4 ms·

No... I'm not really sure where you got that from. I'm saying that if you're accused of something, you should have the chance of addressing that accusation. I

No... I'm not really sure where you got that from. I'm saying that if you're accused of something, you should have the chance of addressing that accusation. I think that's a bare minimum, because otherwise we're de-facto deciding cases by deciding which ones are worth hearing. People here have been accused of things, and while they may not have been legal accusations, they aren't without career or so cliial ramifications. This is no different than if a group of men shared a list of women they did or did not want to work with for sexual reasons. If that list came out, it would likely be defamatory and any women seeking to take legal action would likely be supported, as they should be. Some people are going to jump towards the different respective power of the people involved as justifying the difference. I think that is (or should be) irrelevant when it comes to the basic question here, which is "should someone be allowed to seek legal restitution for harm?".

geofft 8y ago
I think if I'm accused of something in court I should have presumption of innocence against the use of the government monopoly on violence. I don't think I should have presumption of innocence in the privacy of people's minds, even multiple people's minds. OJ Simpson has not had any of his rights violated by people openly believing he did it, because the government does not believe he did it. And for the government to force people to believe differently would be an immense violation of their rights. Should people act on their beliefs extrajudicially, the government will punish that—after due process and presumption of innocence to the alleged vigilantes, of course.
- mpweiher 8y ago
  You seem to be mixing up presumption of innocence, the right to your own opinion and the concept of defamation, largely ignoring the latter. I can have an opinion that HN user geofft is a <insert horrible thing>. This is my right. However, I cannot go to other people and say that geofft is a <insert horrible thing>, particularly if doing so causes you harm, for example economic/reputational. I have a hard time seeing how such a list does not cross that line. Except of course if the accusations are true, but they must then be proven to be true.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I can have an opinion that HN user geofft is a <insert horrible thing>. This is my right. However, I cannot go to other people and say that geofft is a <insert horrible thing>, particularly if doing so causes you harm, for example economic/reputational. Yes, you can. Now, if geofft can prove that it is false, and that you reasonably should have known it was false (and the standard may be higher depending on subject matter and other context), then you may be liable for defamation. > Except of course if the accusations are true, but they must then be proven to be true. No, in the US, falsity is an element of defamation where, as in the other elements of the tort (rather than defenses against liability) the burden of proof is in the plaintiff, not the defendant. The offended party must prove the statement false. As well as proving the negligence of the one publishing it with regard to the truth.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    but geoftt has to prove that the comments have caused harm.
- kbenson 8y ago
  Im not sure what I'm saying that is getting people stuck on presumed innocence. I'm specifically talking about the right to defend yourself from accusations. I think that's fundamental to the point of being much more important than being presumed innocent. If you don't get a right to state your side, who cares if you're presumed innocent. The only evidence seen may indicate you're guilty because not all evidence is available.

geofft 8y ago

I think if I'm accused of something in court I should have presumption of innocence against the use of the government monopoly on violence. I don't think I should have presumption of innocence in the privacy of people's minds, even multiple people's minds. OJ Simpson has not had any of his rights violated by people openly believing he did it, because the government does not believe he did it. And for the government to force people to believe differently would be an immense violation of their rights. Should people act on their beliefs extrajudicially, the government will punish that—after due process and presumption of innocence to the alleged vigilantes, of course.

mpweiher 8y ago
You seem to be mixing up presumption of innocence, the right to your own opinion and the concept of defamation, largely ignoring the latter. I can have an opinion that HN user geofft is a <insert horrible thing>. This is my right. However, I cannot go to other people and say that geofft is a <insert horrible thing>, particularly if doing so causes you harm, for example economic/reputational. I have a hard time seeing how such a list does not cross that line. Except of course if the accusations are true, but they must then be proven to be true.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I can have an opinion that HN user geofft is a <insert horrible thing>. This is my right. However, I cannot go to other people and say that geofft is a <insert horrible thing>, particularly if doing so causes you harm, for example economic/reputational. Yes, you can. Now, if geofft can prove that it is false, and that you reasonably should have known it was false (and the standard may be higher depending on subject matter and other context), then you may be liable for defamation. > Except of course if the accusations are true, but they must then be proven to be true. No, in the US, falsity is an element of defamation where, as in the other elements of the tort (rather than defenses against liability) the burden of proof is in the plaintiff, not the defendant. The offended party must prove the statement false. As well as proving the negligence of the one publishing it with regard to the truth.
- DanBC 8y ago
  but geoftt has to prove that the comments have caused harm.
kbenson 8y ago
Im not sure what I'm saying that is getting people stuck on presumed innocence. I'm specifically talking about the right to defend yourself from accusations. I think that's fundamental to the point of being much more important than being presumed innocent. If you don't get a right to state your side, who cares if you're presumed innocent. The only evidence seen may indicate you're guilty because not all evidence is available.