If we're going to use that terminology, note that the common phrase "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the court, and only to the court. That it must treat you as innocent until a guilty judgment is rendered.
It isn't some universal right or something, and has zero bearing on this conversation.
I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent. But if someone says "he did nothing illegal because he hasn't been charged" [which the comment I replied to claimed], eh... By some estimates only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to police, so it's a sensitive topic.
But that's orthogonal anyways. My core point was that if someone was a creep and causing discomfort at trade events while associated with a brand, it doesn't need to be illegal to have negative consequences.
> "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the court
No. The legal system codifies societal values we have. One of those values is that accusations without evidence, like rumors and gossip, are poor reflections of reality, and should never be used to judge someone's character.
There's plenty of evidence in this case, just possibly not enough to pass the threshold for a successful criminal prosecution. People get fired all the time for doing things that aren't illegal, and where there is strong but non-conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. For example, if I consistently take time off for being "sick", I'll eventually be fired, even though the company obviously won't be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I wasn't sick on the relevant days.
If my child came to me sobbing that someone abused them, I would not wait for a court to decide the "truth" before I started caring for and protecting my child. Whether the person who hurt them was ever convicted wouldn't me material to my opinion on the events.
Your argument here is that he's guilty until proven innocent.