The guy might have a point
There is some merit in the persons actions. We now live in a world in which search engines are judge, jury and executioner in that accusations are taken as evidence of a crime having been committed! If you are accused of anything then "of course it's true" even if it isn't. There is no such thing as unbiased justice. Ultimately it is down to a group of people deciding whether or not a person has committed a crime. That's fine if there is physical evidence (like DNA traces or a gun) but what if somebody has been accused of a historical crime and there is no evidence, no witnesses and it's all down to one person's story vs another? That's when you get trial by media. Look what happened to Cliff Richard for instance. What about malicious aggegations?