Bigfoot wrote:
It's called "Cease and desist (sp?)" to get them to shut up and not profit from their allegations. Getting them to stop speaking about the incident(s) may help him rebuild his image. Not saying he's guilty or innocent but like Armstrong...innocent until PROVEN guilty...not the other way around.
There's a very big problem with obtaining "cease and desist" orders in cases like these. It's the First Amendment. You don't have to be able to prove something in order to allege it.
The Armstrong case presents an interesting comparison. For quite a number of years, I had little doubt that Armstrong was doping, and I wasn't especially hesitant to voice that view, regardless of whether the case against him had been proven in legal or administrative proceedings. Conversely, the fact that Armstrong repeatedly and successfully used legal proceedings to shut people up didn't particularly sway my views. I don't assume anyone is innocent until proven guilty, except insofar as it's required in certain legal proceedings. I make judgments, some more tentative than others, based on the information that I have.
One more observation: Truth and falsity tend not to be the binary alternatives that many people appear to believe. I have little doubt that much of what's being alleged is true. Whether Bill Cosby is a serial rapist is, however, a somewhat different question, and I'll withhold judgment on that until I find out more.