In recent days, yet another case involving a famous figure has erupted, and it appears that this Individual may be involved in sexual misconduct. The identity of this person is not of paramount importance; if you are not already aware, you are not really interested for the name, and if you are aware, you’ve understood to whom I am referring. Further mention of their name will add no value to this microblog post, and, conversely, search engine algorithms might rank it as less appealing. In this analysis, I won’t delve into the specifics of the alleged offences. Without hesitation, we condemn any violence against any individual. Here, I simply want to present a series of contemporary social questions regarding the modern approaches of a state’s executive bodies and lay some groundwork for discussing whether various officials have been influenced by the extreme penetration of woke culture.

The Culture, Media, and Sport Committee of the British Parliament seems to be sending written requests to various Social Media Platforms, urging them to take all demonetization measures against content related to the accused person. This action has no connection to the administration of justice. It is well-established that the assets of such individuals are seized after their conviction, typically donated to state services responsible for aiding victims of sexual misconduct. This letter appears to be retaliatory and a knee-jerk reaction to the perpetrator’s fame. Furthermore, in the event of an actual conviction, fewer funds will be allocated to various foundations and government services. The negative publicity this individual receives does not affect their estimated earnings, as in the digital reality, it matters little whether someone is watching something for positive or negative reasons. Interrupting monetization at this stage only benefits social media platforms, as they do not need to share the revenue generated by the content.

Another question that should also trouble us is why the state’s executive authorities chose to request demonetization without a judicial order. As far as I know, no indictment has been filed thus far. Without the agreement of the judicial branch, the judge presiding over the accused person’s trial is obligated to consider not only the media outcry but also the punitive consequences of demonetization on the accused when determining the sentence.

The government authorities and law enforcement forces have all the means to engage in silent and secretive prosecutions of individuals, thereby ensuring that a person’s fame does not serve as a negative example for the perpetration and/or reproduction of crimes. Therefore, such unnecessary, hasty, and thoughtless actions by governments should at least raise the skepticism of the public.