4 ms·

Obligatory Reddit-type response: "Sir, this is a Wendy's drive-thru. Not a court of law." HN response: Of course, everyone is free to say what they wish. First

Obligatory Reddit-type response: "Sir, this is a Wendy's drive-thru. Not a court of law." HN response: Of course, everyone is free to say what they wish. First amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom is the basic human right. Wikipedia says, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." Notice that this covers the rights of someone "who has been charged with an offence" in "a public trial". There's not actually a "human right" preventing people from having or expressing opinions. Does that make sense?

BoorishBears 6y ago
Precious little about your comment makes sense from that first sentence to the rest of it. > Of course, everyone is free to say what they wish. First amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom is the basic human right. I'm not even going to bother falling into the tangential tarpit of acting like someone is a bomb maker without them having gone to trial is a "1st amendment right". After all, if your best defense of a statement is "I'm legally allowed to say it", it's probably not worth much consideration. > Notice that this covers the rights of someone "who has been charged with an offence" in "a public trial". No it doesn't. It covers the rights of a person. Period. That's literally the point of a universal declaration of human rights You're trying to play word sashimi to make a point that isn't made. The definition of guilt is specific to a public trial exactly because a "trial" of public opinions is so easy to manipulate. Sure it can't force the general public to be decent people and understand that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty... but it's also not endorsing the public not do so. It's not limiting presumption of innocence to trials.

BoorishBears 6y ago

Precious little about your comment makes sense from that first sentence to the rest of it. > Of course, everyone is free to say what they wish. First amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom is the basic human right. I'm not even going to bother falling into the tangential tarpit of acting like someone is a bomb maker without them having gone to trial is a "1st amendment right". After all, if your best defense of a statement is "I'm legally allowed to say it", it's probably not worth much consideration. > Notice that this covers the rights of someone "who has been charged with an offence" in "a public trial". No it doesn't. It covers the rights of a person. Period. That's literally the point of a universal declaration of human rights You're trying to play word sashimi to make a point that isn't made. The definition of guilt is specific to a public trial exactly because a "trial" of public opinions is so easy to manipulate. Sure it can't force the general public to be decent people and understand that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty... but it's also not endorsing the public not do so. It's not limiting presumption of innocence to trials.