CONTEXT: Jeff Melton “Bitter Pill” replied to Tara’s “The Branding of Russel Brand” substack with his “Leftist Rape Apologists”. This response was written with Monya (X @MonyaMyms)
Progressive Authoritarianism? Hard Pass!
Jeff's article is an activist’s stance, not a realistic, informed perspective. He implies that people should be put on trial based on any assertions, without considering the real-life consequences of such an approach.
Jeff neither witnessed these alleged incidents nor heard the evidence presented in court. This critical detail undermines the authority of his assertions. Relying on hearsay, especially for serious allegations, weakens the credibility of his arguments and opens the door to deceitful and distracting narratives.
Jeff asserts that "innocent until proven guilty" is a popular bastardization but fails to explain how he so readily dismisses this concept. This is incorrect and misleading nonsense. The principle of presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of common law, ensuring that the burden of proof lies with the accuser. It protects individuals from having to defend themselves against unfounded and spurious allegations. Dismissing this standard invites unjust persecution and enables Salem-style trials that abandon due process and natural justice.
Jeff states that people should not publicly throw around allegations without evidence. This is true, yet he contradicts himself by endorsing public discourse on allegations that have not been substantiated and assessed on their merits. This inconsistency highlights a lack of coherence in his argument. Defamation laws, both criminal and civil, exist to protect individuals from unsupported allegations and slander. His stance neglects these legal safeguards.
Jeff’s suggestion that the public should discuss a woman's experience of rape without substantive evidence is both absurd and dangerous. The public is not entitled to every detail of someone else’s story. This approach risks inciting mob rule and prejudicing trials with propaganda and moral panic. The public lacks the means to rigorously test evidence, which can only be done in a court of law under established rules of evidence.
Jeff claims that public discourse involving allegations is appropriate, forgetting that formal investigations protect individuals from baseless accusations or allegations that lack evidential sufficiency. His stance ignores the principle of due process, which is designed to prevent the destruction of innocent lives, reputations, and livelihoods by unproven claims.
Jeff's casual willingness to destroy the lives and reputations of falsely accused men is contrary to the principle highlighted by William Blackstone, who emphasized that it is better for guilty individuals to go free than for innocent people to be wrongfully punished. Upholding due process and presumption of innocence is crucial to avoid such instances of injustice. The commitment to civil liberties must extend to everyone, irrespective of our personal opinions about their guilt or character.
Jeff rightly notes that mob rule is not confined to any political affiliation. However, his overall argument lacks rigor and fails to provide a balanced view of how different groups handle allegations.
Be cautious of those who disguise authoritarian tendencies with progressive rhetoric. It is essential to be wary of opinions based on unproven evidence and tabloid journalism. Jeff’s article exemplifies sophistry over substance, offering an activist perspective without the necessary grounding in legal principles, social responsibility, and due process. Allegations must be handled with care, respecting the rights of both the accuser and the accused, to best ensure justice and avoid mob rule.
For more on this topic, check out our recent Morbid Symptoms Podcast: Allegation Industry & Trial by Media on Rumble or YouTube
