5 ms·

IMHO, people can say what they want in the public We then have libel and slander laws to take care of the issues, and to dissuade people from being reckless. I

IMHO, people can say what they want in the public We then have libel and slander laws to take care of the issues, and to dissuade people from being reckless. If they don't make up for the damage people cause, the easy way to remedy that is to up the remedies until they do.

scrollaway 10y ago
This "shoot and sue" attitude is one of the reasons why the US is regarded as hyperlitigious across the rest of the world. SirCmpwn is right. If this guy is innocent, his life is ruined now. And we've seen this pattern elsewhere, outside of tech; teenagers/adults falsely accused of rape or worse. People pissing behind a bar with a permanent contextless "sex offender" mark on their record. Etc. Lives ruined - innocent people escaping justice. I honestly think this can be taught: Respect for the presumption of innocence. Why people should be presumed innocent should be taught from a young age. A similar respect as the one america gives to freedom of speech (although I'd hope it would come with a better understanding of what it means). PS: I don't want to sound partisan or anything - I have no idea what this TOR investigation and affair is all about. In fact that's what's scary; I have no idea about the facts of the case, yet I've now been told that Jacob Appelbaum is a sexual predator. Edit: It looks like nobody in the replies understood what I was talking about. It's naive to assume that the public at large respects the presumption of innocence that the govenment grants this man and other people in his situation. The system is broken if the citizens don't understand why this is important. Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of people even in the comments here don't understand why it's important, so it looks like this is falling on deaf ears.
- jethro_tell 10y ago
  As he hasn't even been charged, he is considered innocent for sure. The contract of the presumption of innocence is between the citizen and government, as is freedom of speech.
- hrehhf 10y ago
  > If this guy is innocent, his life is ruined now. And we've seen this pattern elsewhere, outside of tech; teenagers/adults falsely accused of rape or worse. People pissing behind a bar with a permanent contextless "sex offender" mark on their record. Etc. Lives ruined - innocent people escaping justice. What exactly do you even mean by "his life is ruined"? There are no criminal charges. No pre-trial detention. No trial. No prison sentence. This is a loooong way from his life being ruined. In all likelihood he will move on with his life, with no connection to Tor project.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  The solution is simple. You presume he's innocent, so you offer him a job. The whole "life ruined" argument depends on literally every possible employer making the same guilty assumption that you say nobody should make.
- jubalfh 10y ago
  Just like being a rapist and a fugitive stopped Polański from continuing his film-making career. Really.
bradleyjg 10y ago
Unless the target is a public figure including a, somewhat oxymoronically named, limited purpose public figure. It's a far broader category than it might seem at first glance. For them (US) defamation law doesn't dissuade people from being reckless, only malicious.
fweespeech 10y ago
> IMHO, people can say what they want in the public We then have libel and slander laws to take care of the issues, and to dissuade people from being reckless. This is the POV of a lawyer who understands how the legal system works and can (financially) afford to sue. > If they don't make up for the damage people cause, the easy way to remedy that is to up the remedies until they do. If both parties lack resources, you can't really receive damages comparable to a reputation destroying event. Tor has a financial pot big enough to actually pay damages if these accusations were malicious AND false. However, iirc, Tor is based out of the US and the standard is malice. Tor is clearly not being actively malicious and being honestly mistaken would still be enough to destroy someone's reputation. Now, in this case, I'm pretty sure Jacob has the financial resources to sue for slander but since its pretty clear its not a malicious act on Tor's part...its a fool's errand and his reputation will remain destroyed. Now, its quite possible that such destruction is deserved given this was an independent 3rd party, my problem is with your proposed solution if it was false. Slander laws and "increased penalties" are not an effective solution.

scrollaway 10y ago

This "shoot and sue" attitude is one of the reasons why the US is regarded as hyperlitigious across the rest of the world. SirCmpwn is right. If this guy is innocent, his life is ruined now. And we've seen this pattern elsewhere, outside of tech; teenagers/adults falsely accused of rape or worse. People pissing behind a bar with a permanent contextless "sex offender" mark on their record. Etc. Lives ruined - innocent people escaping justice. I honestly think this can be taught: Respect for the presumption of innocence. Why people should be presumed innocent should be taught from a young age. A similar respect as the one america gives to freedom of speech (although I'd hope it would come with a better understanding of what it means). PS: I don't want to sound partisan or anything - I have no idea what this TOR investigation and affair is all about. In fact that's what's scary; I have no idea about the facts of the case, yet I've now been told that Jacob Appelbaum is a sexual predator. Edit: It looks like nobody in the replies understood what I was talking about. It's naive to assume that the public at large respects the presumption of innocence that the govenment grants this man and other people in his situation. The system is broken if the citizens don't understand why this is important. Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of people even in the comments here don't understand why it's important, so it looks like this is falling on deaf ears.

jethro_tell 10y ago
As he hasn't even been charged, he is considered innocent for sure. The contract of the presumption of innocence is between the citizen and government, as is freedom of speech.
hrehhf 10y ago
> If this guy is innocent, his life is ruined now. And we've seen this pattern elsewhere, outside of tech; teenagers/adults falsely accused of rape or worse. People pissing behind a bar with a permanent contextless "sex offender" mark on their record. Etc. Lives ruined - innocent people escaping justice. What exactly do you even mean by "his life is ruined"? There are no criminal charges. No pre-trial detention. No trial. No prison sentence. This is a loooong way from his life being ruined. In all likelihood he will move on with his life, with no connection to Tor project.
tedunangst 10y ago
The solution is simple. You presume he's innocent, so you offer him a job. The whole "life ruined" argument depends on literally every possible employer making the same guilty assumption that you say nobody should make.
jubalfh 10y ago
Just like being a rapist and a fugitive stopped Polański from continuing his film-making career. Really.

bradleyjg 10y ago

Unless the target is a public figure including a, somewhat oxymoronically named, limited purpose public figure. It's a far broader category than it might seem at first glance. For them (US) defamation law doesn't dissuade people from being reckless, only malicious.

fweespeech 10y ago

> IMHO, people can say what they want in the public We then have libel and slander laws to take care of the issues, and to dissuade people from being reckless. This is the POV of a lawyer who understands how the legal system works and can (financially) afford to sue. > If they don't make up for the damage people cause, the easy way to remedy that is to up the remedies until they do. If both parties lack resources, you can't really receive damages comparable to a reputation destroying event. Tor has a financial pot big enough to actually pay damages if these accusations were malicious AND false. However, iirc, Tor is based out of the US and the standard is malice. Tor is clearly not being actively malicious and being honestly mistaken would still be enough to destroy someone's reputation. Now, in this case, I'm pretty sure Jacob has the financial resources to sue for slander but since its pretty clear its not a malicious act on Tor's part...its a fool's errand and his reputation will remain destroyed. Now, its quite possible that such destruction is deserved given this was an independent 3rd party, my problem is with your proposed solution if it was false. Slander laws and "increased penalties" are not an effective solution.