Edit: If the evidence turns out to be strong, then that's not blindly believing. I'm referring to certain people I see on Twitter who are acting as if the guilty verdict has already been read.

The Golden Rule applies. If you were accused of the same, would you prefer that people withhold judgement until after a trial?

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/08/asia-argento-jimmy-bennett-settlement

Argento's narrative seems to be that the payment was extorted, not a payoff for a thing she did. According to her, the accuser was desperate for money, and concocted a false claim of molestation in order to obtain financial security.

While there's no proof of sex acts, there allegedly is proof of her being topless in the presence of a 17-year-old. This is not terrible for Argento's "I was extorted" claim. Though being topless is probably just going to be a misdemeanor at best, it's also something that she can't deny and would make her look terrible. If I wanted to extort the maximum amount of cash from a star, and I could prove she was topless around me, I too would invent some extra juicy details like oral sex. There's no denying that the guy notified her of the intention to sue, and then refrained from suing after receiving the money. This doesn't prove extortion, but it is consistent with it.

Sure, maybe she did have sex with a 17-year-old, and frankly it's far less difficult to imagine a tattooed B-movie independent film actress in an open relationship having sex with an underage young man than, say, a dental technician or a HR official.

But if she's not entitled to a reasonable degree of doubt and charity, men aren't either. The news coverage falsely paints a picture that we can safely conclude she molested an underage person. We cannot. Alternative theories of what happened are perfectly consistent with the known facts.