Eric Schmidt also raped a woman forty years younger than him, the students were objecting to that as much as the AI. Maybe don't schedule public speaking events after being accused of rape if you don't want to get booed.
It's up to you to choose to who to believe about what happened on the yacht in the gulf of Mexico, the seventy year old billionaire cheating on his wife, or the thirty year old woman who accused him of forcible rape. There was some form of financial settlement, but it's still in private arbitration.
The public documents said: “He followed me into a shower, slammed me against the wall, and forcibly raped me. I begged him to stop and cried out that he was hurting me, but he ignored my pleas. The next morning, Schmidt attempted to convince me that I enjoyed the assault.”
The point is that student activists handed out flyers about this in advance, so the crowd was aware.
You could just as easily say blame wealth for the rape accusations; there's much more incentive to make fake rape accusations of rich men than of poor men.
There really isn’t that much incentive to accuse a much wealthier man of rape. Famously, justice is rarely (if ever) metered out when the accused person is wealthy and influential. This guy (allegedly) violently raped a woman on his boat and he still gets a speaking gig, so.
If you’re so confident it’s a solid way to get ahead, please go ahead and try it yourself.
> Famously, justice is rarely (if ever) metered out when the accused person is wealthy and influential. This guy (allegedly) violently raped a woman on his boat and he still gets a speaking gig, so.
"So"? The fact that someone is alleged of rape and doesn't lose their invited speech is hardly evidence of injustice. Allegations are not convictions nor proof of guilt.
It seems you are against the presumption of innocence. This presumption is itself a cornerstone of justice, not the opposite.
Note that I was not speaking on the guilt or innocence of any specific person, just pointing out that when it comes to committing sexual violence the incentives to make accusations don’t appear to actually mete out as is claimed because the people who are accused rarely, if ever, have any actual negative consequences.
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle.
This is not a legal forum. (In either the literal "this is an internet forum" sense, or the broader "place for discussion" sense.)
If you want to defend your techbro idols of charges far, far too many of their brethren are unquestionably guilty of, you're going to need a stronger argument than "you're not allowed to say you think he's guilty unless a court agrees with you!!"
There's also a higher chance that wealthy perpetrators of sexual violence are under-represented in data. There's no denying the relationship between the 'justice' system and the wealthy. Case in point: Judge Persky in the Brock Turner trial.
The presumption of innocence is for courts of law.
The court of public opinion has no such rules.
If we, the people, see a credible accusation against someone who seems like the type of person who might be guilty of it, we are free to call it like we see it.
Naturally, this can lead to problems: after all, who is "credible" and who "seems like they might be guilty" can be (and very much have been) subject to a lot of bigotry. This is why we have the rules we do in courts of law. But anyone trying to enforce actual legal court rules on public online discussions generally just ends up looking like a jerk.