Asklemmy

43856 readers

1690 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@beehaw.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

35 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

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal philosophy in the US court system.

Companies, and social media operate at the social level. Reputation and impressions matter. Companies are not bound by the same rules of conduct that courts are.

It's unfortunate that the internet likes to have a character to hate, and fully engages in the hate machine when somebody is served up. Sometimes the target of the 3 minutes hate is innocent, and they just suffer even if their name is cleared. The damage is done.

[–] El_Dorado@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wouldn't he just be able to sue them then?

[–] noride@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The overwhelming majority of big companies include a morality clause in their sponsorship contracts that allows them to terminate deals with endorsers based on public sentiment.

[–] peter@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

They can usually terminate the agreement at any time for any reason

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You can sue anybody for anything. So sure, do they have actionable grounds? No.

In private commerce there is no compunction for people to do business with you.

It becomes different if we talk about utilities, power water internet.

[–] El_Dorado@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok I see

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 1 year ago

Let's do a fun thought experiment.

Let's say I open a gas station chain called " fuck Ted ".

If anybody with Ted on their credit card tried to fill up the tank it would just deny it. They go inside to talk to the cashier, and they saw the name was Ted they would say fuck you Ted and refuse to sell them anything.

A real fuck you in particular contender.

I think this would be a totally legal business. It's not discriminating any protected class. Sucks to be Ted