• h3rm17@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      The burden of proof works the exact opposite way. You make a claim, then you need to support verifiable and damnable evidence. Not the other way around.

        • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          This isn’t a court trial tbh

          So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework.

          what has come forth from Madison’s side

          Which is, to be perfectly fair, limited to he-said-she-said which isn’t evidence. It’s just an allegation and very little can be decided from that alone.

          At this point there is exactly zero useful information to actually derive any real decision from.

          • Default_Defect@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            So just because it’s not a court trial means we should throw out innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is non-negotiable. These ideas have existed for centuries, they aren’t a purely legal framework.

            I’m under no obligation to give LMG the benefit of the doubt, if I choose to abstain from watching their content due to the allegations, then that is my prerogative. My choosing to make a decision without proof either way doesn’t harm LMG further than the loss of ad revenue, etc.

            That’s the difference.