Said from the beginning that's a simplistic position. More than one principle is in play.
No one wants to see virtuous women harmed.
But some women have ulterior motives, just like some men do. All women are not angels. Some lie. We've seen many examples on this board: Jim Carrey, Neymar etc. Some women seem supersensitive - the Garrison Keillor example.
I prefer the approach taken in criminal law: the basic proposition is to assume innocence. The mere fact of an isolated allegation is not the place to start thinking a person may be guilty. You're mixing the bad men and the lying women in that first step.
If there's robust evidence, then it is worth looking at that. And if that stands up, okay, different circumstances. The needle moves some.
If there's an alleged pattern of bad behaviour, and it is persuasive, then my assumptions are also different.
But if the evidence is weak or inconsistent, or if a malicious motive is obvious, then you are looking at a spectrum ranging from uncertainty to defamation.
The mere fact of an isolated, nearly unsupported allegation is something hardly worth considering.
| 