I'm not trying to be awkward but people throw around terms too casually. He is only guilty in the court of public opinion, no doubt based upon his reputation.
No court has charged and convicted him. No jury has sat in judgment weighing the evidence. What law has he broken beyond a reasonable doubt?
He's guilty of nothing. The evidence that will be presented will be of no substantive quality and will be highly subjective proving nothing one way or the other.
The reason I dislike the extreme punishments being suggested is because in this moment, society seems to have lost its collective mind. It actually puts pressure on people or organisations to censure people based on things seen or read on Twitter. The authority in this case may end up acting on the basis of a vocal minority of people on social media baying for blood and threatening sponsors and shareholders of partner organisations to push for action. They don't want cool, collective analysis and reflection. It's a recipe for miscarriages of justice galore. People need to be tolerant, calm and patient. They should want the outcomes to be correct, accurate and proportionate - not quick and tough outcomes just to satisfy some extreme reactionaries.