Strongly disagree.
"Pogge's appeal, implicit but following from this assumption, is that in trials by internet the accused ought to be accorded a "presumption of innocence" in the same manner that any defendant in a courtroom trial would."
Sure, granted.
"Ichikawa claims, rightly in my view, that we place supererogatory demands on jurors in part because they are acting as agents of state power and, in most instances, state-sanctioned judgments have considerably more serious consequences than your everyday agent-in-the-street's moral judgments do. The rules governing courtroom trials are our best attempt at manufacturing an ideal environment in which ideal knowers make ideal judgments."
This is where the logic breaks down.
There's no reason why we have to make moral judgments or truth claims about people when we have no evidence - and therefore no good reason - to do so. It isn't just that the court has state power and we don't - its that the court has a prerogative that we don't.
Making accusations against others without evidence, or treating those accusations as valid before they've been demonstrated to be true to any degree beyond anecdotal evidence, or the 'word' of an accuser is not something that we must necessarily do or take a stand on. The simple fact is that, in the absence of facts, we don't alleviate some kind of burden of proof by just claiming that we have a different standard than the courtroom, and therefore making claims about other people without evidence is okay.
I'm not even referring to this case, specifically, which I know very little about, but to the ridiculous standard this article is endorsing. "Oh, we don't have all the facts, but I really want to speculate, so innocent until proven guilty is just too much of a standard." Who says? Why should that be the case? As far as I can see, innocent until proven guilty is just the rational application of the burden of proof to claims about the actions or character of others.
Can we justify any other standard? What is it? The author is reticent to say, but he does drop this:
"Given what I know, and given what anyone else who has bothered to pay attention to the scandals of our discipline over the last half-decade or so should know, there is more than enough sufficient reason to suspend the requirements of ideal epistemic standards in one's judgments about the verity of female philosophers' accounts of sexual exploitation."
Okay, so basically it happens a lot, therefore guilty until proven innocent?
No.
You might as well say that African Americans are statistically more likely to be charged with armed robbery, and therefore whenever a black person is so charged, "there is more than enough sufficient reason to suspend the requirements of ideal epistemic standards in one's judgments about the verity of this accusation".
Oh no, I know what you're thinking. Horrible standard, right? But don't worry - he totally isn't suggesting that standard for the courtroom, just for the internet lynch mob. So its okay.
Reality check - the internet is going to judge who it is going to judge, regardless of what standards we think are 'okay'. Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion. But if you're interested in the truth, then realize that there are good reasons why we uphold that standard in a court of law.
Honestly, we don't even uphold it there often enough.