An irony here is that the law actually provides this person with a tool, if people have stopped associating with him commercially because of false statements of purported fact ("he groped someone", or "he attempted to have sex with someone too intoxicated to consent" certainly qualifies, per se in fact, as both are crimes): he can sue for defamation.
>Not coherent, in that it doesn't cohere. For instance: your argument accepts implicitly the fact that you can be fired just for being a jerk (as happens every day in every field), or otherwise hard to work with. But if someone commits an actual sexual assault, an organization seeking to terminate them assumes a heightened burden of proof. That doesn't make sense
Well, yes, there is a higher burden of proof required for criminal accusations. Why do you want it any other way?
> An irony here is that the law actually provides this person with a tool, if people have stopped associating with him commercially because of false statements of purported fact ("he groped someone", or "he attempted to have sex with someone too intoxicated to consent" certainly qualifies, per se in fact, as both are crimes): he can sue for defamation.
Sure, unless the person making the accusation simply responds with "that was my opinion, which I stand by". You can't win a slander/libel lawsuit in many jurisdictions against someone for holding an opinion.
It's also free to make the accusation, while it is costly to defend - the element of fear is what makes the mob powerful.
The fact is, nobody is required to meet a standard of proof to choose not to associate with this person. You can keep associating with them if you'd like.
An irony here is that the law actually provides this person with a tool, if people have stopped associating with him commercially because of false statements of purported fact ("he groped someone", or "he attempted to have sex with someone too intoxicated to consent" certainly qualifies, per se in fact, as both are crimes): he can sue for defamation.