I'd encourage you to learn the details. It is equally evil to wrongly dismiss a true accusation as it is to wrongly believe a false one.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/9/18/23878706/russell-brand...
OJ Simpson was not found guilty of murder in a criminal setting, yet he was still a pariah.
It took years from the first public accusation for Harvey Weinstein’s case to come to trial. Was it wrong for his production company to fire him before a judge had rendered judgement?
How can the law help if nobody is coming forward? I do not understand.
Your argument about guilty until proven innocent still doesn't stand though.
Johnny Depp was the quintessential counter-example of this, dropped by everyone and smeared publicly by the media; until his PR team with the help of the law cleared it up (a little too well in my opinion).
Yes. One's support for universal rights is really tested when the accused is clearly Not A Nice Person.
Imagine of being accused of rape, even though you're totally innocent, and your employer (or your customers) suddenly dropping you. Would that be fair?
Instead I'm thinking of about all the women who'd have had to work alongside Harvey Weinstein in your hypothetical, while knowing he had abused people they themselves knew.
To make this personal: I discovered CSAM on my boss's laptop. I reported it to my employer and he was fired before he was found guilty. My boss worked with children almost every day. I don't want to imagine a world in which he would have been allowed to hang onto that job.
Working yourself up in a rage is not what one should do when discussing law. Before you know it, you'll be doing things that history will probably condemn you for later on.
Safeguarding from what exactly? If they're innocent until proven guilty, there shouldn't be any safeguarding necessary. By your earlier argument, saying "you can't work with kids anymore" is rushing to judgement.
Sure it's unwelcome, but qualifying to be an aberration requires a bit more than just that.
That actually varies based on jurisdiction, some states have separate laws with different offense names (often with similar conditions and punishments) for different kinds of sexual assaults, and still have “rape” being specific in the same way that it is in Britain, in some states and the federal system, “rape” is not a specific offense named in statute but is sometimes used as an informal name for some offenses. (E.g., in the federal system, the title of the relevant section including, but not limited to, the common law definition of “rape” is “sexual abuse” [0], and the word “rape” does not appear anywhere in it.)
Anyone can argue anything, but Brand might have an uphill slog convincing a trier of fact that YouTube dumped him for being a man.