I'm not talking about silencing anyone or defending the accused. I'm talking only about assuming the innocence of the accused--that used to be a basic principle.

It is a basic principle in law. The idea being that everyone should get a fair trial; being convicted and having your freedom taken away is a huge deal, and we recognize that to be so. It should only be done when we know someone is guilty. The presumption of innocence is so that the accused can be fairly treated, and not have bias affect the conviction.

But we are not in courtroom. That principle does not apply to other actions. If someone told you that your usual babysitter was a pedophile, you'd fire their ass and find another one. I doubt you would do an exhaustive investigation all the while leaving your child with them.

We make judgements all the time in life, and it is not necessarily wrong to do so. But do not apply a legal principle where it doesn't really belong.

While you may fire that babysitter, it's by no means fair. We should be fair in all aspects of life; we decide to jettison that fairness for one reason or another, but it's still a failing all the same.

What exactly is 'fair'? Fair is communism. We are capitalist. The unfairness of capitalism is what drives innovation. A fair world would be one of stagnation.

While you may fire that babysitter, it's by no means fair. We should be fair in all aspects of life; we decide to jettison that fairness for one reason or another, but it's still a failing all the same.

Wait wait wait.

So let's say a neighbor who also previously employed this babysitter tells you something negative-- it could be about abuse or potential abuse, the example need not be specific.

Concerned, you confront the babysitter. They deny it.

Certainly lots of things factor in-- how credible the neighbor is, how familiar you are with them, and the same for the babysitter.

But assuming you believe there's a non-zero chance of the allegation being true, you have to decide whether or not to continue to employ this person and balance the need to be "fair" against potential harm to your child.

So if you continue to employ them, and it turns out the allegation was true, is your response going to be that you were obligated to be fair to the babysitter and this overrode the other concerns?

I'm honestly not usually one for the "won't somebody please think of the children" and it is certainly *possible* that false allegations can negatively impact innocent individuals.

But... argh... I agree with Cody that the line between acceptable and unacceptable consequences for potential false allegations lies between the standards for public behavior and the legal system. Due process must be given before depriving a person of liberty and property, but under the current system no one is entitled to due process in all matters.

One might understandably wonder about the possibility for false allegations to truly destroy lives-- to inflict poverty, homelessness, and even death on individuals accused or even suspected of crimes because the rest of polite society refuses to engage with them-- to employ them, to patronize them, to associate with them.

Of course this kind of thing is going on every day right now and our society is generally unconcerned with it, because it considers that no one is "entitled" to anything. The attempt here is to draw a line between someone who usually receives such engagement from society but is denied it following allegations that have not yet been given due process, rather than those routinely denied it for various other reasons.

I don't believe that David Cage or Harvey Weinstein are going to die in a gutter. Their lives and property will not be confiscated without due process because they are not members of any group vulnerable to such procedures. They may lose future earnings, the adulation of fans, and the good regard of society. Neither they, nor anyone else, are entitled to those things, and the loss of them is survivable.

Those around them who are affected should be protected by other means-- such as labor unions. Work in entertainment is notoriously unreliable but I don't think this should be used as a reason for giving extra benefit of the doubt where none is warranted, especially when studios open and close at the whim of their owners without much regard for their employees.

I'm not talking about silencing anyone or defending the accused. I'm talking only about assuming the innocence of the accused--that used to be a basic principle.

It is a basic principle in law. The idea being that everyone should get a fair trial; being convicted and having your freedom taken away is a huge deal, and we recognize that to be so. It should only be done when we know someone is guilty. The presumption of innocence is so that the accused can be fairly treated, and not have bias affect the conviction.

But we are not in courtroom. That principle does not apply to other actions. If someone told you that your usual babysitter was a pedophile, you'd fire their ass and find another one. I doubt you would do an exhaustive investigation all the while leaving your child with them.

We make judgements all the time in life, and it is not necessarily wrong to do so. But do not apply a legal principle where it doesn't really belong.

So I'm to believe anything anyone has told me about Cody Miller and treat you accordingly? Okay then.

I can't really stop you if that's what you want to do. Nor should I. I have no right to what's in your head.

It's why even after Mankind Divided was free on PSN, I deleted it after downloading it for a hot second (and due to the way free PSN games work, can never get it back now).

Uh, that's not how the free PS+ games work. You don't even need to download the game to retain access, as long as your PS+ subscription is active.

But that's besides the point, I get it.

Oh? I thought once the free period passes you have to pay to download the game.

No. As long as you "claim" it and add it to your account when it's free, it's yours for as long as your a PS+ subscriber.