They’ve Cancelled Russell Brand Already

Well once again the judge, jury and executioner of the new social media courtroom has publically tried Russell Brand, seen no evidence whatsoever, decided they do not care and kicked him to the curb to die a marked, lonely and penniless man.... they hope.  He has now been demonetized by YouTube, of course, dropped by his agents and his tour canceled. All without ANY charges being filed, no proof, no arrest, no evidence.... NOTHING.  AND, he will carry this stigma with him for the rest of his life, because no matter what happens there will always be some idiot somewhere that will not believe that he was found to be innocent. Just like with Johnny Depp.

Yet the BITCHES that do this to these men, like Amber Heard and Evan Rachel Wood will walk off scott free, not a care in the world, no dirt attached to them except for what they rolled in themselves. There needs to be something done, some laws put in place to hold these tricksters accountable, jail time and fines, both. Which will send the message if your going to accuse someone of a crime like this you had better have some proof, some evidence besides just your word against his. Jail time and fines for the pretenders would also make the NOT GUILTY verdict or even the fact that it was thrown out of court more valid so that hopefully more people would believe the men in the aftermath.  

Let me remind you all of a couple of things going forward:

This is the United States of America as yet, we have not been taken over by China or Russia just yet... so our Constitution is still in effect.

But in case you're interested the presumption of innocence is considered to be a human RIGHT by many that would surprise you. So all the WOKE ones who think they are so above the rest of us and are feeling so smug about their choices. YOU are removing basic human rights from people. Read the following:

This right is considered important enough in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense."
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14, paragraph 2 states that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." The presumption of innocence is also expressly regulated in Art. 66 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, according to which "Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law."^[30]
• The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
• In the UK, the presumption of innocence is provided for by section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which aims to incorporate the rights contained in the aforementioned European Convention on Human Rights.^[31]
• Articles 8 (1) and 8 (2) (right to a fair trial), in conjunction with Article 1 (1) (obligation to respect and ensure rights without discrimination), of the American Convention on Human Rights make the Inter-American Court to stress that "the presumption of innocence is a guiding principle in criminal trials and a foundational standard for the assessment of the evidence. Such assessment must be rational, objective, and impartial in order to disprove the presumption of innocence and generate certainty about criminal responsibility. ... The Court reiterated that, in criminal proceedings, the State bears the burden of proof. The accused is not obligated to affirmatively prove his innocence or to provide exculpatory evidence. However, to provide counterevidence or exculpatory evidence is a right that the defence may exercise in order to rebut the charges, which in turn the accusing party bears the burden of disproving".^[32]
• In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".
• In the Colombian constitution, Title II, Chapter 1, Article 29 states that "Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law".
• In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, which has force as constitutional law, begins: "Any man being presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty ..." The Code of Criminal Procedure states in its preliminary article that "any person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent for as long as their guilt has not been established"^[6] and the jurors' oath repeats this assertion (article 304; note that only the most serious crimes are tried by jury in France).^[33] However, there exists a popular misconception that under French law, the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent.^[34]
• In Iran, Article 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states: "Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court".
• In Italy, the second paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution states: "A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed."^[35]
• In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court".
• The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that "Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law". It also states that "The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence" and "Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant".
• In the South African Constitution, section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights states: "Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings."
• Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes. See also In re Winship.
• In New Zealand, the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 provides at section 25 (c) "Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights: (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law".^[36]
• In the European Union, in addition to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, presumption of innocence is also protected through Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 9th March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to bepresent at the trial in criminal proceedings (Directive). Article 3 states that: Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The goal of the directive is stated in article 1. The scope is to lay down common minimum rules concerning:(a) certain aspects of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings;(b) the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings.

I rest my case.