Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (142769)	2/19/2002 8:41:11 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576909

Until one is convicted in a court of law, legally the rape didn't occur. Nonsense; legally, the rape occurred, but no one has been convicted of it. The rape is NOT just alleged; the defendant may be just alleged to have committed the rape, but the allegation pertains to a defendant and not to the crime. Legally, it must be determined a murder occurs before a defendant can be tried for the murder. You can't try a person for a crime that hasn't been committed. If a murder occurs, the murder isn't alleged to have occurred. OJ may be alleged to have committed it, but the coroner's report and crime scene investigation determine whether a murder occurred. The real trial, several mock trials, and the History channel have all found OJ innocent by reasonable doubt There was no reasonable doubt; OJ was acquitted by jury nullification. No reasonable person could have concluded that there was even the slightest doubt OJ Simpson killed those two people. I don't want to reopen that case on this forum, but anyone who says OJ is innocent is, I believe, not a reasonable person. But you have no right to publicize it, and materially harm OJ with your thoughts. Bull. I can say publicly all day long that I don't care what the jury said, he's guilty. And he can't do a damned thing about it. And I can do the same thing with Bill Clinton.

To: hmaly who wrote (142769)	2/19/2002 6:18:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576909

Legally, they both are the same. Until one is convicted in a court of law, legally the rape didn't occur. Not exactly. Saying legally the rape did not occur implies that the law specifically says there was no rape. Until someone is convicted the law does not punish them but it doesn't make any claims as to the facts of the case and even if it did one would be free to ignore them just as one would be free to ignore a law that claimed the moon was made of green cheese. I'm not saying that the claim that Bill Clinton did not rape anyone is as crazy as the claim that the moon is made of cheese I am rather just calling attention to the point that changing the law does not change the fact. But you have no right to publicize it, and materially harm OJ with your thoughts. My definitions of rights would go beyond what I would call legal rights but that is a whole seperate conversation and perhaps a very long one. I do have every right to say that I think OJ did it. Even in the purely legal sense I have a right to express my opinion publically. Saying "OJ did it", rather then "I think OJ did it", and saying so in a newspaper rather then on SI or to a person standing next to me, might cause him material harm and in out legal system might result in a lawsuit but the suit would be based on the harm not on any "legal fact" that OJ is innocent. If he was found guilty that would mean that my contention would be supported enough to protect me from a lawsuit even if he did suffer harm, but even though he was found innocent if he tried to sue me for libel and my lawyer could show that a proponderence of evidence shows that he did do it then I would still win the lawsuit. Tim