Absolutely, but shouldn't there be some stricter regulations around it? The obvious argument is how the hell to enforce such regulations.....and on that, who knows.
@ Leo's post, but I do also feel strongly that indoor shoelessness should be enforced.
Clearly the public reaction to a case like this is far more important to you than the case itself, which is telling.
I just find it bizarre that your first reaction to a woman literally getting away with attempted murder - which story is obviously more about the privileges of wealth, class and education than it is about gender, but never mind - is try to bend it into your narrative of universal female victimhood. Well actually I don't, because it's entirely in keeping with the stuff you've been coming out with for ages, but it is nuts.
Well whatever the (manifold) problems there are in our media culture, that's a separate issue from the miscarriage of the case itself.
I don't know if the media is necessarily harsher on women than on men in cases like this. I think it's more complicated than that. On one hand, much of the media effectively tried Amanda "Foxy Knoxy" Knox in absentia and decided she was guilty of Meredith Kercher's murder because she 'looked the sort' and because there was (allegedly) sex involved, and everyone loves a femme fatale. OTOH, I remember the media being overwhelmingly defensive of Louise Woodward, who of course turned out to be guilty as sin, because she was kind of baby-faced and innocent-looking. So it can certainly go both ways.
worth noting that both 'femme fatale' and 'baby-faced and innocent' are both sexist stereotypes that are not generally advantageous for women.
It also prevents you from seeing that it's your insistence that anyone who doesn't share your orthodoxy must be an "MRA" and a misogynist, or a least a misogyny-apologist - a heretic, an infidel - is exactly the thing that's driving the anti-feminist backlash and this big resurgence in actual misogyny.