Whenever accusations of inappropriate behavior arise, there is a subset of internet commenters who channel Jack McCoy and speak as though Law & Order is real life. This misogynistic trend has never been more true than when a woman or women accuse a high profile man of sexually inappropriate behavior.

* That's because as long as they are accusations they are not proven or founded. Does that mean he didn't do it? No. Does it mean he did? No. It simply means they are accusations and nothing else. Until things are proven in a court of law then as far as we are concerned it is just he said she said.

* Innocent until proven guilty. You don't know. You were never there so before you have a panic attack lets ...Wow people are so quick to belive in the media. You guys are wimps and losers.

* See in the title the word "allegations." Until it goes to court and he's convicted, it's all hearsay.

* No, I don't care at all. If he did it, it is an issue between Bill Cosby, law enforcement, and his alleged victims. Not any of my business, until he sexually assaults me.

* Bill Cosby has never been proven guilty of rape, serial or otherwise. This article consists of allegations by a woman who never went to the police and let the statute of limitations pass before going public. It has zero credibility.

* Unless you were there when the acts were committed, how can you say he is guilty. What happened to innocent until proven guilty.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is another distracting way to conveniently shut women up and quell dissent. Similar to "freedom of speech," the "innocent until proven guilty" is used mostly by people who are unintentionally and intentionally spewing it. (Hint: both of those phrases are directives for the government and judicial system, not laypeople.)

You don't need a court's verdict to have an opinion on an issue. An opinion isn't an official verdict; an opinion doesn't render prison time or mandate a payout; an opinion isn't formed in the same way as a jury verdict.


I can be as judgmental and critical as I want — verdict or no verdict. I can do that because I'm imbued with a brain, the five senses, and critical thinking skills. So can everyone else on the planet, and they certainly don't need my permission. People voicing their opinions, independent of anything happening or not happening in the judicial system, is about as common as Wal-Mart underpaying their workers.

I can think of plenty of issues where there are official findings, but people still debate the facts. In none of those examples did anyone wait for a jury to hand down definitive findings on anything. (Although it was slow to act, even the NFL took steps to discipline their players instead waiting for a jury verdict.)


But let's say these accusations are on their way through the legal system. The Department of Justice estimates that millions of rapes don't even get reported to the police. Even if those cases do get a trial, that doesn't mean the victims will get justice. Plus such a "innocent until proven guilty" assumption reeks of privilege because sexual assault victims don't have the luxury of protection and fairness when they report their assaults. Those victims certainly aren't treated in the same way as carjacking or burglary or mugging victims.


Demanding people (usually women) stay quiet until some court hands down a decision is pointless, manipulative, and shameful. If a trial never comes, as it so often happens in rape cases, everyone is supposed to keep their mouths shut while the accused parades flimsy defenses and paranoid justifications for his behavior and the victims get attacked?


Gee that hardly sounds just.