I don’t know who ‘Jane’ might be, but she/he shows exemplary patience and wisdom for someone commenting below the line on a philosophy blog. The reply from ‘Grace’ who thinks that the hounding of a wrongdoer is a ‘natural consequence’ of his wrongdoing is chillingly reminiscent of Victorian attitudes to malefactors found in the pages of Dickens and Hardy. Thanks, Grace, for returning the philosophy blogosphere to its normal role as a home for absolutely dreadful and long-discredited ideas. (13.07.2016)
For those who don't want to wade through the comment thread (I haven't the strength or tolerance myself to read most comment threads on philosophy blogs), here is "Jane":
For weeks now, there’s been one article after another bringing up Pogge. There seems to be no merit in their publication, other than to continually drag his name through the mud.
The guy’s alleged transgressions are already well known. This seems to be an extended exercise in moral signalling, in stomping down on the back of someone’s head as he already lies in the mud, bringing up the topic again and again whenever people are bored of it so that nobody ever forgets how horrible Pogge is. We get it. And yet, it doesn’t stop.
Now we’ve read an article translated from German that discusses the old facts yet again. Is that enough, editors of Daily Nous? Can we move on?
I’m all for open discussions of sexual harassment policies. I just don’t see the merit in running down particular individuals or exulting in their shame.
And then "Grace" and other follow-ups:
The natural consequences of his actions are public shaming and exile, among other official forms of retributive justice. It is not permissible to continue to insulate a sexual criminal from those natural consequences, which academia has done for decades in this particular case and many others.
The well-being of survivors must be the primary concern. If their abuse narrative is nothing more than a sensational “story du jour” that has become tiresome rather than a tool to bring actual justice, survivors are further devalued and harmed. The purpose of continued publication of this case is to ensure that this man no longer escapes justice.
Thank you, Justin, for continuing to write about this case and the topic of sexual assaults within our discipline.12
For those keeping track, calling someone who has not been convicted of a sex crime a "sexual criminal" is per se libel (though in context, Grace's lawyer will argue it was meant metaphorically not literally). The significance of per se libel is that one does not need to prove damages to recover against the defamer: damages are presumed.