> EDIT: Ah, it seems going on record is necessary to actually bring charges to someone. This is an interesting comment and sheds some light on what is happenin

> EDIT: Ah, it seems going on record is necessary to actually bring charges to someone. This is an interesting comment and sheds some light on what is happening here. There is no need to be publicly named in a news article to bring charges in a court of law; but in a court of law there is a clear and regular process for evaluating charges; and one does actually submit to the possibility of retaliation in a limited form: false accusations carry punishments of their own. Justin has already quit. In some sense, charges were brought in the court of public opinion -- and for these to have any weight, there must be some element of credibility attached to them. Journalists are not cops and just quoting "unnamed sources" is not enough to substantiate the idea that someone should lose their job, in part because unnamed sources accept no scrutiny and no risk. Attaching one's name to something like this is the only way to lend any weight to it, in the absence of any judicial process.