[mighty_bander]

> his friend who ... is accused

It's the accused that is the problem with this. He isn't defending the proven actions of a pervert, he is defending the memory of a dead friend, suggesting that his friend was incapable of the crime of which he is accused. If defending an accused friend is now itself punishable by excision from society, then the effect of an accusation alone becomes immediate isolation. The presumption of innocence, not only in court, but in public discourse, is a vital component of a genuinely free society. I will not support people who reject it.

[james-mcelwain]

There is absolutely no obligation to presume innocence in our personal opinions. We are all freely permitted to form our own opinions based on the facts of the situation.

There are good reasons that our legal systems favor the accused -- ones that I _fully_ support -- but it is an unreasonably high epistemic standard for us to operate under in our daily lives.

If I don't want to associate with someone because they're an asshole, I'm under no obligation to prove so beyond a reasonable doubt. My freedom of association is more fundamental.

[colechristensen]

That he was defending his dead friend isn't the issue.

He was defending statutory rape and taking advantage of vulnerable young women - it does not matter whether the actual event happened or not. RMS was defending rape in a very public forum and got fired.