I’m not pretending. I’m not even seeing the dots to connect, dude. You making a shitty unclear argument is on you.
Sure - Kain’s entire article, which you brought here, is a perfect example of idiotic self-righteousness. It’s the self-righteousness of a man too dumb and too arrogant to admit his own bias, or admit his own ignorance about the law, and doing harm by promoting bullshit ideas because of that self-righteousness.
As for “overly sensitive”, it’s always “overly sensitive” when the people you’re against are mad about something you said lol, and never “overly sensitive” when you’re mad about something. So that’s a zero-sum equation. It’s pointless to discuss.
No. This has nothing to with “sociopolitical climate”. False allegations and true allegations which are hard or impossible to prove have been an issue as long as civilization has existed. As just demonstrated re: Hammurabi in 1800 BCE.
As for Kovarex, I’m not seeing any “false allegations” about him. He’s literally attacking the concept of the age of consent (and out of extremely stupidity/ignorance too lol - he’s easily shown to be wrong).
Re: Uncle Bob, @coldvvvave outlined the sort of shit he’s into - calling him a “bigot” and a “racist” isn’t abuse. It’s a matter of simple fact. Just because you don’t like that your opinions fall into the category of racism or bigotry doesn’t make them not do so, nor does it make it abuse to say so - just like with stat rape, Kovarex is literally too stupid to understand this. That’s his defence of Uncle Bob “Just because he says and believes racist and bigoted things doesn’t make him a racist and a bigot!”. It’s like, actually, yes it does.
It’s not at all naive to think silent ones are less dangerous, and it’s straightforward why. Silent people aren’t promoting hate. If they try to do something shifty like secretly fund people who are, they get caught, like the FNAF did dude recently (claiming to be pro-LGBT whilst giving tons of money to Trump and McConnell - literally the maximum legally allowable amount to the latter).
As for pathetic stuff like “You don’t care about freedom of speech!”, well, that’s just a petty ad hominem. You’re not making an actual argument about anything, just being rude/snippy. Congrats?
Who gives a fuck? Explain. Are you The Shadow? Are you Anubis, he who weighs the souls of the dead?
Then who gives a fuck how people are on the inside? Everyone thinks ghastly things from time to time. Sometimes they even do it often. It doesn’t matter. It’s literally immaterial unless you’re intending to set up the thought police. What matters is what people actually say and do.
An easy example is when someone cuts in front of you in a line. You can think “Oh you fucking rancid shitbird”, and that’s harmless. But if you scream the same at the person, you probably scare the shit out of them, and in the UK and US, you’ll likely have committed a (low-level) crime of disorder (battery in the UK). They might have nightmares about that or even PTSD. They might slip out of surprise and hurt themselves. But if you think it, it’s harmless. Another example might be eugenics. Loads of people go through a phase in life (or multiple ones) where they think eugenics is maybe a good idea. But so long as they just think it, it’s harmless. If they change thought into speech or action, and start advocating for eugenics (which includes forced sterilization and so on), that’s potentially pretty harmful - not only will it scare and upset people, esp. vulnerable ones (basically all minorities and women who would be on the sharp end of eugenics, as well as anyone neurodiverse, potentially), same if you vote for a eugenics-supporting politician. But thinking it did no harm.
So you need to explain why we should give a fuck about what people silently think. Most humans, almost all humans are social animals and anything they care strongly about, they’ll speak about - even people like Ted Kazcynski. You’re going on about “free speech” but you seem to want mind-reading here.
No, it’s not “necessary”, it’s ignorant, and misunderstands the law - just like Erik Kain in the article does. I can tell you skipped what I wrote about the case, but I pointed this out there. I’ll explain it again though, more slowly and carefully:
Chris Avellone has launched a CIVIL (not criminal) lawsuit against the women who he claims have libelled him. He is the plaintiff, they are the defendants. In a CIVIL case.
There is no “presumption of innocence” in a civil case. There is no “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. A civil case is a fact-finding exercise. Under California libel law, it is up to Chris Avellone’s lawyers to prove three things - and they must prove all three - not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but just “on the balance of probabilities” (a much lower standard than the criminal standard).
This is important, and Erik Kain doesn’t understand it. You may remember another major Californian case - OJ Simpson. OJ Simpson was accused, under criminal law, of murdering his wife and her lover. To succeed here, they had to prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Because of LAPD malfeasance and racism, they failed. OJ Simpson got off. OJ Simpson was then sued by the families of the victims in civil court. Because they only had to prove that, “on the balance of probabilities” OJ was responsible, OJ was found responsible, and pretty much lost all his money, houses, etc. due to the size of the penalty. Same evidence, different standard of proof.
So anyway, with Avellone, the things his lawyers must prove are:
That the defendants (the women) have caused Avellone damage - this should be possible to prove to the low “balance of probabilities” standard.
That the speech involved is not protected - i.e. it’s not opinions/perspectives or specifically-protected speech. This will be very hard to prove to even the low “balance of probabilities” standard, because it appears most of what the women have said is basically “I think…” or “I feel…” or “I perceived that…”.
That the speech was knowingly false - again, this will be extremely hard to prove - because most of the speech is either perspectives (as noted), or it’s matters of fact that will be totally impossible to prove either way. You can’t prove whether a woman “felt threatened” or not, for example.
So you and Kain’s stuff about “presumption of innocence” is pure ignorance. This isn’t a criminal case. This is a civil case. Avellone wasn’t “presumed guilty”, because he was never involved in a criminal case. And the same applies to the women - they’re not “presumed innocent”, because this is a civil case - rather a certain standard of evidence must be met. The only thing being presumed is free speech - that these women are free to express their opinions, and speak out about their perspectives on events. You say you’re pro-free-speech, so why are you against that?
Avellone’s own take is hilarious, he says he’s not trying to shut the women up, he wants them to say more - which is utterly false - literally he’s trying to take money off them and to legally take away their freedom of speech on this matter. So much for free speech!
Even if you want to extend presumption of innocence into the most casual, non-legal version, why are you not extending it to the women and criticising Avellone for filing this lawsuit? They should be entitled to the same BS “presumption of innocence” (in their case, of being malicious liars) that he is. Otherwise you’re just biased. I don’t agree with that usage of “presumption of innocence”, I think it’s completely silly and naive, but if you want to extend “presumption of innocence” beyond the legal sphere, that’s what you get.