“But he doesn’t have an obligation to give a Get”
I think a point that gets blurred in these conversations , is although he doesn’t have a halachic obligation, he may have a moral one.
If the marriage is over, certainly if he has moved on and remarried a get should be given in (nearly?) all circumstances.
Is that really a controversial statement?
Now granted, he may not be strictly speaking obligated to do so, and pressuring him to do so unwillingly may create a real problem of Get meusah. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is a bad person, who deserves shame .
Imagine a person who literally kept his wife chained in his basement, didn’t let her get out and get sunlight. All would agree that would be crazy, and would support shaming him to free her, even without beis din demanding him to (again a big difference is him freeing her wouldn’t create get meuseh in this scenario) Keeping a woman chained in a dead marriage is not much different than keeping her chained in a basement.
Again, yes we don’t know the facts in all cases, and mob rule can lead to real problems as NOYB pointed out . But in regards to ” can anyone possibly think of a worse thing to encourage than “hey random people, form a mob and go ruin someone’s life based on hearsay”?” Yes I think keeping women stuck in a marriage that is over might be worse, and is definitely more common .
It seems to me that in response to the “feminist bent” (real or perceived) , and perhaps anti-halachic outlook and even practices done by many in a desire to free these women, many in our camp come to view all these Get refusers as tzadikim except in a narrow subset of cases.
I guess my question really is the following
If the marriage is over, certainly if he has moved on and remarried a get SHOULD* be given in (nearly?) all circumstances.
(*note should does not equal halachically obligated vis a vis hilchos Gittin in this sentence )