Duol said:
Freedom of Speech is not designed to protect you in the way that she is claiming to 'use' it. In fact, by claiming that he is a rapist and making a stand against him (when nothing of the sort has been proven) is defamation.
Whether she was or wasn't raped is irrelevant. It couldn't be proven, only what he pleaded guilty to.
Slow down there.
Look, we understand the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', but to say that you can't accuse someone of a serious crime because it hasn't been proved in a court of law makes absolutely no sense at all. How else would anyone bring charges against someone else?
This is especially true of rape, where the conviction rate is exceptionally low due to a high burden of evidence. A court can be largely sure that someone is guilty of rape, and it seems quite possible in this situation, yet lack the evidence to actually convict. This is why we have a whole variety of other measures designed to protect people who lose their cases, because there must still be every acknowledgement that they may have been raped.
He has not been proven innocent, the case against him has been dropped due to insufficient evidence. While these may mean the same things legally, it does not mean that this woman has no right to call him a rapist, because he might be. If it's a problem, I'm sure he could take that defamation case to court, but that would place the burden of proof on him to prove that he didn't rape this woman, and if there was insufficient evidence to convict him, there's unlikely to be sufficient evidence to prove that he didn't do it.