It's fairly predictable whenever this happens that you see a lot of folks saying that a corporation has the right to do something as if that's the end of the argument.
I mean it is the end of the argument, unless you expect the average joe to somehow band up together enough support to change the status quo. It's not a matter of ethics or what is "right" it's literally just corporations having most of the power to do as they please in modern societies.
One has only to observe the Depp and Hardwick controversies to know it often goes quite a bit further than that.
Or the Kavanaugh, or Clinton, or Biden, or Wein/Epstein. . .
Or just this forum, for that matter
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Can we stop acting like presumption of innocence has anything to do with Blizzard’s decision to have a particular person participate in their own event?
he is presumed innocent for a trial, he doesn’t face a loss of constitutional rights at the hands of the government because he is presumed innocent. Blizzard can do whatever they want to make their own events to their liking—in this instance they have recognized it’s a safer PR move to not give Zalae a spot. Imagine one day a particular graphic symbol became synonymous with hate and Blizzard happened to have it very prominently displayed in marketing material. If they would choose to remove that symbol because it made their material more useful, that’s would be no different than what they have done here.
I just had to log in to say: oh my God! In democratic country everyone is innocent until proven guilty. With their move, they just cut him. im not saying that he is innocent, but to do something like this, until it is proven.... just shows whats wrong with society , and this whole "cancel" culture. and i cant agree more with the dude you are quoting.
The only problem is your quote "everyone is innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in this situation. It has been widely established that the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which establish the Presumption of Innocence (the idea you're referring to), apply only in legal criminal cases and in no other setting. That's been the case for pretty much as long as those Amendments have been around, check out Coffin vs United States (1895) where it establishes this rule to be the case in criminal charges.
Trying to argue that "cancel culture" is happening and using the Presumption of Innocence as a supporting beam for it is silly. It's a legal rule that has never, in any circumstances, applied to private practices. Otherwise, you could run into scenarios where it's well known that an employee has committed first-degree murder but it has yet to be established in court (court takes a LONG LONG time sometimes if you didn't know). The business would be legally forced into continuing to employ and let the person work, even if they had the murder on camera.
There is nothing wrong with private practices being able to fire or suspend employees over allegations, comments, etc. It is within their legal rights that the "hands-off" government approach allows them to do. Call it "cancel culture" if that makes you feel better about it, but it's a business doing business, publicly condoning and condemning whatever they view as morally or ethically right. Capitalism, hands-off government, and freedom of businesses all explicitly allow and support a business in their right to do this. If you don't like it, argue for the government controlling all businesses.
Looks like the presumption of innocence isn't a thing anymore
As I've pointed out in another post, that legal rule does not apply in this situation. That's been well established since 1895 (Coffin vs United States) that the presumption of innocence only is a thing in legal criminal charges, not in private business practices. As Activision-Blizzard is a privately owned company, it is well within their legal right to suspend him based on an allegation.
Can we stop acting like presumption of innocence has anything to do with Blizzard’s decision to have a particular person participate in their own event?
he is presumed innocent for a trial, he doesn’t face a loss of constitutional rights at the hands of the government because he is presumed innocent. Blizzard can do whatever they want to make their own events to their liking—in this instance they have recognized it’s a safer PR move to not give Zalae a spot. Imagine one day a particular graphic symbol became synonymous with hate and Blizzard happened to have it very prominently displayed in marketing material. If they would choose to remove that symbol because it made their material more useful, that’s would be no different than what they have done here.
That was the same crap people were bringing out for the Kavanaugh hearings. Presumption of innocence is BOTH a legal and a philosophical precept. Just because the legal precept is being respected doesn't mean there's carte blanche to shit on the philosophical belief that we shouldn't allow folks to have their lives destroyed without giving them a chance to defend themselves.
I'm an attorney, so I'll be the first to admit that the legal presumption is not in question here, BUT I'm also supposed to uphold both letter and spirit of laws and constitutional provisions whenever possible. Nothing of what I have posted in this thread is meant to suggest that Zalae has a legal recourse . . . he most certainly does not. Well, I suppose he could hit the ex gf for libel, but the tort of libel is almost impossible to enforce, which is another failing of our legal system.
Either way, Blizzard is certainly free to do whatever the hell it wants, but we shouldn't lose sight of the cancer that represents. It contributes to a much larger discussion of tech control over the public discourse and touches on much bigger issues, all of which pertain to everyone taking part in modern media.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
No one is suggesting there is a legal right being violated. To pretend that's the only consideration in a discussion of what ought to be a societal approach to one person accusing another of a crime is as short-sighted as it is naive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Sorry for the double post, but I think it relevant to this story that the third or fourth post on this thread is a blue post warning us against "victim blaming".
I know full well the "victim" being referenced is the accuser, and I'm fully aware of the history of blame-shift in rape cases and other horror stories from the early days of prosecuting rape and sexual assault cases, but nevertheless, I find it sad that we have no idea who the victim is in this situation.
While I don't have any problem avoiding victim blaming, I actually include both parties in that concept since it is a very real possibility that Zalae is the victim here. It's disappointing that no such enforcement appears for that sort of victim blaming.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Cancel culture, I do not care about what he does in his personal life, I don't believe the victim's allegations and he is innocent until proven otherwise by the judicial system, not me, not you, not Blizzard.
Looks like the presumption of innocence isn't a thing anymore
@Shadowrisen I am a lawyer too, you know this, we have messaged before about exactly that.
And people are literally saying that legal rights are being infringed, see this quote above. That’s what I am responding to. It’s fine if you feel that cancel culture goes too far, or you think this is an example of that.
But it’s simply not true to say that because he is getting dropped from this event he is no longer presumed innocent. Blizzard isn’t saying he is guilty, perhaps they are doing this because the believe he is (and if you do support the spirit of law as you say, you’d support freedom of speech, which would entail Blizzards right to present their own opinion, though the personhood of a corporation is debatable and not germane to this) but it’s also possible they are not having him simply because they would prefer people not spam the comment section of Grandmasters with things like “Zalae beats his GF” which would no doubt be best for Zalae, grandmasters, and Blizzard.
The quote you cite has nothing about legality whatsoever.
As I've already written, the presumption of innocence is a legal precept AND a philosophical stance on how society should handle accusations.
Expecting to give an accused the benefit of the doubt is not a belief that ends at the court room door.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I don't disagree that it's a philosophical stance and that people should do their best to refrain from a judgment until hearing all facts presented. But Blizzard isnt saying he DID anything in the ESports tweet where they announce the suspension, they aren't saying one way or the other who they believe.
I take issue with the phrase "presumption of innocence," as its used here because he is still innocent and nothing that Blizzard has done changes that.
Well Diet, when it comes to you or I, I have no doubt that just because a corp took a self-defensive action, our ability to remain stoic as to his guilt is still intact. I really don't doubt that.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where people say things like "he was a garbage human, I'm happy" and decidedly more scarily, we live in a world where Gloria Steinem and Maureen Dowd both wrote how even if Clinton had coerced women into sex, and in one case faced rape allegations, he deserved a pass because of his pro-abortion stance.
And no, those things SHOULDN'T in any way be related to each other, but it's just one more excuse for someone to use the appeal to authority (i.e. Blizzard wouldn't have taken action if they didn't have the "scoop" and know that he was really guilty). All of that is chock full of fallacy and unworkable logic, but that has never stopped anyone from saying or believing it before.
That's why whenever anyone has the ability to in any way effect the philosophical presumption of innocence, it's my belief they should do what they can to do it. The secondary ramifications of such corporate action reach far beyond one dude behind a computer screen.
EDIT: Btw, I finally read the accusations, and I hope that if they are fictional, Zalae can put together some witnesses that can help him out, because the damages here are going to be huge.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
The claims of abuse were very credible and extremely disturbing, in my honest opinion. I am really disappointed that it took so long for Blizzard to act, but at least they did act in the end.
Personally, I would like to see Twitch look into this too. The idea that people still sub and donate to this guy turns my stomach, not least because he has not owned up to it, taken responsibility, and got help.
The quote you cite has nothing about legality whatsoever.
As I've already written, the presumption of innocence is a legal precept AND a philosophical stance on how society should handle accusations.
Expecting to give an accused the benefit of the doubt is not a belief that ends at the court room door.
It is Blizzard's tournament, they can exclude anyone they like, on any reasonable basis. I expect that Blizzard did investigate, evaluated the allegations and, like any reasonable person, found them to be extremely convincing.
Thank you Keema for conclusively proving my point.
You have zero basis to take her word over his and you have zero evidence to assume Blizzard mounted any investigation whatsoever, yet you assume so anyway.
I have no idea why you used my quote talking about Blizzard's rights, as I never suggested anything to the contrary.
EDIT: Before 3nnui or Hoog suggests it, no Keema is not my alt account, though I have to admit, it was a very timely illustration of my recent post on what these accusations do for folks who have no respect for presumption of innocence as a societal precept (as opposed to simply a legal one).
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I was catching up on current events today, and turns out there's another example going on far more analogous to the situation at hand, not in nature of accusation, but in the overwhelming willingness of many to completely abandon the accused, and that is the Derek Chauvin murder trial.
I'll be happy to discuss details in private messages, but let's just say the popular narrative is that the prosecution has a slam dunk case against Chauvin, and any possibility of acquittal can be attributed to racism. In reality, the prosecutor is utterly incompetent and has made several first-year law school mistakes, so much so that the defense has petitioned the court for permission to recall a prosecution witness AS A DEFENSE WITNESS (for those who aren't in tune with courtroom stuff, just take my word for it, that represents a Grade-A fuck up on the part of the district attorney). Also in reality, the case has never been anywhere near as open and shut as has been portrayed in media.
The Chauvin case serves as a stark illustration on how these things can snowball way beyond the original accuser and accused. In all likelihood, no neighborhoods will burn to the ground as a result of Zalae being accused. The same can't always be said for these other cases. None of this would be an issue if everyone was diligent in figuring out what is the truth and what is in any way substantiated by evidence, but as we see from posters like the immediate above mine, a large group of folks are willing to just assume things as fact and act accordingly. That can get very dangerous very quickly.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I 100% approve him being removed from the GM if these allegations are true. But then again innocence pressumption should be a thing and I hate how lives can be ruined just based on a - in this case - one streamer's allegation.
I'm not understanding the position businesses are taking of terminating employees based on unproven allegations.
Or in this case, kicking a player from the tournament based on unproven allegations.
If he did it, blacklist him from all HS events for life.
Right now we have an allegation. It should be taken seriously, it should be investigated, and the truth should be determined. Hearthstone chose to jump ahead of that and go straight to the punishment phase based on just the allegation.
Think about this for a moment, and personalize it. You've worked hard at something your entire professional career. Now, you are about to get your big shot. An ex girlfriend/boyfriend, ex wife/husband, whatever, suddenly comes out with an allegation of wrongdoing on your part. You are then, with no proof and no chance to defend yourself, completely shut out from the job/career/opportunity that you have pursued for so long and dedicated yourself to. Does that sound fair? Does that sound right?
To me, it absolutely does not.
Give the man his day in court. If he is found guilty, bar him from all events. Strip him of titles if needed. Do not condemn him based on allegations, though. I'm disappointed in Blizzard, and society at large, as we are seeing more and more of these types of things happening.
Well it's a policy of risk-prevention. When you're on top class entertainment business it's better to avoid any risks that may jeopardize the public image of the company. So if you get in a situation where taking a risk is unavoidable, you'll choose obviously the risk with fewer (financial mostly) consequences.
So here's what will happen if Zalae is proven innocent. He can sue Blizzard and actually get a decent compesation (a much better compesation depends on the lawyer really). In other words Blizzard has calculated that giving a compesation later on, would be far less costly than trying to re-establish a decent public image.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
See if they would just nerf this Deck of Lunacy shit already things like this wouldn’t happen.
One has only to observe the Depp and Hardwick controversies to know it often goes quite a bit further than that.
Or the Kavanaugh, or Clinton, or Biden, or Wein/Epstein. . .
Or just this forum, for that matter
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Can we stop acting like presumption of innocence has anything to do with Blizzard’s decision to have a particular person participate in their own event?
he is presumed innocent for a trial, he doesn’t face a loss of constitutional rights at the hands of the government because he is presumed innocent. Blizzard can do whatever they want to make their own events to their liking—in this instance they have recognized it’s a safer PR move to not give Zalae a spot. Imagine one day a particular graphic symbol became synonymous with hate and Blizzard happened to have it very prominently displayed in marketing material. If they would choose to remove that symbol because it made their material more useful, that’s would be no different than what they have done here.
The only problem is your quote "everyone is innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in this situation. It has been widely established that the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which establish the Presumption of Innocence (the idea you're referring to), apply only in legal criminal cases and in no other setting. That's been the case for pretty much as long as those Amendments have been around, check out Coffin vs United States (1895) where it establishes this rule to be the case in criminal charges.
Trying to argue that "cancel culture" is happening and using the Presumption of Innocence as a supporting beam for it is silly. It's a legal rule that has never, in any circumstances, applied to private practices. Otherwise, you could run into scenarios where it's well known that an employee has committed first-degree murder but it has yet to be established in court (court takes a LONG LONG time sometimes if you didn't know). The business would be legally forced into continuing to employ and let the person work, even if they had the murder on camera.
There is nothing wrong with private practices being able to fire or suspend employees over allegations, comments, etc. It is within their legal rights that the "hands-off" government approach allows them to do. Call it "cancel culture" if that makes you feel better about it, but it's a business doing business, publicly condoning and condemning whatever they view as morally or ethically right. Capitalism, hands-off government, and freedom of businesses all explicitly allow and support a business in their right to do this. If you don't like it, argue for the government controlling all businesses.
As I've pointed out in another post, that legal rule does not apply in this situation. That's been well established since 1895 (Coffin vs United States) that the presumption of innocence only is a thing in legal criminal charges, not in private business practices. As Activision-Blizzard is a privately owned company, it is well within their legal right to suspend him based on an allegation.
That was the same crap people were bringing out for the Kavanaugh hearings. Presumption of innocence is BOTH a legal and a philosophical precept. Just because the legal precept is being respected doesn't mean there's carte blanche to shit on the philosophical belief that we shouldn't allow folks to have their lives destroyed without giving them a chance to defend themselves.
I'm an attorney, so I'll be the first to admit that the legal presumption is not in question here, BUT I'm also supposed to uphold both letter and spirit of laws and constitutional provisions whenever possible. Nothing of what I have posted in this thread is meant to suggest that Zalae has a legal recourse . . . he most certainly does not. Well, I suppose he could hit the ex gf for libel, but the tort of libel is almost impossible to enforce, which is another failing of our legal system.
Either way, Blizzard is certainly free to do whatever the hell it wants, but we shouldn't lose sight of the cancer that represents. It contributes to a much larger discussion of tech control over the public discourse and touches on much bigger issues, all of which pertain to everyone taking part in modern media.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
He is trash human, so I'm happy
No one is suggesting there is a legal right being violated. To pretend that's the only consideration in a discussion of what ought to be a societal approach to one person accusing another of a crime is as short-sighted as it is naive.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Sorry for the double post, but I think it relevant to this story that the third or fourth post on this thread is a blue post warning us against "victim blaming".
I know full well the "victim" being referenced is the accuser, and I'm fully aware of the history of blame-shift in rape cases and other horror stories from the early days of prosecuting rape and sexual assault cases, but nevertheless, I find it sad that we have no idea who the victim is in this situation.
While I don't have any problem avoiding victim blaming, I actually include both parties in that concept since it is a very real possibility that Zalae is the victim here. It's disappointing that no such enforcement appears for that sort of victim blaming.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Cancel culture, I do not care about what he does in his personal life, I don't believe the victim's allegations and he is innocent until proven otherwise by the judicial system, not me, not you, not Blizzard.
White knights ruining this planet for everyone.
@Shadowrisen I am a lawyer too, you know this, we have messaged before about exactly that.
And people are literally saying that legal rights are being infringed, see this quote above. That’s what I am responding to. It’s fine if you feel that cancel culture goes too far, or you think this is an example of that.
But it’s simply not true to say that because he is getting dropped from this event he is no longer presumed innocent. Blizzard isn’t saying he is guilty, perhaps they are doing this because the believe he is (and if you do support the spirit of law as you say, you’d support freedom of speech, which would entail Blizzards right to present their own opinion, though the personhood of a corporation is debatable and not germane to this) but it’s also possible they are not having him simply because they would prefer people not spam the comment section of Grandmasters with things like “Zalae beats his GF” which would no doubt be best for Zalae, grandmasters, and Blizzard.
The quote you cite has nothing about legality whatsoever.
As I've already written, the presumption of innocence is a legal precept AND a philosophical stance on how society should handle accusations.
Expecting to give an accused the benefit of the doubt is not a belief that ends at the court room door.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I don't disagree that it's a philosophical stance and that people should do their best to refrain from a judgment until hearing all facts presented. But Blizzard isnt saying he DID anything in the ESports tweet where they announce the suspension, they aren't saying one way or the other who they believe.
I take issue with the phrase "presumption of innocence," as its used here because he is still innocent and nothing that Blizzard has done changes that.
Well Diet, when it comes to you or I, I have no doubt that just because a corp took a self-defensive action, our ability to remain stoic as to his guilt is still intact. I really don't doubt that.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where people say things like "he was a garbage human, I'm happy" and decidedly more scarily, we live in a world where Gloria Steinem and Maureen Dowd both wrote how even if Clinton had coerced women into sex, and in one case faced rape allegations, he deserved a pass because of his pro-abortion stance.
And no, those things SHOULDN'T in any way be related to each other, but it's just one more excuse for someone to use the appeal to authority (i.e. Blizzard wouldn't have taken action if they didn't have the "scoop" and know that he was really guilty). All of that is chock full of fallacy and unworkable logic, but that has never stopped anyone from saying or believing it before.
That's why whenever anyone has the ability to in any way effect the philosophical presumption of innocence, it's my belief they should do what they can to do it. The secondary ramifications of such corporate action reach far beyond one dude behind a computer screen.
EDIT: Btw, I finally read the accusations, and I hope that if they are fictional, Zalae can put together some witnesses that can help him out, because the damages here are going to be huge.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
The claims of abuse were very credible and extremely disturbing, in my honest opinion. I am really disappointed that it took so long for Blizzard to act, but at least they did act in the end.
Personally, I would like to see Twitch look into this too. The idea that people still sub and donate to this guy turns my stomach, not least because he has not owned up to it, taken responsibility, and got help.
It is Blizzard's tournament, they can exclude anyone they like, on any reasonable basis. I expect that Blizzard did investigate, evaluated the allegations and, like any reasonable person, found them to be extremely convincing.
Thank you Keema for conclusively proving my point.
You have zero basis to take her word over his and you have zero evidence to assume Blizzard mounted any investigation whatsoever, yet you assume so anyway.
I have no idea why you used my quote talking about Blizzard's rights, as I never suggested anything to the contrary.
EDIT: Before 3nnui or Hoog suggests it, no Keema is not my alt account, though I have to admit, it was a very timely illustration of my recent post on what these accusations do for folks who have no respect for presumption of innocence as a societal precept (as opposed to simply a legal one).
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I was catching up on current events today, and turns out there's another example going on far more analogous to the situation at hand, not in nature of accusation, but in the overwhelming willingness of many to completely abandon the accused, and that is the Derek Chauvin murder trial.
I'll be happy to discuss details in private messages, but let's just say the popular narrative is that the prosecution has a slam dunk case against Chauvin, and any possibility of acquittal can be attributed to racism. In reality, the prosecutor is utterly incompetent and has made several first-year law school mistakes, so much so that the defense has petitioned the court for permission to recall a prosecution witness AS A DEFENSE WITNESS (for those who aren't in tune with courtroom stuff, just take my word for it, that represents a Grade-A fuck up on the part of the district attorney). Also in reality, the case has never been anywhere near as open and shut as has been portrayed in media.
The Chauvin case serves as a stark illustration on how these things can snowball way beyond the original accuser and accused. In all likelihood, no neighborhoods will burn to the ground as a result of Zalae being accused. The same can't always be said for these other cases. None of this would be an issue if everyone was diligent in figuring out what is the truth and what is in any way substantiated by evidence, but as we see from posters like the immediate above mine, a large group of folks are willing to just assume things as fact and act accordingly. That can get very dangerous very quickly.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I 100% approve him being removed from the GM if these allegations are true. But then again innocence pressumption should be a thing and I hate how lives can be ruined just based on a - in this case - one streamer's allegation.
Well it's a policy of risk-prevention. When you're on top class entertainment business it's better to avoid any risks that may jeopardize the public image of the company. So if you get in a situation where taking a risk is unavoidable, you'll choose obviously the risk with fewer (financial mostly) consequences.
So here's what will happen if Zalae is proven innocent. He can sue Blizzard and actually get a decent compesation (a much better compesation depends on the lawyer really). In other words Blizzard has calculated that giving a compesation later on, would be far less costly than trying to re-establish a decent public image.