Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

It's official: Rectal Wart is the Republican nominee.

Now, the Dems just have to finish choosing between Oral Herpes and Ocular Herpes.

[Gurn Blanston]

This is as contentious a claim about Trump as I have ever seen.

Swaggart was OTT. If you appreciate the entertainment value of JTV, you know what I mean. He was a stud! 

[Florestan]

Generally speaking, Btian

You kidding, right?

[Todd]

Swaggart was OTT.

Gotta say, I was more a fan of the subtleties of Jim and Tammy Faye back in the day.

You kidding, right?

Not at all.  In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in such cases. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Gotta say, I was more a fan of the subtleties of Jim and Tammy Faye back in the day.

I loved the way Tammy Faye could cry as easily as most of us breathe, and without ruining her mascara. But my current favorite is the aptly named Creflo Dollar.

[Florestan]

Not at all.  In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in such cases.

Do you mean that, if I accuse you of being a child molester, the burden of proof that you are not is on you, not on me that you are one such? 

[Gurn Blanston]

Gotta say, I was more a fan of the subtleties of Jim and Tammy Faye back in the day.




Not at all.  In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in such cases.

Tammy was great, and Jim was suitably sleazy. I was thinking at one time of selling a line of Tammy Faye authorized silver plated mascara trowels, but my deal in China fell through when Jim confessed...

[Todd]

Do you mean that, if I accuse you of being a child molester, the burden of proof that you are not is on you, not on me that you are one such? 

Yes.  For the third time.

[Florestan]

Yes.  For the third time.

Then justice in the US of A is seriously screwed. Actually, it is not justice at all. And I am only too glad I don´t live in the US of A.

[Todd]

Then justice in the US of A is seriously screwed. Actually, it is not justice at all.

That's one way to look at it, I suppose.  Good thing I didn't go into the difference between how private citizens and public personages are treated with respect to defamation.

[Florestan]

I didn't go into the difference between how private citizens and public personages are treated with respect to defamation.

Is not justice the same for all?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Then justice in the US of A is seriously screwed. Actually, it is not justice at all. And I am only too glad I don´t live in the US of A.

In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court."
- Wikipedia

Presumption of innocence is an ancient concept that holds true in numerous modern societies. Again Wikipedia: "This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions."

[Florestan]

In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court."
- Wikipedia

Why, of course! Roman Law all the way!

Presumption of innocence is an ancient concept that holds true in numerous modern societies. Again Wikipedia: "This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions."

Common sense!

But the issue is not this! The issue is the following: I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. Now, on whom falls the burden of proof' According to the Roman Law, it falls on me. According to Todd´s interpretation of the US law, it falls on you. If Todd is right, that I maintain justice in the USA is screwed.

[Todd]

Is not justice the same for all?

Depends on what you define as justice.  Having a higher burden of proof for public figures relates expressly to freedom of speech.  That is, we can say mean and nasty things about politicians with what amounts to impunity.  That's a good thing.  I think it makes sense to show that a person has been harmed by false speech before stifling or punishing that speech.  If someone wants to say that Obama is a Kenyan-born commie Muslim - all demonstrably false - they ought to be free to do so.  But then, I'm one of those Americans who thinks the US has too many restrictions on speech, so of course I would think that.

Also, note that the presumption of innocence is more relevant in criminal proceedings than in civil proceedings - ie, when it is the state prosecuting an individual.  Defamation suits are civil.  They also usually get settled out of court, unless one party makes it a point to take it to trial.

According to Todd´s interpretation of the US law, it falls on you.

It is not my interpretation of US law.

[Florestan]

If someone wants to say that Obama is a Kenyan-born commie Muslim - all demonstrably false - they ought to be free to do so.

Absolutely. But should Obama take them to court for saying that, common sense and Roman Law (which is actually one and the same thing) dictate that the burden of proof is on anyone saying that, not on Obama having to disprove the claim.

[Todd]

Absolutely. But should Obama take them to court for saying that, common sense and Roman Law (which is actually one and the same thing) dictate that the burden of proof is on anyone saying that, not on Obama having to disprove the claim.

Roman Law's dictates regarding defamation are irrelevant in the US.  Common sense may be defined differently in different societies.  But you knew both those facts already.

[Florestan]

Roman Law's dictates regarding defamation are irrelevant in the US.

True. Lots of things pertaining to civilization are irrelevant in the US.

Common sense may be defined differently in different societies.  But you knew both those facts already.

Well, yes, I did. But I still maintain that any judicial system in which the burden of proof is on he who denies a claim is serioulsy screwed.

[Todd]

Well, yes, I did. But I still maintain that any judicial system in which the burden of proof is on he who denies a claim is serioulsy screwed.

That's one way to look at it.  The other is that it is the plaintiff who is making the claim of defamation.  Using that approach, the burden of proof naturally falls on the accuser.

[Ken B]

All this talk of Roman vs American law is moot. Once Hillary is elected the latter will have ceased to operate.

[Florestan]

the burden of proof naturally falls on the accuser.

That is what I, based on the Roman Law, have been advocating all the way.

Once again: I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to court. Who must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?