What about when the courts don't do the job?
A lot of people are understandably low on trust for a legal system that doesn't do anything about multiple highly-public sexual offenders.
A lot of people are understandably low on trust for a legal system that doesn't do anything about multiple highly-public sexual offenders.
Well, then you'd presumably fall back onto the old witch hunt; plenty of puritanical mobs are still around to say something like "What about when the courts don't do the job".
Good thing we don't live in those unenlightened days, eh?
A functioning justice system for sex crime accusations would be amazing; for valid reasons, a lot of people do not trust that this exists.
They are not some core, universal rights that every individual must respect when interacting with other individual.
The accused in this case absolutely still has the citizen rights of association and speech. He can gather with people and he can publish his thoughts. The fact that a bunch of individuals have decided they don't want to gather with him is in no way a reduction of his rights.
There's no right to being accepted, and no right to make people approve of your actions.
It's not actually a problem in society that needs fixing if people decide not to associate with someone on the basis of their behaviour.
It's not a problem you can, or should, solve legally.
> A functioning justice system for sex crime accusations would be amazing; for valid reasons, a lot of people do not trust that this exists.
They have no valid reasons. No system is perfect. Claiming that the system getting it wrong 1 out of every 1000 times is a valid reason is just stupid; no system is perfect.
Our justice system doesn't fail 1 in a 1000 times, particularly when talking about sex crimes. It fails far more frequently than that, given the prevalence of sexual assault and the rarity of convictions [1]. Additionally, there's an aspect that justice must be seen to be done: high profile repeat offenders walking free damages confidence in the system out of proportion to their frequency.
As above, if you want people to use a system, the system has to work.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/the-s...
What makes you think I'm okay with the current system? Upthread I even said "if you are unhappy with the way things are, petition to change them instead of mobbing".
Just because I hold the opinion that evidence matters does not mean that I am a bad person.
People aren't required to only critique a system using the tools that system provides; progress is often made when people step outside of the system (e.g. Rosa Parks) rather than quietly accepting it. There's evidence for that in countless civil rights campaigns.
It's a matrix: a perfect system would always punish the guilty and refuse to punish the innocent.
Without perfect information, you have to choose: will you bias the outcome punish the innocent, or to not punish the guilty?
Not saying people should leap to letter signing, but it also misses the mark to suggest that the US legal system will resolve the issues these kinds of actions cause.
it seems that the author lives in Germany and that he went to court in Britain: https://pretty.direct/consentorder.pdf
- "the BBC let this person get away with this for years" and also "cancel culture has to stop",
- "there's too much filth on the internet" and "don't you dare demand I tell you my age",
- or the most complex and culturally nuanced one: "children are being groomed" but "she's 18 now, she's an adult and she can make up her own mind about posing nude in a tabloid".
As difficult as it is, any invitation to treat a subject with less nuance is better considered misbegotten until scrutinised much, much further.
If I've missed an implication that limited their suggestion to specific regions, them I'm happy to retract. But what I'm seeing is a general suggestion, so I've extrapolated that out and tried to apply it to a hypothetical where the advice might be appropriate.
Feels like maybe you've assumed that the thread starter was scoping the suggestion to the regions where this offense occurred. Again, I don't see that implication in the text, but I feel like it's an entirely reasonable assumption. That being the case, I don't fault anyone for thinking only in those terms. But I also don't think I was out of line to engage with the thread starters points in the way that I did.