>If you're any good, you'll have little trouble getting a day job.

This makes no sense. What you are advocating for, that extra-judicial punishment corrects for cases where judicial punishment isn't likely to occur, would equally apply to the next job he would be a candidate for. Being kicked from TOR isn't a one-off thing. His name is now permanently associated with a crime from which has had neither a fair hearing, nor any ability to defend himself. If TOR is justified in booting him without any sort of objective process, so is every subsequent company. You can't absolve yourself from the consequences of what you're advocating.

>Losing earning potential is one thing. Losing your freedom is something entirely different.

Not really. How free are you if you must become a low wage-slave just to survive?

Half this country are low wage-slaves - comparing their lives to doing a decade in prison is hyperbolic, and quite demeaning.

Being a lead of a prominent public project carries with it a lot more scrutiny of your behavior then being a line code monkey in an insurance corp. And it's not like he is blackballed from making a living.

Of course, if the many scathing, independent accounts of his behaviour are to be believed, he probably would have been fired long before things got to this point in any serious organization.

As it turns out, he did get his day in social court - the TOR project reviewed the allegations, and found enough of them to be true to fire him.

Consider the consequences of what you're advocating for. We have a prominent community figure that is accused by over a dozen people of harassment and sexual harassment (Let's leave the rape accusation out of this). And the right response it to shrug our shoulders, and say: "No conviction, no censure?"

How will you get a conviction, when harassment, and sexual harassment are not crimes? What kind of behaviour would justify social censure, exactly?

>As it turns out, he did get his day in social court

Unfortunately they're certainly more concerned with publicity and image rather than considering the evidence objectively. Which is the problem here.

>What kind of behaviour would justify social censure, exactly?

To me, not much. I honestly can't think of anything off the top of my head that should warrant "social censure" that wouldn't rise to the level of criminal behavior. One of the problems is that social censure does not inherently recognize proportionality. And so once the mob is unleashed, it often reacts far more than is warranted. We invented the notion of a judicial system precisely because of this problem. We should not be retreating back to mob justice now.

We need to accept that we cannot provide justice or retribution for all forms of bad and unjust behavior.

> To me, not much.

Really? You wouldn't throw out a creep who makes half the room feel uncomfortable from your next gathering with friends? A hobby club? A conference? A workplace?

What you're doing is creating a safe space for predators - they can do whatever they wish, without repercussions.

> We need to accept that we cannot provide justice or retribution for all forms of bad and unjust behavior.

Which is exactly why we need to look at the bigger picture. Sexual harassment is a huge problem. Compared to it, the human cost false accusations of sexual harassment is small.

There's a difference between setting a standard of behavior for a particular event and enforcing that behavior, and what you're referring to when it comes denying someone the possibility of working in tech because of things he may or may not have done in his personal life. There is a wide chasm you must bridge before throwing out creeps in conferences means we should prevent them from getting employment in tech.