I think it was clear for all to see that Terry used racially abusive language. If you want to suspend doubt and ignore what's staring you in the face that's fine but there's really no question as far as I'm concerned.
And if I were found accused of using racially abusive language myself, instead of avoiding minorities, here's an idea: apologize for any offense you may have caused and stop using that language in the future. Maybe seek to build bridges instead of burning them. You don't have to withdraw from all relations with minorities. As long as you're a decent person there's really no need for anyone to accuse you of racism. The fact that avoiding minorities is the first thing that springs to your mind says quite a bit.
If I used racially abusive language well yes. But two points first what I I did not use racially abusive language what if I said nothing whatsoever and the accusation was malicious? I would still be guilty and you would judge, jury and jail me. The second point is what is racially abusive language? Well the law tells us it is anything perceived to be so. So as the offender you are entirely at the mercy of the offendee's propensity to be offended. And as we know some people can be mighty offended if it suits them or profers an advantage. I am not sure of your position on this are you suggesting a free for all where any accusation can be made. Then we are back to the fifteenth century and accusing your neighbour of witchcraft
OK, this thread is veering off into territory completely unrelated to football so I'll attempt to address your concerns while still keeping things relevant.
Consider the following situation:
My university team was playing one of our most heated rivals. One of our players went in hard on one of their (black) players. It was a pretty rough challenge and a foul was called. Some words were exchanged between the two players, but the tackle was made near the corner flag, so no one could hear but those two players. Out of nowhere, their player became hysterical, crying out that our player had called him a racist name. He was absolutely incredulous, and went straight to the referee. Now, it's one man's word against another, so we can't be sure who said what to whom. So we have a few options:
Call it a stalemate and punish no one. Seems fair at first blush, but has the unintended effect of potentially allowing racist abuse to go unchecked when it occurs privately between two parties. Basically, any time it's one man's word against another, each would have carte blanche to say whatever the liked, because no one would be punished for doing so. This is not the message we want to send in society.
Punish the reporting person. On the plus side, this would seem to discourage the sort of malicious fabrication of racist abuse that you're referring to. But there's a downside, and that is, people would be discouraged from reporting racist abuse on a wholesale level. Even if Terry called Ferdinand every racial name under the sun, Ferdinand, the victim, would have no recourse. This is a terrible situation to be in, and we would be punishing an innocent person.
Punish the alleged abuser. This has a very obvious drawback, that you pointed out - we would sometimes be punishing an innocent man. But, it has a few consequences that could be beneficial. First, it discourages racial conflicts. Basically, if I know that I will be punished for being accused of racism, then it's rational that I would try to avoid conflict. I would do everything in my power not to give someone a reason to accuse me of racism. Second, when racial abuse does occur and is reported, it would be invariably punished. This sends a clear message to people that this sort of behavior is not to be tolerated at all.
So in the end, you could view it as a cost-benefit analysis. In that case, it could depend on what you value more highly - protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty. But it's still not that simple, because if you always protect the innocent, you'll be inviting more abuse. If you always punish the guilty, you'll be condemning innocent men. On the whole, I think society opts for the third choice because, despite your claims to the contrary, instances of racial and other kinds of abuse vastly, and I mean vastly, outnumber false reporting. Why do you think the story you brought up about the copper was so publicized? Because it's exceptional. Instances like that don't occur very often, and when they do, they don't occur on that scale.
Your analogy between reporting racism and witchcraft is an interesting one, but it doesn't really apply. I think we can all agree that racism in any form is bad. Witchcraft, on the other hand, not so much. Most of the time, these women were simply accused of being a bit strange and perhaps not Puritanical enough (I'm referring specifically to the Salem witch trials here).
As for what constitutes offensive language, that is a whole other can of worms that I do not need to open on this thread, not least of all because it is completely unrelated to the topic. I think we can all agree that, if Terry said what he is alleged to have said, that is offensive.
American friend has joined on in this most interesting and properly conducted discussion.