Hacker News Reader

Comment by constantly | Hacker News Reader

Innocent until proven guilty is primarily a legal principle in the United States and doesn’t really apply to the court of public opinion. And in fact for many of the good reasons presented by the person to whom you’re responding, really shouldn’t apply to the court of public opinion or the principle of freedom of association.

View on HN

doesn’t really apply to the court of public opinion

i strongly disagree with that. allowing public opinion to judge people without proof leads to mob rule. any rumor can destroy someones life. as a society we must not allow that to happen.

innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being. if there are suspicions it is ok to take precautions, and obviously those who are victims should be able to seek and get support even if they can't prove what happened. but any actions against the accused must not be irreversible until a verdict has been reached.

part of the reason this is necessary is because as a society we are not doing well with forgiveness especially in cases where someone has been wrongfully accused. to many times their life has been destroyed anyways.

> innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being.

that is ludicrous.

people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people without clearing any evidentiary bar.

that is part of entirely healthy human behavior.

individuals maybe, but large organizations that people depend on no. and even as individuals we need to be careful to not allow prejudice to control our actions. some people take "being black" as a red flag.

the fact that some people treat 'being black' as a red flag, doesn't negate the utility of treating 'probably a narcissist' as a red flag.

it does negate people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people because you are not free to have whatever red flags you want. if you see red flags you should evaluate them and make sure they are not just prejudice.

you're actually free to be racist in your personal life. nobody will imprison you.

at home, sure, but not in public.

remember that joke about a someone in an airplane sitting next to a black person, complaining loudly that they want to sit somewhere else. the stewardess comes over and says: "my apologies, it is of course unacceptable that you should have to sit next to such an obnoxious person". and then invites the black person into first class to everyones applause.

you can actually be racist in public as well.

get out of a swimming pool if a black person shows up and nobody can or will force you back into it.

you can leave, but if you complain you should probably be kicked out.

i don't know why we are having such a stupid argument. it should be clear that racism is unacceptable and that it doesn't give you any right to show disrespect.

I said "people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people" and you continue to twist what was a statement about free association into statements (that you want to argue about) regarding active discrimination. If you'd stop doing that, the argument would end pretty quickly.

that's because i have always only been concerned about active discrimination. and your statement is too generic to exclude that. let me repeat what i said:

innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being

as individuals we need to be careful to not allow prejudice to control our actions

if you see red flags you should evaluate them and make sure they are not just prejudice

you seem to be claiming that the right to free association should allow people to remain to be racist. no, it shouldn't.

i not twisting anything, especially not since this thread started with your criticism of my first statement, and this whole argument looks like you seemingly trying to use the right of free association to excuse people being racist.

what if a person was asking for help? but they couldn't because you turned away? can you see how an action that according to you is just your expression of free association turns into active discrimination?

Like I've said elsewhere. Everything is simple till it happens to you

"The court of public opinion" used to be called "witch burning".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com