You keep saying that public perception comes down to speech someone doesn't like. In this context-- publicly questioning the word of someone victimized by the highest profile and influential serial sexual predators in recent times-- the idea that such speech is merely "disliked" is beyond obtuse.
Why would Peyton Manning implement a broad sweeping smear campaign against a faculty member that (not publicly) accused him of sexual assault? Why would that be a problem for the victim? Just personal preference, right? Delicate sensibility? Why would other victims ask to be shielded by anonymity in public disclosure?
Why do people make statements that convey anything besides entertainment or data? Why do companies pay influential people millions upon millions to deliver those messages? Why does Stallman advocate instead of just writing software?
Federal Rule 412 says that a sexual assault victim's reputation can sometimes be used as evidence in civil cases. Could questioning statements influence people's opinions on someone's trustworthiness, even subconsciously?
Recruiters almost always search for someone's online presence, and many are eager to avoid potential controversy, especially in higher-level jobs.
Public opinion destroyed Monica Lewinsky's life. Or maybe she merely disliked the public flaying of her credibility from a million different angles?
A Ukrainian truck driver in New England was quietly acquitted of DUI after a head-on collision killed seven motorcyclists from a local USMC motorcycle club. It turns out his drug use was 10 hours earlier, and the motorcyclists were all shitfaced, but public discourse on the matter shows he was convicted on the first day. The little commentary on the acquittal indicates most people haven't changed their opinions.
What are the chances of one of these people's potential future boss having such an opinion? What's the likelihood of that affecting a hiring manager's opinion, even subconsciously?
--
I initially posited that people in positions of influence shouldn't value their desire to publicly voice their opinions over the consideration of the adverse effects on others, especially those with vastly less influence who couldn't hope to defend themselves.
We've arrived at a point where you say he shouldn't care if his words affected public opinion and, consequentially, negatively affected someone with vastly less influence. You justify this and nibble at the general premise by saying nobody should care about public opinion and that people who influence it shouldn't consider the consequences of their speech (unless... giving them money) because it shouldn't matter.
In summary, you have a different ethical take on it and, despite lots of typing, haven't countered any of my assertions except that he should give a shit. Your opinion is not uncommon. Many argue that freedom of speech essentially means speech occurs in a vacuum, so we can all ignore the consequences of that speech, and anyone who disagrees is thin-skinned. And the funny thing about mob members is that they all like to think they're individual thinkers whose values are derived from pure reason, logic, and proven philosophical constructs, while those that disagree are irrational maniacs controlled by groupthink.
Anyway, you'll keep responding by restating the same subjective values you started with couched in arguments that nibble at the general premise instead of addressing my actual statements, so I'm done engaging with you on this.