Which makes them a target for spurious accusations. The trouble is, once an accusation is made, it tends to stick. And make no mistake about it; Anthony Anderson has already been tried and convicted in the media - look at the response here. If he's accused, well, he MUST be guilty, right? I mean, there's no reason for the alleged victim to lie, is there? And if he's acquitted, well, then, it'll be a miscarriage of justice because there's no way the alleged victim would have made up such a story, and he'll be acquitted because he's a star, all the usual stuff.
Either way, Anthony Anderson loses.
The problem is that if a woman cries wolf! people have been conditioned to see the wolf, even if there isn't one there. But the more spurious accusations there are, the more people will be less inclined to see a wolf, and then one day when a woman really does get raped by someone in the spotlight, well...
I'm not saying that's the case here, or that the alleged victim is lying. I do find it interesting, however, that everyone is willing to believe Anthony Anderson, who has never had even so much as an accusation of sexual harrassment or improper behaviour towards women is automatically considered guilty just because of the accusation; but Steven's history of improper behaviour around women and accusations and lawsuits against him for sexual harrassment are all false because he's as pure as the driven snow, and the women accusing him were just out for the money.
Interesting dichotomy of attitudes, I'm thinking.
-TD, presenting an alternate view