4 ms·

Not doing so would allow mere allegations to put your business on hold until the entire court process, all the way to the highest court, if applicable, is compl

by cronix 4y ago

Not doing so would allow mere allegations to put your business on hold until the entire court process, all the way to the highest court, if applicable, is complete. It's not a loophole. It's a fundamental tenant of innocent until proven guilty.

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply.
- indymike 4y ago
  >This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply. If the court is so sure that the plaintiff will prevail, why even have a trial? The answer is that until the court rules, barring 100% certainty of the plaintiff prevailing, you have to wait for the court's deliberation or you have only oppression and no justice at all. Both sides must have a chance to make their case.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
    In civil law, the roles of plaintiff and defendant are largely interchangeable. If you order food and don't like it, the restaurant might sue you for payment. Or you need to sue the restaurant if you already paid. It's rather arbitrary, being only based on the order of the exchange of food and money. In any case, take it up the law, because it is as I said: the burden of proof is different, its "preponderance of the evidence", i. e. 50%.
    - indymike 4y ago
      You are talking punish first, then have a trial later. Regardless of the rules of evidence, or who is suing who, the reason we have courts and trials is to allow both sides to be heard, and a decision be made on who violated the law, and then on how to remedy it. You cannot have justice if one side is not heard, or is put out of business before getting to make their case.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  It does in Italy and I believe in many other European countries that adopt the Roman Law.
alkonaut 4y ago
The process shouldn’t take years of course. Once a court no matter how minor finds you guilty, you are guilty. Now, you might want to appeal that to the next instance which makes it take years. But a court has already found you guilty. In this case the law if it was sane should stipulate that the business either stop the violation during the appeal or risk the fine for the whole period of the appeal process if it turns out after appeal that you were guilty of the violation after all. Facebook should have to seriously consider whether it’s worth the gamble to both fund the appeal process and pay the accumulating fines (which, again if the law is sane, amount to more than what FB would lose by simply stopping the violation).

by cronix 4y ago

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago

This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply.

indymike 4y ago
>This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply. If the court is so sure that the plaintiff will prevail, why even have a trial? The answer is that until the court rules, barring 100% certainty of the plaintiff prevailing, you have to wait for the court's deliberation or you have only oppression and no justice at all. Both sides must have a chance to make their case.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  In civil law, the roles of plaintiff and defendant are largely interchangeable. If you order food and don't like it, the restaurant might sue you for payment. Or you need to sue the restaurant if you already paid. It's rather arbitrary, being only based on the order of the exchange of food and money. In any case, take it up the law, because it is as I said: the burden of proof is different, its "preponderance of the evidence", i. e. 50%.
  - indymike 4y ago
    You are talking punish first, then have a trial later. Regardless of the rules of evidence, or who is suing who, the reason we have courts and trials is to allow both sides to be heard, and a decision be made on who violated the law, and then on how to remedy it. You cannot have justice if one side is not heard, or is put out of business before getting to make their case.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
It does in Italy and I believe in many other European countries that adopt the Roman Law.

alkonaut 4y ago

The process shouldn’t take years of course. Once a court no matter how minor finds you guilty, you are guilty. Now, you might want to appeal that to the next instance which makes it take years. But a court has already found you guilty. In this case the law if it was sane should stipulate that the business either stop the violation during the appeal or risk the fine for the whole period of the appeal process if it turns out after appeal that you were guilty of the violation after all. Facebook should have to seriously consider whether it’s worth the gamble to both fund the appeal process and pay the accumulating fines (which, again if the law is sane, amount to more than what FB would lose by simply stopping the violation).