3 ms·

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it has nothing to do with popular actions, and never has. All it basically says is that Russell Brand cannot

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal framework, it has nothing to do with popular actions, and never has. All it basically says is that Russell Brand cannot go to jail until he is proven guilty. There are no laws requiring the public to treat an accused person as if they never committed a crime until said crime has been proven. It is up to the public whether they believe the victim or the accused. In this case youtube has decided to believe the victim. Perhaps youtube—like so many others—have deemed the accusations credible, and they are in their full right to act on these believes.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> youtube has decided to believe the victim Not the victim. The accuser, who may be a victim.
- runarberg 3y ago
  I’m under no legal obligation either to deny the allegations until proven. And in this case I choice to believe the victims. And I will keep calling them victims until proven otherwise.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I don't understand this comment, sorry. Who's talking about your legal obligations? I'm talking about what you know vs what you assume.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      You are saying it is wrong of me to call the victims, victims, and should instead call them ‘accusers’. I’m saying I am under no legal obligations to do so. I believe their stories and I believe they are victims, so I am allowed to call them victims. Now I think there might be slander to call the accused something like an abuser, so I don’t do that (yet). However there is no slander laws which disallow me from using words which indicate that I believe the victims, so I’m not calling them ‘accusers’, I call them victims, because that is what I believe they are.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Of course you're allowed - there's no parent enforcing things and you aren't a child, and shouldn't be thinking that way. But this is a strange response: "It's not illegal for me to say this!" Would you accept that as a response from a flat earther if you challenged something they stated as fact?
- singingfish 3y ago
  FTFY: Youtube has decided to believe the multiple independent lines of evidence which came out of a four year investigation by multiple journalists across more than one organisation. This is not currently a legal matter, but a matter that concerns a public figure's ethical standards. Multiple independent lines of evidence is a powerful thing.
Fredrico 3y ago
[flagged]

robertlagrant 3y ago

> youtube has decided to believe the victim Not the victim. The accuser, who may be a victim.

runarberg 3y ago
I’m under no legal obligation either to deny the allegations until proven. And in this case I choice to believe the victims. And I will keep calling them victims until proven otherwise.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I don't understand this comment, sorry. Who's talking about your legal obligations? I'm talking about what you know vs what you assume.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    You are saying it is wrong of me to call the victims, victims, and should instead call them ‘accusers’. I’m saying I am under no legal obligations to do so. I believe their stories and I believe they are victims, so I am allowed to call them victims. Now I think there might be slander to call the accused something like an abuser, so I don’t do that (yet). However there is no slander laws which disallow me from using words which indicate that I believe the victims, so I’m not calling them ‘accusers’, I call them victims, because that is what I believe they are.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Of course you're allowed - there's no parent enforcing things and you aren't a child, and shouldn't be thinking that way. But this is a strange response: "It's not illegal for me to say this!" Would you accept that as a response from a flat earther if you challenged something they stated as fact?
singingfish 3y ago
FTFY: Youtube has decided to believe the multiple independent lines of evidence which came out of a four year investigation by multiple journalists across more than one organisation. This is not currently a legal matter, but a matter that concerns a public figure's ethical standards. Multiple independent lines of evidence is a powerful thing.

Fredrico 3y ago

[flagged]