I remember tights. I remember having hair - hair that was shoulder length or a bit longer. I remember being Glee and proud of it. I was even a member of the Mens Glee Club (MGC). By tradition the junior members of the MGC provided the wait staff at a medieval themed banquet, back in the days when legal drinking age was 18. It was thus safe to assume that the patrons and wait staff were legally allowed to consume beer and most of what the wait staff did was schlep pitches from kegs to tables. My medieval costume consisted of nice tights; a tunic that was short enough to have violated local standards if I did not have tights, or adopted any other posture than standing; and a cute floppy hat. I was very effective at my job of hauling beer because at some point a drunken fraternity boy looked at the long hair and tunic and decided it was his duty to grope. He was surprised, I was annoyed and I have often wondered why I tried to rescue the pitcher of beer that did not spill on his head.
On the topic at hand, I do think the original article is an example of why "responsible journalism" is sometimes an oxymoron, even though "responsible", like porn, is one of those things that is easier to identify than describe.
My "guilty until proven innocent" is based on a true story. A friend was at her children's school when, as luck would have it, Child Protective Services showed up, looking to take her children into custody. In the ensuing debate it was revealed that CPS had received a report that my friend had placed her child's head in a toilet and held the child down during a flush cycle. CPS had decided to remove the children from her protection while they investigated. It turned out that a neighbor who was mad at my friend had reported the alleged incident based upon hearsay evidence. CPS backed down but under existing law apparently any report to CPS was "protected" and the neighbor had committed no crime in filing what turned to be a false report (Does "See something, say something" really sound like a good policy?) and CPS had no leeway in how they responded - in particular protecting the children before the report was evaluated was standard procedure.