3 ms·
This legal doctrine forces private parties to presume others guilty until proven innocent, because it holds them liable if the service that they provide to them
by ETH_start 4y ago
This legal doctrine forces private parties to presume others guilty until proven innocent, because it holds them liable if the service that they provide to them facilitates any crimes they commit.
Presumption of innocence on the other hand would make only the party commissioning the crime liable and that means massively less overhead when economically interacting with others.
With respect to below, I'll respond by editing the current comment as I'm currently at my comment limit:
Presumption of innocence means presuming others innocent unless they are proven, in a court of law, of being guilty. Suggesting that Visa knew Mindgeek was guilty is putting the onus on private actors to ascribe guilt for crimes, and holding them liable if they fail to do so, which leads to their adoption of the presumption of guilt until proven innocent principle underlying so much regulatory restrictions and private sector KYC processes in finance nowadays.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> This legal doctrine forces private parties to presume others guilty until proven innocen No, it doesn't. There is no novel doctrine here, and the allegation being allowed to proceed to trial is that Visa has actual knowledge of MindGeek’s child porn, actual power to constrain it, and actively chose to facilitate and profit. This is not a ruling that any of that is true, just that that set of claims properly alleges a wrong which is within the coverage of the justice system. The plaintiff still has to prove all that to win.