5 ms·

> "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a philosophical concept that many legal systems subscribe to

> "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a philosophical concept that many legal systems subscribe to in the context of criminal law. > Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action Indeed, it’s very similar in the sense that the concept of the freedom of speech goes way beyond the 1st amendment. It existed before it. And it is the first amendment that exists because of the freedom of speech, not the other way round. > A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of the law. Yeah, including immoral actions that others may disagree with.

runarberg 3y ago
> Yeah, including immoral actions that others may disagree with. The morality in this instance does not follow this principle. If people find these allegations credible—and most should—the morally correct action is to deplatform him and delete his content.
- indoclay 3y ago
  > If people find these allegations credible—and most should Why should most people find these allegations credible? I do not believe there is a police report, arrest, and let alone a trial. These are currently just allegations, their credibility has not been adjudicated.
  - Airsinner 3y ago
    One might evaluate the situation based on what I think is called a "preponderance of evidence", combined with an understanding that the legal system is both slow and tends towards innocence unless a crime is proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt". A person may know how slow and different a legal decision is compared to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality, and therefore might arrive at a conclusion well before a system designed to be conclusive would. The law is more about what can be proven than it is about what is true, and for people who know that, legal judgement stands separately from moral evaluation.
    - indoclay 3y ago
      What evidence has been provided to meet this preponderance of evidence standard you are putting forward for moral evaluation? You have one party making an allegation claiming they have documents to back it up and the other party denying innocence with claims of their own exculpatory evidence. Nothing has been shared to the public by either party for me evaluate who has the preponderance of evidence. I do believe YouTube (or any other private platform) can and should be able to set it's own rules for participation so I see no issue with what they did here. If it's a right for someone to be on that platform then we should not be relying on a private party to guarantee that and make the necessary legislative changes. I would just love to understand why I should be outraged at this individual before anything has been presented before me so that I can evaluate for myself.
      - JohnMakin 3y ago
        No one is telling you to be outraged about it.
        Fervicus 3y ago
        But we are being told (in this thread) that we should assume that the allegations are credible.
    - Fervicus 3y ago
      > ...to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality And how exactly is it obvious that the guy is guilty? Just because he makes click-baity divisive videos, might allegedly have been a playboy in the past, and you don't like him, doesn't equate to "obviously he must have done it".
- Fervicus 3y ago
  > and most should Why?
Airsinner 3y ago
The whole philosophical backing of both "freedom of speech" and "innocent until proven guilty" is that the government doesn't itself have civil rights, only the rights explicitly outlined to it in the founding documents of that government (e.g. US Constitution). Once you venture into private parties evaluating other private parties, you encounter a collision of rights. It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people, and as long as those certain people aren't of a protected class, this falls well within the moral concepts of both free speech and presumption of innocence.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > government doesn't itself have civil rights Neither do corporations. This is easy to demonstrate. Imagine you refuse to talk to Trump supporters - most people would say that's your right. > It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people imagine the outrage if Tomorrow YouTube deletes accounts for anyone that supported Trump
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Corporations are owned by people who do have civil rights.
  - jonny_eh 3y ago
    Let's go more extreme. Tech companies are free to not host Nazi content. The US govt is NOT free to lock someone up for being a Nazi. That's the power of the 1st amendment.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      Why can I never find you 'Corporations are people' advocates when corporate manslaighter is being discussed, for example when Boeing killed 200 people with a faulty plane?
      - jonny_eh 3y ago
JohnMakin 3y ago
Thanks for making the correction, luckily we don’t live in a world based purely on Lockean principles, but rather a practical one with a society much larger than existed in his day.
- brigandish 3y ago
  John Locke is renowned for being pragmatic, not an ideologue. I'm not sure why societal size would matter, but he lived in a period of social upheaval with lots of negative effects from intolerance and partisanship. Not really that different from today.

runarberg 3y ago

> Yeah, including immoral actions that others may disagree with. The morality in this instance does not follow this principle. If people find these allegations credible—and most should—the morally correct action is to deplatform him and delete his content.

indoclay 3y ago
> If people find these allegations credible—and most should Why should most people find these allegations credible? I do not believe there is a police report, arrest, and let alone a trial. These are currently just allegations, their credibility has not been adjudicated.
- Airsinner 3y ago
  One might evaluate the situation based on what I think is called a "preponderance of evidence", combined with an understanding that the legal system is both slow and tends towards innocence unless a crime is proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt". A person may know how slow and different a legal decision is compared to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality, and therefore might arrive at a conclusion well before a system designed to be conclusive would. The law is more about what can be proven than it is about what is true, and for people who know that, legal judgement stands separately from moral evaluation.
  - indoclay 3y ago
    What evidence has been provided to meet this preponderance of evidence standard you are putting forward for moral evaluation? You have one party making an allegation claiming they have documents to back it up and the other party denying innocence with claims of their own exculpatory evidence. Nothing has been shared to the public by either party for me evaluate who has the preponderance of evidence. I do believe YouTube (or any other private platform) can and should be able to set it's own rules for participation so I see no issue with what they did here. If it's a right for someone to be on that platform then we should not be relying on a private party to guarantee that and make the necessary legislative changes. I would just love to understand why I should be outraged at this individual before anything has been presented before me so that I can evaluate for myself.
    - JohnMakin 3y ago
      No one is telling you to be outraged about it.
      - Fervicus 3y ago
        But we are being told (in this thread) that we should assume that the allegations are credible.
  - Fervicus 3y ago
    > ...to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality And how exactly is it obvious that the guy is guilty? Just because he makes click-baity divisive videos, might allegedly have been a playboy in the past, and you don't like him, doesn't equate to "obviously he must have done it".
Fervicus 3y ago
> and most should Why?

Airsinner 3y ago

The whole philosophical backing of both "freedom of speech" and "innocent until proven guilty" is that the government doesn't itself have civil rights, only the rights explicitly outlined to it in the founding documents of that government (e.g. US Constitution). Once you venture into private parties evaluating other private parties, you encounter a collision of rights. It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people, and as long as those certain people aren't of a protected class, this falls well within the moral concepts of both free speech and presumption of innocence.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> government doesn't itself have civil rights Neither do corporations. This is easy to demonstrate. Imagine you refuse to talk to Trump supporters - most people would say that's your right. > It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people imagine the outrage if Tomorrow YouTube deletes accounts for anyone that supported Trump
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Corporations are owned by people who do have civil rights.
- jonny_eh 3y ago
  Let's go more extreme. Tech companies are free to not host Nazi content. The US govt is NOT free to lock someone up for being a Nazi. That's the power of the 1st amendment.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    Why can I never find you 'Corporations are people' advocates when corporate manslaighter is being discussed, for example when Boeing killed 200 people with a faulty plane?
    - jonny_eh 3y ago

JohnMakin 3y ago

Thanks for making the correction, luckily we don’t live in a world based purely on Lockean principles, but rather a practical one with a society much larger than existed in his day.

brigandish 3y ago
John Locke is renowned for being pragmatic, not an ideologue. I'm not sure why societal size would matter, but he lived in a period of social upheaval with lots of negative effects from intolerance and partisanship. Not really that different from today.