5 ms·

You can decide whatever you like about whoever you like. Inside your head you are truly free to judge whomever you want however you want. You may be found to h

You can decide whatever you like about whoever you like. Inside your head you are truly free to judge whomever you want however you want. You may be found to have defamed someone if you go around stating your opinions as facts and the court disagrees that they are facts.

braythwayt 7y ago
I agree with you about libel and slander, but the phrase “presumption of innocence” goes far beyond just watching what you claim to be objective facts. For example, what if Alice thinks her employee Bob is dishonest, but he hasn’t been convicted of theft? Can she transfer him to a job that does not involve handling money or procurement? I think, “yes.” Alice can decide that Bob is not a good fit for a job involving money and trust. Bob might then sue for “constructive dismissal” if the new position is not commensurate with his experience. The lawyers are the only winners in most such lawsuits, so perhaps Alice settles with Bob. He quits and receives severance. Bob then applies for a job with Carol. If Alice claims Bob was dishonest, Bob might sue Alice and win substantial damages. Now what about Carol? What if she questions Bob about Alice’s clams and does not believe his explanation of events? Or if a number of people come forward during the ruckus to tell how they feel Bob was dishonest with them? “Presumption of Innocence” for Carol would oblige her to hire Bob anyways: It means treating Bob as innocent of the accusations in every way until he is convicted in court. I claim she has no such obligation. Perhaps it is imprudent of Alice to accuse Bob of dishonesty without being able to prove it, but nevertheless Carol has a right to decide for herself whether she wishes to hire Bob based on her own judgment. tl;dr: “Presumption of innocence” is a very strict standard that only applies to the state. People have a right to decide for themselves whether people are innocent or guilty, but just as you say, some actions based on those decisions come with tradeoffs and consequences.
salawat 7y ago
Which the court must ascertain the truth or falsehood to before rendering judgement; which given the information the court has on hand, would be dangerous ground for a lawyer to tread upon in this case. At the most; a prudent judge would likely allow it while the case is still being tried. You'd have to deal with defamation only after the completion of the criminal probe, where a suit could be levied under the auspices of "we were deemed innocent". IANAL, and this is assuming American court procedure; things may be different in Germany.
- gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
  Why does every newspaper refer to "alleged" etc until a verdict is reached?
  - cronix 7y ago
    Like with the Mueller case? I see an awful lot of people in the news corporations and government stating "facts" of "crimes" for which there was no prosecution, because there wasn't any or not enough evidence to move forward on a conviction. Which verdict was reached there? Not to turn this political, just showing what you are saying isn't true though and a very big major case with 2 years of media hysteria to back it. Nothing has been proven in a court of law, when it comes to the President anyway. I see no presumption of innocence by CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, LA Times, or practically any other major "news" corporation.
    - przemo_li 7y ago
      Because media report on events. There is someone saying not-yet-president groped them without permission? They can report on it. It's called free press.

braythwayt 7y ago

I agree with you about libel and slander, but the phrase “presumption of innocence” goes far beyond just watching what you claim to be objective facts. For example, what if Alice thinks her employee Bob is dishonest, but he hasn’t been convicted of theft? Can she transfer him to a job that does not involve handling money or procurement? I think, “yes.” Alice can decide that Bob is not a good fit for a job involving money and trust. Bob might then sue for “constructive dismissal” if the new position is not commensurate with his experience. The lawyers are the only winners in most such lawsuits, so perhaps Alice settles with Bob. He quits and receives severance. Bob then applies for a job with Carol. If Alice claims Bob was dishonest, Bob might sue Alice and win substantial damages. Now what about Carol? What if she questions Bob about Alice’s clams and does not believe his explanation of events? Or if a number of people come forward during the ruckus to tell how they feel Bob was dishonest with them? “Presumption of Innocence” for Carol would oblige her to hire Bob anyways: It means treating Bob as innocent of the accusations in every way until he is convicted in court. I claim she has no such obligation. Perhaps it is imprudent of Alice to accuse Bob of dishonesty without being able to prove it, but nevertheless Carol has a right to decide for herself whether she wishes to hire Bob based on her own judgment. tl;dr: “Presumption of innocence” is a very strict standard that only applies to the state. People have a right to decide for themselves whether people are innocent or guilty, but just as you say, some actions based on those decisions come with tradeoffs and consequences.

salawat 7y ago

Which the court must ascertain the truth or falsehood to before rendering judgement; which given the information the court has on hand, would be dangerous ground for a lawyer to tread upon in this case. At the most; a prudent judge would likely allow it while the case is still being tried. You'd have to deal with defamation only after the completion of the criminal probe, where a suit could be levied under the auspices of "we were deemed innocent". IANAL, and this is assuming American court procedure; things may be different in Germany.

gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
Why does every newspaper refer to "alleged" etc until a verdict is reached?
- cronix 7y ago
  Like with the Mueller case? I see an awful lot of people in the news corporations and government stating "facts" of "crimes" for which there was no prosecution, because there wasn't any or not enough evidence to move forward on a conviction. Which verdict was reached there? Not to turn this political, just showing what you are saying isn't true though and a very big major case with 2 years of media hysteria to back it. Nothing has been proven in a court of law, when it comes to the President anyway. I see no presumption of innocence by CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, LA Times, or practically any other major "news" corporation.
  - przemo_li 7y ago
    Because media report on events. There is someone saying not-yet-president groped them without permission? They can report on it. It's called free press.