> They are entitled to that presumption until evidence emerges otherwise.
Why is only one side “entitled to that presumption”? In most common law countries, including both the US and UK, there is a presumption of innocence when someone faces an accusation, their guilt must be proven with evidence.
You are providing heavier weight and benefit to one claim over the other, and that weight is going towards an accusation that presents no substantive evidence. That’s your prerogative, but it is philosophically misaligned with a fact-based approach to the law.
You are mistaken that this was not libel in the US. Even in the US, the law and precedent is clear, you cannot go around claiming someone is guilty of a crime they’re not convicted of, actively seek to prevent them from being employed, and explicitly cause their dismissal from their means of livelihood. That establishes clear damages, and if you have no evidence to support your claim, not even the lower burden of proof that would prevail in a civil matter, you would lose if sued for libel and defamation. Once damages and either willful disregard, negligence, or malice are established, all elements are present.
> Why is only one side “entitled to that presumption”? In most common law countries, including both the US and UK, there is a presumption of innocence when someone faces an accusation, their guilt must be proven with evidence.
In the legal system, yes.
Outside it, no. I don’t have to hold a court proceeding to ground my kid or tell people my neighbor is a dick. There isn’t any right to due process in the court of public opinion; there never has been.
In the UK, defamation law DOES NOT PROVIDE A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. That is the precise problem. It is highly unusual in that regard. The burden of proof is on the DEFENDANT.
> Even in the US, the law and precedent is clear, you cannot go around claiming someone is guilty of a crime they’re not convicted of, actively seek to prevent them from being employed, and explicitly cause their dismissal from their means of livelihood.
You absolutely can. People can call OJ a murderer. Claiming he was convicted of it might rise to libel.
Nothing in the open letter asserts he was convicted of a crime. If it were libel to assert someone committed a crime before their conviction for it, prosecutors would… be in trouble.
Why is only one side “entitled to that presumption”? In most common law countries, including both the US and UK, there is a presumption of innocence when someone faces an accusation, their guilt must be proven with evidence.
You are providing heavier weight and benefit to one claim over the other, and that weight is going towards an accusation that presents no substantive evidence. That’s your prerogative, but it is philosophically misaligned with a fact-based approach to the law.
You are mistaken that this was not libel in the US. Even in the US, the law and precedent is clear, you cannot go around claiming someone is guilty of a crime they’re not convicted of, actively seek to prevent them from being employed, and explicitly cause their dismissal from their means of livelihood. That establishes clear damages, and if you have no evidence to support your claim, not even the lower burden of proof that would prevail in a civil matter, you would lose if sued for libel and defamation. Once damages and either willful disregard, negligence, or malice are established, all elements are present.