[volley]

It took centuries to develop and accept standards in our society like someone is considered innocent until a court rules she/he is guilty ... obsolete standards in times of social networks. Twitter is the new executioner. I'm glad I'm not young anymore.

[beholder3]

The disgusting "photographer" stuff is reported by the New York Times, based on 15 persons' statements.

This is not a single person calling someone out on "social media".

It is very good that journalism still works and certainly investigative journalism must not wait for court rulings before something is published.

[BigMackCam]

The disgusting "photographer" stuff is reported by the New York Times, based on 15 persons' statements

... who've waited until now to come forward. All 15 may well be telling the truth completely. Or, just one or two may be telling the truth, with others jumping on the bandwagon or encouraged by their colleagues to lend support. Then again, between one and fifteen of them may be telling partial truths. And maybe some or all of them were complicit in what went on, and now either regret their past actions or see an opportunity for publicity and / or financial gain through media fees and law suits.

Someone has to initiate a sexual act, and the other party (a) agrees because they're happy to engage in it (and may in fact have encouraged it), (b) agrees because they think it's expected, (c) lets it happen out of fear for their safety if they don't comply, or (d) rejects the advance verbally or physically. Whilst the personal initiating the act may be doing so inappropriately (and that depends on so many factors), the actions of the other party in response play a big part in the transaction.

I'm not saying these models are lying, nor am I saying that the photographers aren't guilty - they may well be. What I'm saying is that we don't know enough of the circumstances and each individual's actions and motives to conclude yet, if ever, that there has been any wrongdoing - and if so, to what extent.

My issue isn't with a specific channel of information - be it social media, "very good" (how do we know that?) investigative journalism, or other. It's the fact that allegations and names have been made public, globally, and that casts a pall over those against whom they've been made, before they've been investigated by the authorities. There's a saying that goes "Don't believe everything you read in the press" (or something like that), but unfortunately many, many people do believe everything they read. For them, these photographers are already guilty just because of the newspaper article(s). And if Twitter isn't already alive with tweets and re-tweets about these allegations, you can bet it won't take long, at which point the stories will become gossip and take on lives of their own, spread far and wide for all to see, and immortalised on the web.

... and all this before any official investigations, rulings and actions have been taken.

How would you feel if a newspaper published a story about you, because a girl you knew back in college had made allegations that you sexually attacked her? I wonder what you'd think of the "very good investigative journalism" (and subsequent social media storm) that didn't wait for court rulings, plastering your name and photo all over the front pages with disgusting stories of acts you didn't commit, and have no way of proving so all these years later.

I'd rather the investigative journalists simply gave their findings to the authorities and waited for an outcome before publishing stories.

News and social media has become a global "kangaroo court" formed of the general public, and it wrecks people's lives and reputations, even if they turn out to be innocent. It's wrong... very, very wrong.

[beholder3]

... who've waited until now to come forward.

Which is normal for cases of abuse, rape and similar. Legal systems give a limitation period for a reason and in most areas this is mulitple years.
If a society wants to it can set the limitation period to 14 days.
If your daughter at age 17 tells you she was abused by her teacher when she was 10 years old do you want to tell her "your fault. you should have reported it then."?

Someone has to initiate a sexual act

Here we talk about employers. This is not outside in the wild in a bar between people who have no connection or power over each other.

And if a national newspaper finds 15 witnesses for something I definitely see this as something else than a single voice raised.

Life is not black or white but all is grey. There are no simplistic general answers to what is fair and what is not.

[BigMackCam]

Brief addendum to the above:

Unsurprisingly, a quick search on Twitter shows that people are already discussing this, sharing opinions and making disparaging comments about the photographers, much of which is uninformed. Tweets will be re-tweeted and spread to many who will form opinions and / or draw conclusions...

[BigMackCam]

If your daughter at age 17 tells you she was abused by her teacher when she was 10 years old do you want to tell her "your fault. you should have reported it then."?

Of course not. I would, however, want to understand why she waited - though given her age at the time of the abuse, I could probably guess it would be as a result of confusion and / or fear.

However, a model in his or her late teens or early 20s is a very different victim than a 10 year old child... Mature enough to be out in the working world, earning a living, travelling etc. Mature enough, one might presume, to have some sexual understanding and experience. I put it to you that whilst these models may have felt it would be detrimental to their prospects to come forward at the time, by not doing so they've potentially accepted years of career advancement in return for complicity.

Which brings me to your next point:

Here we talk about employers. This is not outside in the wild in a bar between people who have no connection or power over each other.

Indeed. So far as I'm aware, though, the power wasn't in the form of physical violence or restraint, but rather of professional position and influence. In a non-physical, non-violent situation, a mature individual receiving an unwanted sexual advance can say "No!"... should say "No!". I go back to my previous point - by not rejecting sexual advances, these models may have been trading their complicity in return for career advancement.

And if a national newspaper finds 15 witnesses for something I definitely see this as something else than a single voice raised.

Yes, it seems there are plenty of witnesses, which lends more weight to the possibility that something untoward may have happened. The validity of their allegations will, no doubt, be verified (or otherwise) by the appropriate authorities, at which point the real strength of the allegations will be clearer.

Life is not black or white but all is grey. There are no simplistic general answers to what is fair and what is not.

Dragging someone's name through the global news and social media before there has been an official finding and ruling of guilt. That, to me, is a very simple and clear example of something that's unfair.

Thus far, we don't know exactly what, if anything, truly happened. With respect, I maintain my stance. These things should be handled confidentially until rulings are made.

[Wheatfield]

Dragging someone's name through the global news and social media before there has been an official finding and ruling of guilt. That, to me, is a very simple and clear example of something that's unfair.

Thus far, we don't know exactly what, if anything, truly happened. With respect, I maintain my stance. These things should be handled confidentially until rulings are made.

A number of years ago, a young lady accused a local junior hockey team of raping her after a game that they had played. It hit the media, the team was temporarily disbanded, and the players were disgraced. By the time it went to court, the young men were all pariahs in their hometown, despite their protestations of innocence.
Then, in court, it turned out that on the evening in question, the young lady had been spotted out drinking in a local to her bar while the hockey team in question was several hundred kilometers away.
It turned out that she had forgotten that she hadn't travelled to that particular hockey game, and that she had concocted the entire thing.
This was, thankfully, before the era of anti-social media, so the lads were able to go on to lead fairly normal lives.
Had the same story been concocted this hockey season, it would have, I am sure, a completely different ending.

[Floggin Rodger]

Maplethorpe violated all his male models and it was considered art.