Yes, I agree with your first two points. But it's important to point out that just because something is hard to prove does not mean that we should presume guilt

Yes, I agree with your first two points. But it's important to point out that just because something is hard to prove does not mean that we should presume guilt. > and the third is that Louis admitted to the allegations. Did he? AFAICT he did not admit to anything that would rise to the level of sexual assault. If he did, and there was a confession to that effect, he certainly would have been prosecuted as that would be an easy case. Also a high profile case that would put a feather in the cap of any prosecutor. For example, there was no admission of forcing anyone to do anything, and without that, you are not going to get to sexual assault. In fact, no one was locked in a room, unable to leave. No one was held down or threatened with bad repercussions if they left -- at least that is not something he admitted to. He also said ahead of time, "I am going to do X". And still no one left. Perhaps they felt more awkward leaving than staying, but again that doesn't get you to sexual assault. This goes to your second point - what he did (that is known) wasn't actually illegal. It was antisocial. Now the question is, do we want to avoid antisocial comics? I mean, maybe. Some do, some don't. But my position is that we shouldn't try to intervene and prevent the comic from being able to find their audience. Let each person make up their mind about that, instead of forming coordinated pressure groups that lobby to deplatform those they deem antisocial.