Quoted from pezpunk:
no we don't. only the courts (and actual jurors) do. we're free to make up our own minds however we want.
Sure, you are always free to make up your own mind. But words have consequences and if you don't presume the person is not guilty and you call an innocent man a bunch of names and convict him publically with your words before he has his day in court...and if he wins...you better hope the person you prejudged and committed defamation per se against doesn't decide to go after all the nameless people on the internet that accused him of a crime.
I've seen several cases over the last five years or so where dozens of people were sued for bandwagon jumping and accusing an innocent person of a crime based off the arrest. These people were on Facebook or responding in the comments section of a news article reporting the arrest. Many of them now face wage garnishment orders or have their tax refunds seized. Many husbands are shocked that they get hit with tens of thousands of dollars in damages for some eight word comment their wife made on her Facebook account responding to something that was shared by 50 people, but that is life.
You may think you're annonimous and can accuse people of rape, murder or child porn possession and have it not matter if they are guilty or not...but youre not annomimous. Websites have to respond to civil suit subpoenas and provide all the data they have that is responsive to the subpoena.
Accusing someone of a crime when you don't know the particulars and are not involved in some way is flat out a bad idea (that you are free to make). Civil liability for this type of thing is real.
Obviously, I know nothing about the JT case. Just warning people not to call him names or state you know he's guilty (no one here knows anything about his guilt or innosence). People think "he's not going to sue me for making a statement online!"...you don't know that, if he is found innocent and his career is over anyway he may have nothing else to do but pursue his defamation per se claim and carve out a meager way of life on the proceeds from the civil litigation (if he is found innocent of if what he is convicted of is less than what people are accusing him for online - note the people in this thread that inferred or stated he was doing more than just possessing downloaded under age pics...those people are potentially in danger if he sues them even if he is convicted of possession...though reduced danger).