Re: This article = manginism, at its best
Yep. Downvote all you want, but all this article does is imply that you do NOT have a right to defend yourself, and that you're a bigger asshole if you even try.
There's nothing wrong with denying stuff and saying you're not guilty. Everyone has a perfect right to do that - and if falsely accused should probably do so.
You're on very dodgy ground if you then go and badmouth your accusors. Though obviously that's going to be very tempting if you have been falsely accused. But tactically almost certainly very stupid.
However whatever you do needs to be carefully thought through, and carefully worded. It's going to get heavily scrutinised, and if you're at the end of a media witch-hunt, that scrutiny is going to be very hostile.
If you're actually guilty (or at least somewhat so) then, of course, you're going to need to word things even more carefully. And as you now can't issue a blanket denial without risking destroying your credibility, which may prove important at say an upcoming trial, you'd best shut up. Given that if you only deny some things, you're looking like you're admitting to others.
If you want to do a partial denial publically, and try to salvage some of your reputation, then you're going to have to try total honesty of what did and didn't happen, and apologise and explain what you're going to do about turning your life around and making amends. A lot to ask of a blog post.
So wording is vitally important, for example not making a basic error in your first bit of self-defence would be a really good start! Yes you can sexually harrass anybody. As an example by repeatedly asking them out / making sexual comments when they've made it clear that they weren't interested. Obviously groping people is sexual assault. Maybe he meant workplace sexual harrassment, which is a bit different - but then even there he's got it wrong. At least in the UK an employer can be done for workplace sexual harrassment if a customer harrasses one of our staff, if we don't do anything to prevent it happening again - or haven't taken reasonable steps to deal with it.
So now he just looks like he's wriggling around defining terms to suit him, and has destroyed any point his blog post had by paragraph 5. Ooops!
I can't be arsed to read the whole of his post, life's too short and he appears to be too much of an arsehole for me to want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I had no particular opinions about him until I read his own words - but after 6 or 7 paragraphs of it he'd made an awful first impression.