Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> 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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: