I don't know if all this talk of "Romeo and Juliet" is supposed to romanticize or normalize some sort of age-imbalanced and/or intergenerational relationships, but IMO the relationship between Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is just as messed up as the treatment of gender and power in that play.
Rereading the initial article eight hours after I first did, I'm even more convinced that it's completely irresponsible. (And, if anyone responds to this saying that Dave Lease and/or Christine Brennan are also irresponsible, let me say thank you in advance for your non-responsive fallacy.) Here are a few different ways it tries to discredit any perspectives that don't conform with its message:
There was stifled anger beneath the grief, an overwhelming sense that this young man’s death was wrong.
Here we have an attempt to generate pathos (itself manipulative) in which the word "sense" gives a false impression of subjectivity when it's clear from the rest of the article that the author is trying to place objective/True blame on a variety of sources.
Driven into despair, feeling unable to defend himself, the 6-foot-2 skater — known for his big body and big, warm personality — was so knocked from his moorings . . .
His "big body" and "warm personality" are irrelevant to the facts at hand--another attempt to manipulate via pathos. Look at the word choices here: "driven into despair," "knocked from his moorings." Note that there is no named actor who did that driving and knocking there, again couching blame on some silent/nameless force.
“SafeSport as it operates now is clearly unconstitutional,” [skater and coach Stephen] Chasman wrote.
This is followed up by another quote about how there should be congressional hearings and a fact that a U.S. Senator from Kansas is the chair of a counsel that has been "looking into the treatment of amateur athletes and reporting of sexual misconduct."
Why is SafeSport clearly unconstitutional? Why should there be hearings? This sections of the article says absolutely nothing to answer those questions, just that a report from the Senator's committee is coming soon. That is, at best, terrible journalism, especially when the article is peppered with Facebook posts by people who obviously have a personal stake if not agenda in this case.
Family and friends said Coughlin categorically denied that any of the relationships SafeSport was investigating involved sexual misconduct. Each, they said, was a “peer-to-peer” relationship from his earlier skating days, none from when he was a coach.
The assertion here that a "peer-to-peer" relationship is mutually exclusive with sexual misconduct is both factually and legally inaccurate. Again, at best, this is terrible journalism, but I would suggest it's more invidious than just that.
[Chasman's] “reform petition” urges SafeSport to adopt “the concept of timely, civil procedure” before issuing suspensions, “the acknowledgement (sic) of statute of limitations … (and making clear) the distinction between felony and misdemeanor of charges.”
Okay, at least here we get an argument about what SafeSport is doing wrong, except it's from a Change.org petition written by someone from the skating community who was friends with Coughlin. Does he have any legal knowledge? Did he work with anyone who did? If not, I don't know how much validity to give the article's entire vilification of SafeSport. Thanks to the reporter for using (sic), though.
I could go on here, but the article just continues to use highly manipulative language and rhetoric to generate pathos, trying to hide the fact that there is a situation with multiple viewpoints and angles rather than one perspective that is obviously correct. The critiques of SafeSport may get slightly more cogent (and SafeSport certainly deserves to be criticized), but overall this is a manipulative opinion piece masquerading as news/news feature that does a disservice to everyone involved with the case.