view the rest of the comments
news
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
No. It should not be acceptable to knowingly lie
Well I agree with you - which is precisely why we should have a functioning and fair system for adjudicating claims, establishing facts, and evaluating the merit of various arguments.
One can and perhaps should imagine a more collaborative model of justice, but our current model is adversarial and, arguably, gladiatorial. Both sides present the strongest possible version of their case - intentional misrepresentation by prioritizing favorable context/evidence and ignoring, minimizing, or calling into question damning context/evidence is by definition what each side is supposed to do. By aggressively pursuing each party's interests to the extreme, neither can say they didn't receive a robust and fair hearing of their position. In fact, they had the best possible representation of their position and very likely better than they could have formulated on their own. Then the jury or judge weighs the merits, truth, and context against each other and determines which side is more trustworthy/meritorious. That can include punishment for perjury if either party knowingly lied.
To pre-assert that some people are not allowed to make claims in their own defense is wildly out of line with any presumption of innocence until proven guilty and immediately likely to result in further abuse of the most marginalized.
Where's the lie? They said he's a vet and he's x age, therefore he can't be dangerous. The fact that that's a fucking ridiculous and obviously weak defense only means that it's that much easier to say "no, fuck you, that's dumb, to the wall"
People have the right to put forward their best defense, and in cases like this where their crime is completely indefensible, that doesn't help them