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