[Martinussen]

You... Might want to check what Mel Gibson has gotten up to over the years if that's your impression of the man. Not much of an edge case, and you're being pretty intentionally obtuse if you're arguing Ford or Gandhi are useful comparisons here.

Anyone promoting Bill Cosby the person is definitely doing something questionable, which is the relevant point.

[Over2Chars]

Sorry, I haven't followed Gibson's scandals, so I only know the drunken rant one. But I'm being kinda hypothetical here - where is the line?

I'm bringing up Ford and Gandhi because I think they're generally considered respectable, but could be accused of being in the category of those to "shun" based on verbal statements or opinions. I am not aware that either did anything. Are we shunning people because they've advocated opinions that in their time weren't controversial, but are now?

Bill Cosby's conviction was overturned on a technicality. Do we shun him even if the courts couldn't/didn't convict him?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-bill-cosbys-conviction...

Or similarly, "unconvicted" but alleged unsavory characters, perhaps pop musicians, TV hosts, presidents, presidential candidates, and so on.

Do you just shun everyone who has simply been accused of misconduct? What if the accusers recant or are found to be lying? It's happened.

Crystal Mangum, now incarcerated for murder, has recanted her rape accusation against the Duke la crosse players:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-falsely-accused-duke-lacros...

[defrost]

On the specific:

> Bill Cosby's conviction was overturned on a technicality. Do we shun him even if the courts couldn't/didn't convict him?

Yes, the public is well entitled to shun him on the basis of what he did indeed confess to .. that is entirely orthogonal to that confession being rejected on a technicality and thus not being part of a formal legal conviction.