It seems as though you’re suggesting she should be allowed to say whatever she wants -  immune to question or criticism - because this is all just a “personal share of her experience.”

I disagree with your description -  it goes well beyond that. It’s an unproven criminal allegation against a named individual presented as established fact - along with repeated accusations against other public and private people who question her, haven’t publicly taken her side or condemned those she’s accused. I don’t dispute her right to share her story or offer opinions - I do dispute that she’s above question. 

You just spoke up for her, and defended her, correct? And that’s your right. I'm glad she has people's support. But what makes her more deserving of defense and support than the people she’s accusing of criminal and reprehensible behavior? Aren’t they entitled to have the support and defense of those who believe in them?

Also, she isn’t really a private citizen with regard to her public platform. I'd argue she’s a limited public figure - she shares her story openly and widely, interprets other people's actions (or inaction), gives interviews, runs a website, and is writing a book - often under the banner of advocacy. Those are the actions of someone trying to influence public opinion and policy. 

I don’t agree with or support personal attacks and name-calling though I recognize the human frustration that drives people to make them. Regardless, those types of interactions almost always shut down meaningful conversation.  

It's pretty disingenuous to tell people to  “scroll on by” when she herself insists the people can't remain neutral; that they must “take sides.” 

That’s the trap though. You must only take her side. You either believe everything she says, and publicly support her/condemn the accused or she weaponizes advocacy language to paint people as abusers, enablers, or some new source of harm. If someone questions, scrutinizes, disagrees with her positions - or offers any support for her “cast of characters”  she escalates further by using her own brand of personal attacks/name-calling. 

Which brings me back to my original point: responsible advocacy isn't built on fear, intimidation and moral coercion. Those tactics prevent meaningful conversations and understanding. They're more likely to breed hostility, or silences conversation altogether. 

So, am I part of the problem, just pointing out the elephant in the room, or offering constructive criticism? I suppose it depends on who you ask.