Facts please.
2 Likes
I believe legit media sources who have stated. Also why would they change his voice acting if that was the case? It is facts. You have been proven wrong and you’re trying to turn it into finger in the ear situation now.
2 Likes
Yeah, internet news sources are never wrong and people never lie on the internet. If I see Blizz give their reasons why he was fired OR I see Flynn take Blizz to a tribunal and win then I will believe that he is definitely innocent of anything deserving of a sacking.
Right now, I don’t know either way… but I do know that employers don’t need approval of the internet to sack people.
1 Like
Not so simple.
Innocent proven guilty refers to an assumption no wrongdoing that can be empirically declared, it is not the same as assuming that an individual did not in fact do something in actuality, only in probability, because if that were the case, the “innocent until proven guilty” would protect you from any form of trial as you’d be able to refer to it as a shield of proof that you did no wrong: “Look, I’m innocent, therefore you can’t try me!”.
Clearly then, innocent until proven guilty means something more nuanced than meaning you are innocent of the fact of doing something, it means you are innocent in the sense of being free from legal stipulations and actions of having believed to have done something only. Ie society cannot legally treat you as if you did this thing. People can treat you how they like otherwise though and there are no sanctions for them, because belief is a private sphere, and you can’t expect courts to try and force everyone to behave in a certain way to support the innocence label.
Therefore innocence in legal terms should only be understood as referring to the fact of lack of empirical (or otherwise) proofs that would allow you to be tried as having done something and having legal sanctions applied.
This is why many courts tend to refer only to “guilty” or “not guilty” verdicts, because the verdict is simply a declaration of whether the judgement at hand renders you as to having legally satisfied the criteria to have doubts regarding whether you did something or not. Were the court in the business of making absolute statements on the matter, the word guilty would not be used, rather “criminal” because at that point they’d know objectively and truly you did it.
Yet the word guilty is used because the verdict is about the probability of you shouldering the guilt of having possibly committed some act, it is not a declaration that you, In fact, truly and absolutely did X action, because with the ways of evidence we have now and possible variation, there is always the smallest room for doubt.
So no, declaring someone “not guilty” of something is not the same as declaring them innocent of having done it, it only renders innocence In the sense of “you are innocent of satisfying the legal criterion for us to judge you of the crime legally and sanction you for it”.
Courts do not and never have told us what happens. They determine what likely happened. Therefore they do not have the power to say “you didn’t do this thing” only “this evidence here does not allow us to say you did do it”. And that difference is very significant in legal theory.
2 Likes
He sucks. It’s fine when he speaks normally but whenever he raises his voice it just sounds really forced.
2 Likes
Yes I totally make up laws and decided how the system works. I indeed have that kind of power. I totally didn’t just explain how something is.
What a reasonable reaction to being presented with facts I have no control over.
I despair when people can’t comprehend that information shared is not expressing an opinion for or against something.
4 Likes
Yes you made up stuff because laws also state
Innocent until proven guilty.
The fact you are questioning this basic law shows you are a part of a problem.
Yeah court didn’t explicitly say he is innocent so you know maybe he is not… - You
23 Likes
Well, they should certainly at least apologize to the man.
7 Likes
I do not make laws, I do not make up how the courts work, I do not have any power over the legal system. I certainly don’t have any say on how America governs itself.
You also have not read my replies:-
It’s clearly not sinking in. I simply explained how it works.
But by all means just carry on shooting the messenger.
This is the equivalent of me explaining that today is Tuesday and then being raged at that it is a Tuesday and how dare I make it Tuesday.
1 Like
Yeah it’s cancel culture at its finest. Guilty until proven innocent, in which timeframe your career goes up in flames. Then when you are proven innocent, good for you I guess, still no career tho.
11 Likes
I get why Blizzard did it. Whether I agree with it or not is another discussion, but I understand why they did it. If you have any sort of established presence on social media, you will be scrutinized every day, every week, and sometimes years later.
So if the choice is between throwing an alledged groomer VA under the bus, or keep him in the game’s credits and pray for the best, it’s a no brainer to a company the size of Blizzard. One is a controlled outcome, the other is a coinflip.
1 Like
So why is it that when courts returned a not guilty verdict regarding the Stephen Lawrence murder initially, they were able to retry the individuals when new evidence came to light years later?
Surely of the declaration of “not guilty” was equivalent to stating “you didn’t do it” then this would have been impossible? Yet it happened?
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a term much like “free speech” where a woeful amount of people actually fail to understand what it technically means, and run with a bespoke “commonsense” interpretation of it, which isn’t actually how it is defined.
A court saying “not guilty” is not them saying “you absolutely didn’t do this thing” and it never has been. Similarly the presumption of innocence is not the same as saying “you absolutely couldn’t have done this” because as said above, if it were, it would be impossible to bring criminal charges against people because the presumption of innocence would protect them from such due to such innocence being equivalent to a statement that “they didn’t do it” and thus a criminal charge would have no basis to begin.
Verdicts are about probability, not about statements of actuality.
3 Likes
yes, but only because someone says you re innocent doesnt mean that you actually are, doesnt it? it just means that they werent able to gather enough evidence for a conviction.
i mean people who got away with murder or any other crime got pronounced innocent in the past.
1 Like
Innocent until guilty is still preferable to guilty until innocent tho right?
How would it make you feel if you were blamed for something you didnt do, your career is over and then it turns out in the end that you did not do it, but nothing can help you get your life to where it was before?
3 Likes
Probably more at your behavior that you seem quite valiant towards stating that he’s not innocent.
11 Likes
sure, but doesnt mean that the person is actually innocent. that was the whole point Puny was trying to make i guess.
1 Like
Yes but the same can be said the other way around. It doesn’t mean that the person is automatically guilty if someone spits something out, especially in this day and age.
1 Like
We both know why you guys are valiantly stating this and reminding everyone. No need to twist around the pot. 
1 Like
I haven’t commented on this case at all. I merely clarified a common misconception.
2 Likes
yes, but i was just trying to explain what Puny tried to say. 