[NOTE: I'm going to link just a few of the articles in question here (not a significant fraction or even one from each site, just a couple of the ones that I could access quickly, because it's late), but make sure you have some ad blockers on if you want to read them and the unlinked ones because giving them page views is part of the problem.]
Who's ready for another violation of journalistic integrity from the tattered remains of Gawker?
You may have heard tell of sexual assault allegations roiling against Louis CK, going around since long before the Weinstein debacle but picking up quite a bit more speed since then. The originator of the rumor is a Gawker blind item relating a statement from fellow comedian Jen Kirkman about a popular comic who sexual harassed and assaulted her, which speculates that said comic is CK. Since then, nearly all of the sites owned by Univision -- Gawker, Jezebel, AV Club, Gizmodo, io9, Lifehacker, and so on -- have carried on referencing this as fact, referring to the growing "scandal" and numerous apparent allegations against CK while cross-linking to other articles written within the same collective to give the appearance of more evidence.
The problem is that not only has there not been an actual accusation from any apparent source, but Kirkman quickly clarified after the original piece's publication that CK is unrelated to her story -- Doug Stanhope seems to be the comic in question due to contextual evidence and an ambiguously joking Facebook confession, but I'm not sure of the case there so I'm not touching that either. Even if you want to believe the victim in most cases, there is no reportable victim in this case. This gets called out repeatedly in the comments of virtually every article (even on Jezebel, where the "TAKE THIS PERVERT DOWN" narrative has obviously gotten the most traction and outrage), but there has never been a hint of real acknowledgement from the authors, and the articles and hostile references whenever CK is mentioned continue.
CK so far has only given passing mention to the rumors and said he's not taking them seriously (which has been taken as tacit admission of his guilt), but if they gain any significant traction outside of Univision's self-contained grudge, he has real grounds to sue for libel. Even if someone steps forward at a later date with a real claim of harassment, as of now it has been reported on endlessly with no such sources. As it stands, it is, to put a fine point on it, fake news.
Now even as a fan of CK's work, I don't claim to know anything of his character; his new movie is pretty poorly timed even if it fits his anti-PC schtick, and if someone ever does come forward with an allegation, that's a separate story from this. I just don't understand how most of these sites can get high-and-mightily outraged over Trump's bullshit spinning, and claim to be ardent feminists, when they've visibly made a story up out of whole cloth and are just harming real victims by doing so.