Thaluikhain said:
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal thing.
It's also not the only legal standard for proof. Civil courts go by the preponderence of evidence which on a day to day basis is how most people think (obviously weighted by all the various unconscious biases that come with being human).
Sexual crimes and sexual misconduct are especially difficult to claim "innocent until proven guilty" because pretty much anyone (including me) believes that the VAST majority of sexual offences are never reported or never lead to a conviction. Far outweighing the cases where false accusations lead to wrongful punishments, though that does also happen.
I think some people are leaping to guilt right away in recognition of this imbalance. I do sympathise with that attitude and I agree that believing the victims is important for the long term progress on combating "rape culture". However, many abuse victims never come forward largely because they have some affection for their abusers and don't want to get them in lots of trouble. I can't help but think that mass condemnation for lesser actions might be counter-productive.
Louis CK, for example, should not be compared to the likes of Weinstein. Louis was much more creepy than predatory and I believe him when he says he didn't fully appreciate the implicitly coercive nature of what he did at the time and that he's remorseful and would never do something like that nowadays. I hope he takes some time out of the public eye and gets a chance to rebuild his reputation... I do happen to be a massive fan of his so perhaps my bias is clouding my objectivity on this one.
Ultimately, I think a lot of people are going to have make peace with the fact that we're never going to have definitive "proof" either way on some of these cases. Guilty people are likely to avoid jail sentences (perhaps even Weinstein) and possibly some innocent men will have their reputations ruined by false or exaggerated claims. Justice is really hard!