[sneak]

> People need to be accountable for what they say, not what people believe they think.

I disagree. What people believe what someone thinks, even if incorrect, is a legitimate basis for someone's choice of free association.

It's entirely legitimate for someone to avoid someone else (including fire them) on the basis of false beliefs about that person, due to failing to spend enough time understanding the nuance of the situation or person.

I would never hire rms, for example, because he is a drama llama, and I find constantly creating controversy (intentionally or otherwise) to be mostly unproductive, even if all of the things he is saying are accurate and correct and true.

Freedom of association does not require fairness or due process. Our time and attention is our own, to allocate unfairly, incorrectly, or on any other unscientific, inaccurate basis we feel is best.

[moistbar]

So every alleged criminal should be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

[sneak]

Yes, this is entirely permissible by society and people who know them. Violence undertaken by the state to enforce the law is a different matter, where the maxim of the law is "innocent until proven guilty".

The topic of this thread is not law enforcement by the state, however.

There are people I know who have been credibly accused of crimes. No trial occurred. I still treat them as if they were guilty of the crime: I assiduously avoid them.

Such is my right.