this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
343 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19050 readers
3854 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are a good number of people that actually take the whole "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" thing all the way to its extreme. Even with glaringly obvious public evidence before that.

It is the foundation of our justice system, as much as some groups are trying to tear it apart, even from within in some cases.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Only the presumption of innocence by the court is important to our legal system. Anyone not part of the trial has no obligation to presume any defendant is innocent.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's been made painfully clear this last decade or so that a lot of people are plain fucking stupid or incapable of making their own informed decisions, relying on paid media to tell them what to think following a specific narrative.

We've seen a lot of cases where people were villified by the media and then evidence turns up proving their innocence, or that the evidence we originally were presented was faked, out of context, or otherwise the opposite of what was claimed.

Just look at the recent back and forth both on social media and in "news" articles with that guy in Michigan and the suspended drivers license. It's went from a guy in Zoom court while driving on a suspended license, which seems to be pretty clear, and had people viewing the situation a certain way. Oh but then it was just a State clerical error from something that was supposed to be cleared 2 years ago, to maybe he never actually had a driver's license. So then what was actually suspended in the first place? And all that within just a couple days for a viral video.

We cannot simply trust the information we're given blindly online, we as individuals need to keep in mind that even though things may look one way, that there is a possibility we are getting incorrect info, even from a trusted source.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Those sound like good arguments to promote the idea of treating people like they're innocent until proven guilty. At least the courts have some standards.