This is always the problem with anti-"cancel culture" arguments. They end up being vague and actually arguments against free speech, ironically. You cannot square the need to stop "cancel culture" and free speech; they are incompatible.

> But I'm troubled by the idea of people just concluding that he commited sexual assault when he hasn't even been charged with that, there was no fact-finding process at all, and people are basically inventing their own legal definitions and deciding what someone is guilty of based on public accusations.

Are you saying that we can't discuss and come to our own conclusions until a criminal trial has completed? Because that is just not workable. People will always talk, that's part of free speech. If you're upset that they came to a conclusion that you don't agree with, that is also free speech.

> We have courts and investigators to make these determinations for the public at large, where people are put under oath, facts are gathered according to rules evidence, there is cross-examination and testimony from all sides, etc. You know, all that rule-of-law stuff so that people are not condemned or punished unjustly.

Yes, and all of these are very important when the state is going to punish someone. To hold this up as a bar before we can discuss something is an anti-free speech position for you to take. The only way to restrict discussion to those things that the state has done fact finding on would be to massively curtail the right of the public to discuss basically anything anywhere close to a possible crime. This is obviously incompatible with the first amendment, and also probably completely unworkable in practice too.

Also, I find it really quite distasteful how you're drawing a direct parallel between people tweeting mean things or not going to his shows to the state locking someone in a concrete cell for years. They are very different things.

> Of course such people can decide for themselves what happened and then choose not to patronize whomever they want,

Right, but you just spent the past two paragraphs talking about how we should wait for the courts, and how those who aren't impartial shouldn't hold a "trial" for him. These two things are mutually incompatible, you must pick one and not both.

> nor should they be used to try to deprive someone of the right to seek their own audience and continue making a living.

How exactly did they "deprive someone of the right to seek their own audience"? Be specific. Because I don't think you actually know.

Louis has legal options if his rights were actually violated. If the accusations were lies, he could sue for defamation. If someone encouraged a venue to illegally break his contract he could sue the venue for breach and the other party for tortious interference. Bet he has not done either of these things, nor have you alleged any facts consistent with either case.

Rather you've hand waved around the idea that choosing to not see him and whining on Twitter is somehow an interference with his rights. The implication is that something must be done to stop the mean tweets and force venues to continue booking him against their will. This is a pretty direct and weak argument against free speech and free association, which is sadly consistent with what I've seen out of the anti-"cancel culture" crowd.