Asklemmy

1454 readers

60 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Russell Brand allegations question from non American (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by El_Dorado to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I was reading about the allegations against Russell Brand and couldn't help but wonder how it works legally that his revenue can be blocked based on allegations and before any juridical ruling.

Don't get me wrong I don't know much about the guy and what he did or didn't do and agree that anyone should be punished according to their crimes.

But how is this possible with the principal of innocent until proven guilty? I'd be happy if someone could explain me.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BoBTFish@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Innocent until proven guilty" very specifically applies to punishment by the courts and government (which would be UK courts in this case). Everyone else can still think he's a sleazebag and want nothing to do with him without knowing exactly which crimes he may have committed.

I could absolutely be fired by my employer for harassing colleagues in a way that wouldn't be outright illegal. Same here for streaming companies, traditional TV production companies, etc not wanting to work with him.

[–] El_Rocha@lm.put.tf 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here a more accurate metaphor would be being fired for unverified accusations of harassment.

[–] TheZoltan@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Don't get too caught up on the employee metaphor as Brand is not an employee of YouTube so he doesn't get the same legal protections an employee would get. That said if you were accused of harassment at a UK firm the company would have to investigate it, and quite possibly suspend you while it did and then fire you if it felt the claim was valid. The key point is that individuals and businesses don't need to pretend they haven't heard the allegations and its reasonable for them to act on it. Even within the courts while considered innocent until proven guilty it might be deemed reasonable to restrict your liberties until a verdict has been reached.