To: SI Dave who wrote (12283 ) 12/4/2019 6:16:09 PM From: sense Read Replies (1) | Respond to That's assuming facts not in evidence then or now. That's a bit of pretense... fully justified in relation to the law only in the sense that... convictions do in fact require something more than an expression of official suspicions or some hopeful lawsuits advancing unsubstantiated claims. But, there is a difference between our proper insistence that the operation of the law requires actual proofs... and suspending rational judgment... which is a failure that is at least equally as dangerous to society as would be suspending the rules of evidence. The assertion in the Constitution of limits on the power of government... so that we do insist that the accused have rights the state can't violate... and have a high standard of proof to win a conviction... isn't borne out of a belief that the accused are in fact inherently innocent... or that we must or should believe that to be true in exercising our judgment in other venue... and not only in relation to the application of standards in the legal process ? At the limit... obviously it isn't the case that the accused are innocent in fact... until they are proven guilty... but they must have been guilty in fact all along... or the proof wouldn't have been possible ? Most people... will apply judgment in self interest, at least... and not hire accused pedophiles to babysit their kids... assuming they're innocent and acting in good faith because the opposite hasn't been proven ? If we simply accepted bad actors assertions of innocence on face value as true until proven otherwise... always assuming their good faith... no one would ever be found guilty... and there would be no check on crime... as the sheep all submit to the wolves. This is in fact... Dr. Pangloss... not the best of all possible worlds. The error in logic is one that works its way full circle in the opposite, too... The reason we have to require substantive proofs to determine guilt... is that there is similarly no benefit in giving the benefit of the doubt in our judgment to the prosecution... as we shouldn't believe in their good faith either... The system of laws and the operation of law... isn't based on requiring an assumption of good faith... rather than the opposite. In the instance... the backpage miscreants WERE convicted... not on the basis of "assuming facts not in evidence then or now" ? The legalism... pretending there is no room for exercise of sound judgement short of legal proofs ? That would require that no concern can be expressed... no accusation can ever be made... that no judgement could be exercised ? Crafting limits in a chicken or the egg argument... so that suspicion is wrong short of conviction... ensures there will never be a conviction ? The focus in my posts on this subject... is one that does subject others behavior to scrutiny... and does so without the assumption or expectation that others MUST be operating in good faith... unless and until there are convincing proofs they are not. But I'm not advocating any lowering in the legal standards of proof ? And, I'm not going to pretend that bias you appear to express is rational... if that requires our sustaining the assumption of innocence outside the limits of the legal process... and even as the facts in evidence are proven... and the conviction is won in the courts ? The behavior of bad actors... really shouldn't be all that much of a mystery ? Nor should it be a surprise that the same issues exist in the behavior of those acting on behalf of the state... as those acting in self interest while harming others. The charges or theories alleging liability of the numerous failed lawsuits against Backpage were barred by the CDA for a simple reason; their role in those matters was immunized. That appears a tad myopic... given the conviction that does exist now... might well obviate the expectation that there should exist any immunity... where the lack of good faith is proven. The immunity is based on the assumption good faith exists... ? When proven it doesn't ? My purpose is not to re-litigate the specific case... rather than addressing parallel instances in which bad actors harmful behaviors are enabled by their seeking immunities... for behaviors that are in fact the opposite of that the law intends to protect. If there is a specific weakness in the law requiring corrections... it would be there... in the error in imposing an expectation of good faith... parallel to innocent until proven guilty... in which the law is interpreted to require assuming good faith... until it is proven absent ? I'll agree with you again, I expect... that that's not what the law says or intends... But, full circle again... to the behavior of bad actors in justifying egregious behavior... using the law to provide the veneer of legality... and legitimacy. The charges that brought down Backpage were for engaging in an entirely different role, e.g., being the originator or developer of the actionable content. There was actual evidence of that role, versus mere conclusory allegations. Apples and oranges. Right. The guys at backpage were really good actors all along... who just suddenly one day broke bad... and deviated wildly from all their prior behavior... to become originators of content... Sorry... but that's laughable... even in relation to... or particularly because of... the insistence that our judgment has to apply the standards in evidence that we require of the law by imposing limits... That standard makes sense in relation to the law ... because the guys running the law are people too... equally as subject to error in excess in application of the law... as the bad actors are in seeking to harm us while avoiding application of the law... That's not a justification for choosing to be blind to reality... until after it is proven in court. So, what changed was their conduct, not the courts' interpretation of the CDA. Agree on that in part... but ONLY in the limit that what was at issue in the instance was not the courts' interpretation of the CDA... but the behavior... But, if you believe that the issue was "their intent... and thus their behavior... suddenly changed"... ? I don't see much evidence... much less proof... that it was their conduct that suddenly changed... rather than the conduct of the officialdom...
