[notch656c]

The accuser is unknown and the accused is a smart guy with counsel. Which means from the employer viewpoint they know some <redacted> person accused him and they get a generic response from the lawyer about not being able to comment about an ongoing case.

The chance the employer has credible knowledge of guilt is extremely slim.

[jjulius]

My "We don't know if, or of not, they are aware of anything else," comment clearly suggests that the reasons for terminating him may not be limited to this court case specifically. It's been covered in many articles that this sort of behavior from him has been an open secret for a bit. I don't claim to know whether or not that's true, I'm simply saying that none of us know exactly why AS did this, whether or not it was only about the pending legal case or something more, or anything.

All we can do is assume they didn't make the decision lightly. Adult Swim is clearly a lot closer to this situation than any of us in this thread, and to pretend that any of us may know better than them in regards to this is just wild (and, really, you're doing the same thing you say they are - accusing them of something without proof).

[notch656c]

Why are we allowed to assume they didn't make the decision lightly but not able to assume just maybe it is extremely unlikely they have credible evidence of guilt.

You play the "oh I don't know anything game" while simultaneously saying we should assume your viewpoint. Clearly you do think you know something and the know-nothing defense is some kind of Schrodinger's cat scenario where you know something when it's time to make assumptions and don't know when someone else does.

[Forgeties79]

>Why are we allowed to assume they didn't make the decision lightly

Because they're potentially shooting their cash cow and probably the most popular show they've ever had in the head. If you don't believe in their values than at least believe that they are 100% considering the financial implications of doing this.

[jjulius]

You do you.