That’s why you need to learn to read through the evidence of what comes through the social media, make your own research and come up with your own decision about whether said news are trustworthy or not. Even in law there’s a principle which basically states that a person CAN be convicted if there’s no other plausible explanation than the one which convicts them.
In the case of what’s being discussed in this thread… I can’t say I’ve seen decisive amounts of evidence vs Swifty, but only a person who’s uninformed or in bad faith would seriously expect someone like Josh not to be guilty of most of what he’s been accused of.
Thinking that nothing true or trustworthy can come from the social media is as toxic of an attitude to have as it is to trust everything you read on the titles.
This is very relevant. Spare a thought for Mike Leander who co wrote all of Glitters songs, he and the Glitter band (who had a string of hits in their own right without Glitter) must have lost a big chunk of cash purely because of their musical association with Glitter.
I feel that the members of Method that had no knowledge of the Josh situation will be forever tainted with the fall out from this and that is horribly unfair on them and can be seen as another black mark against those that are guilty.
… I do not treat social media as reliable source though. As often evidence there is just like we are here now - writing down opinions. But opinions are not facts. But I agree in this sense that research has to be done.
Now I have to say and clarify, I do not follow social media. i do not even know who Josh is. I merely hope there’s evidence of him being guility and then he should be put in prison or if he is not guilty the accuser should be finger pointed.
In several countries it’s not. In the UK there are libel laws for example. They’re something that tends to be brought as a private suit however.
But like earlier I think you mentioned how countries need to punish false accusers, many do. Again, in the UK with the operation Yew tree stuff where a deluded fantasist was found to be making up stuff regarding accusing politicians of sexual offences he is now doing jail time.
Thing is you have to prove its made up, which is not the same as finding someone not guilty of a sexual offence. Someone can be found not guilty which means there is no evidence to say they did it, so legally they cannot be punished due to the burden of evidence required. That doesn’t mean there’s proof the accuser made stuff up. It might mean simply that their evidence which was deemed to be trustworthy, wasn’t enough to secure a beyond reasonable doubt conviction.
This is why you dont always see someone doing jail time whenever they’re cleared of charges. Unless the case directly revealed it to be so, you’d need to start a separate file to investigate whether their claims could be considered slander or not. And many people who escape the noose of being accused of sexual assault aren’t eager to then start private proceedings against their accuser because it makes them look vengeful and it’s not a good look.
In the case of Yewtree it only happened automatically because it concerned the government, which is considered as a face of the crown which means it automatically becomes a criminal case, so no private proceedings needed to be drawn.
Social media - well, not all social media - are not just “people posting opinions”. There are also links. Evidence. Some of it may be non-conclusive, but others may be not as easily dismissable.
For example, there’s been one reddit post (which was also linked earlier in this thread) that also linked several other things. Some of them were “just” twitter stories, yes. But there were also articles, Twitter clip, and other stuff. Showing, for example, that Method probably did know about Josh’s “issues”, that Josh had already been suspended by Twitter last year for sexual-related issues, and other stuff that would hardly leave anyone indifferent.
Ofc, you’re free to believe that all this has been fabricated, that this is all part of a conspiracy carefully carried out by several unrelated girls, some of Method’s members, an ex-Blizzard staff member and a couple social media outlets to besmirch Josh’s “immaculate” reputation. But here we start getting into the “is this really reasonable?” territory.
The problem is that a lot of people here (including you, it seems) would rather liquidate all this as just “social media” rather than pick the time to read the posts, follow the links, check the available evidence and make up your mind.
I understand and I see them two different things. Just there are cases, where in #metoo women did say “Yes, it did not actually happen” - we say “naughty woman”, but man who got accused … no one said sorry. he probably will have that taint rest of his life. And this behaviour is bad for both men, and the actual victims voice. In other words I find “campaigns” and “trends” wrong.
Victims should never be afraid to speak, but if there are “celebrity liars” or “lies to target celebrities” it also has long lasting impact on “mortal” people and their voice gets harder to hear.
Hence I am so against lies and lying. Because it hurts the ones, who need a voice - those who are not rich or have millions of followers, or daddy in media corp. Every such false story makes it harder, much harder for little women (and men).
I want to make clear I see them as different cases - the “not proven guilty” and “This did not happen”- statements afterwards like happened with (not so little) cases of during #metoo.
I like how people like you keep mentioning these cases as if there weren’t a LOT more cases of women either accusing (rightfully) men of sexual misconduct or even MORE cases of women who suffered this but are all too scared to come out - partly because of the attitude of people like you who seem to think that the average woman is all too willing to use her body and reputation to blackmail or damage “respectable” members of a community (incidentally, from what I’ve seen this Josh guy hardly falls into this category anyway).
I mean yes, there have been people in positions of power who have been brought down by false accusations. But there have also been lots of people in positions of power who employed said power to abuse weaker people. It’s kinda chilling how so many people seem to be biased towards the ppl in power rather than the people on the weaker side (like, say, minors), regardless of numbers.
I suppose if you’re making things up wholesale and crafting a perfect story then it would take longer to come out with something. Writing about events you can recall is much faster but also more inaccurate due to the nature of human memory.
As for how the past victims learn about the “drama” so quick?
If they move around in the same circles as their abuser (in this case the girls were all active in the the same WoW and Twitch community Method was) or the case gets sufficiently famous (like with Epstein and his ilk) it’s almost unavoidable for them to come across it.
Which is unfortunately a big problem in all criminal cases that have to heavily rely on victim and witness accounts.
I think I might be misunderstanding you. Is this discussion ONLY about sexual abuse within the Twitch community? Or is it about sexual abuse cases in general?
I don’t know much about Twitch as I’m not very involved with it but in the offline world many cases never gain notoriety, not even when the accused is found guilty. I assume it’s the same for Twitch where smalltime streamers simply don’t garner enough attention for us to know about allegations brought up against them.
I can tell you that if others made a case against the person who attacked me in in real life then I very likely would never learn about it unless it became a scandal big enough to make it on television as I no longer live anywhere near him nor have contact with any mutual acquaintances.
In the cases where a woman accused a man say and later admitted it was made up, all that does for the case at hand (if it’s still in progress) is get it dismissed. You may see an attempt at penalties for offences like Obstruction of Justice but given the accusers typically are vulnerable and their lawyers will certainly argue so, it’s difficult to convict them beyond reasonable doubt in a way that paints them as doing so maliciously (more typically it’ll be presented as an error in their recollection or something) so they typically get a fine or some other minor penalty if an OoJ charge sticks, but rarely jail time unless they not only admitted they made it up, but openly present it as them doing so just to get at the person in question, which isn’t typical (and even then it’d more likely be handled as a civil offence like defamation or slander than OoJ unless there was some fairly good evidence they had a premeditated plan of deceiving the investigation as opposed to just making up an assault account)
If the accused experiences damages due to their reputation taking a hit then that becomes a private case they’d have to bring against the accuser with proof of damages. As said most individuals aren’t interested in pursuing this because they’re typically glad to be free of the criminal charges, that and where the accuser was making stuff up, they’re usually vulnerable in some way so it’s actually understandable why the accused doesn’t then want to privately pursue them to get them punished to make a point because it makes them look aggressive. Even if they’d be entirely justified in doing so.
It’s convoluted but it’s because of how different actions are classified and you can’t have two individuals in the same case on opposing sides being charged with two different crimes (ie the accused is accused of sexual assault and the accuser is being accused of falsifying their account to tarnish someone else’s reputation both being heard in the same case) it’s just now how the legal process works in most countries unless it involves non-private citizens on either end (ie the government, police, monarch etc).
His own words. He admitted wrongdoing, but only after it seemed like the person he molested would come forwards (she had no plans to do so until he tried to apologise privately just before his public announcement).
Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Regardless of your opinion.
If he is to be accused of a serious crime, then he should be allowed to go through the proper process of the law, involving a court trial with all of it’s due processes. A fair and law abiding society means you do NOT get to lynch him (figuratively or literally) from the nearest tree, virtual or otherwise, based on what you may have read on the internet.
That was quite possibly. The most idiotic and most ridiculous thing I have ever read or heard.
Congratulations on being quite clearly unfit to live in a law abiding society if you never even paused for a second to think what you just typed there.
If you are even remotely near an age where you will be thinking of voting soon.
God help us. God help every single one of us.
I can’t even begin to fathom the sheer stupidity of that post.
With your resoning I could walk into your house, steal your stuff while you watch me and then because you couldn’t get me to court due to lack of proof, I’d be innocent according to you? I mean, I stole your stuff but because it didn’t go to court, I’m innocent then, yes?
If you paint me as a burglar then, you’re wrong. Yes?
Do you even realize how stupid that sounds? You saw me stealing your stuff but you’d consider me innocent because it didn’t go to court? I don’t think that would sit right with you, at all.