[glenda]

I don't believe anyone wants to create a new legal system, but the reality is the vast majority of sexual assault cases aren't resolved in court due to existing social issues. These "judges, jurries and prosecutors" are just people who don't want to associate with potentially dangerous people regardless of the legal outcome. Beyond legal consequences to crime there have always been social consequences too - I think the major difference compared to the past is that these companies put out press releases instead of just blacklisting someone and moving on.

[duxup]

I agree that often that's not the goal, but if you have multiple parties making different claims ... all of a sudden you have to determine facts to make a decision based on and suddenly you've got a sort of mini justice system and you're learning all the ins and outs of such a system, making the same historical mistakes and so on.

[gameman144]

> These "judges, jurries and prosecutors" are just people who don't want to associate with potentially dangerous people regardless of the legal outcome.

This is true, but also has excused discrimination in the past (e.g. white flight), and can very easily lead to the tarring and feathering of innocent people.

At the individual level, not associating with potentially dangerous people is fine and smart. When large swaths of people avoid the same potentially dangerous people, though, the "potentially" part really does merit a bit more weight.

[altairprime]

The possibility of discrimination exists in all cases where any human entity, whether individual or group, judges another human entity. This is widely accepted in human societies as a necessary risk of being able to judge others as fit or unfit for participation, and Lichess is exercising their right to do so, just as all other human entities may choose to do. Until a pattern of bias is demonstrated, such judgments are neither implicitly discriminatory, nor are they implicitly a slippery slope to discrimination.

[gameman144]

> Until a pattern of bias is demonstrated, such judgments are neither implicitly discriminatory, ...

I mean, by definition they are discriminatory though: you are choosing to discriminate between individuals that you will associate with and those you won't.

This is not inherently bad, but can definitely be unjust toward those on the receiving end even if it's justifiable by the discriminator.

For instance, maybe a neighbor down the street seems a bit creepy, so I tell my kids not to hang around them to stay safe. This is fine. For that person, though, it may be a totally unfair and unwarranted restriction, and they actually are kind and good, and hurt that people won't associate with them.

The point I'm making is that even if everyone is just exercising their rights and being reasonable and safe, the outcome can disproportionately negatively impact the receivers of the (perhaps reasonable) discrimination.

[altairprime]

Exclusion is not necessarily discrimination. Discrimination is a subset of exclusion, not an equivalent of it. People will be hurt by exclusion. Overuse of exclusion is a possible downside. Enforcement of bias through exclusion is a possible downside. Neither of these potentials means that exclusion is always discrimination. In most circumstances, exclusion is simply exclusion.

When exclusion is used in service to a bias and exists explicitly to disadvantage those the bias is against, that becomes discriminatory exclusion. Lichess is exercising their right to exclude here. You could construct a plausible argument that Lichess is discriminating against organizations that refuse to take a stand against sexual predation upon women and minors; I would absolutely agree.

However, “organizations that refuse to take a stand against sexual predation” is not a legally protected category, and so harassment laws do not apply. By the arguments of the top comments on this post, then, Lichess’s actions are lawful and therefore permissible.

If you’re able to identify amother category where their actions are biased against a protected group, that’s a good tangent, I suppose. But non-religious organizations don’t qualify for such protections, and so any actions taken here against these two chess organizations, are not grounds for a finding of discrimination — regardless of whether their exclusion is deemed to be discriminatory or not.

[paulddraper]

> I think the major difference compared to the past is that these companies put out press releases instead of just blacklisting someone and moving on.

And that is one of Lichess's biggest complaints....the sanctions were not publicized enough.

[Turing_Machine]

> I don't believe anyone wants to create a new legal system, but the reality is the vast majority of sexual assault cases aren't resolved in court due to existing social issues.

That's as may be, but the answer isn't to let every HOA and garden club run their own kangaroo courts.

[lettergram]

> I don't believe anyone wants to create a new legal system, but the reality is the vast majority of sexual assault cases aren't resolved in court due to existing social issues

If by existing social issues, you mean lack of evidence, statute of limitations, then sure.

For instance, I see zero evidence that anything occurred here. There may be evidence, but the point of the justice system is to publicly disclose it and debate it such that the public can make a determination. Once determined (by a jury) a punishment, agreed upon by the society is handed down.

The alternative is issuing unsubstantiated claims to the public. Then blacklisting and deplatforming the person do they cannot defend themselves. To be honest, that’s effectively what led to the US revolution — lack of due process, ability to redress grievances and representation.

It’s very unamerican, that said, many of these organizations that do this aren’t American so it is what it is.

[jasonlotito]

> It’s very unamerican

This is 100% wrong. American' are very much in favor of instilling their own ethics and morality and guidelines on things they own. Which is exactly what is happening here.

Your belief that you can dictate to others how they can manage their own property is the unamerican thing here.

[lettergram]

True, America is / was known for the Jim Crow laws, public lynchings without a trial, etc. I guess it is “very American”.

That said, if you ask around, I suspect most Americans believe that is horrendous and not at all what America is. In fact, there are a lot of laws protecting the accused for this very reason.

That said, I do think the accused here should consider a civil lawsuit (if they’re innocent). It would help clear their name, because they aren’t doing so — I do suspect the claims are true, for what it’s worth.

[ethanbond]

> To be honest, that’s effectively what led to the US revolution — lack of due process, ability to redress grievances and representation

No it wasn’t

[lettergram]

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...

There’s a whole lot in there about lack of representation, lack of due process (ie trial by jury) and representation (like the whole list of complaints are these 3 things)

[ethanbond]

Lack of representation [in state affairs]

Lack of due process [in exercise of state power]

The Founding Fathers never said “if you’re accused of horrible things, everyone still needs to be nice to you and want to hang out with you until you’re convicted of a crime.”

[lettergram]

Clearly, I was referring to the ethos. It’s also that you’re taking their profession (grandmasters often make significant income), off accusations.

[ethanbond]

Actually the ethos is precisely the opposite and is enshrined in our Constitutional right to association. You have the right to associate and disassociate with whoever you wish for whatever reasons you wish.