There is, of course, due process. There is, of course, innocent until proven guilty. There are safeguards, which should work for both sides in a case.
But how does Sony Records find itself in a courtroom, arguing that a woman who claims to have been raped and abused should be forced to remain working for her alleged rapist? How does anyone from Sony suck a thoughtful tooth and go "well, we've only got her word that she's been raped by him, so we should probably keep her to her contract. Even if we have to take this to court"?
Even if you were part of Sony, and didn't believe Kesha; even if you were part of Sony, and believed Kesha but didn't really care. Even then. How would you think that marching into court to try and force her to work with Dr Luke would be the right thing to do?
Buzzfeed's Mary Georgantopoulos was following the case for Buzzfeed. How she was able to tweet with her head in her hands is a minor miracle in itself.
When Kesha's lawyers argued that Sony's offer to keep her in the contract to Dr Luke's vanity label but not work with Luke was meaningless because Sony would just bury any of her work:
Judge: You’re asking me to presume an entity like Sony, who is in competitive position ... will not want to make money on their investment.— Mary Georgantopoulos (@marygeorgant) February 19, 2016
Oh, Judge. You've not been round the music industry, or indeed corporations, long, have you? Here in Milton Keynes, there's a supermarket which stands empty while Sainsburys pay rent of a million quid a year on it. They're paying the rent to stop anyone else making money in the unit. That's how corporations work. The suggestion that Sony might spite-lock an artist isn't really so outlandish, is it?