In the Game room, there’s a thread about someone accused of rape. The usual pile-on has happened. Yet in both America and here in the U.K., we have an official presumption of innocence. And false claims of rape are not uncommon - q.v. the Duke case.
Should the SDMB have some sort of policy, explicitly noting the presumption of innocence?
No, because that would be silly. We (the posters) are not the government, and as such we are not bound to respect presumption of innocence. We are perfectly free to speculate all we want.
As another example of how not being the government frees you from governmental restrictions, this board does not have to respect free speech.
EDIT: Here is a link to the thread referred to in the OP.
The thing is, we can be sued for not using allegedly. Why do you think every news organization does it? And the Dope cares a lot about being sued.
But mostly it’s a case of people having no problem being prejudiced, but freak out if their government is.
It’s not prejudice to have an opinion.
I am sure that poor ol’ Lawrence Taylor is just sick that the meanies on SDMB are not respecting his “presumption of innocence”…
I"m not even sure if the Board can be sued just because some posters don’t use “allegedly.” I rather doubt it.
Gfactor would be our go to guy on this. He’s a, pardon the expression, lawyer. 
Presumption of innocence, please! Alledgedly a lawyer.
I’m not so much worried about the board’s legal liability as the attitude displayed by posters. IMHO posters who pre-judge guilt should look closely in a mirror. Judge not, lest ye be judged and all that.
Again, there have been some very high profile cases where the accuser has been shown to be a liar. There’s not only the Duke case in the U.S., but also the Hamiltons in the U.K. Just because the accused are - or appear to be - lowlifes doesn’t mean that they are automatically guilty.
I actually agree with you 100% on this. For the average person (or for anyone without a mile long track record of lawbreaking behavior) presumption of innocence is a right that should be held absolutely sacred.
However, with the specific case we are talking about, it is impossible for me to give LT any benefit of the doubt. This man is an anti-social animal, who has been caught many, many, many times in similar situations with illegal drugs, domestic violence episodes, consorting with prostitutes and various other similar behavior, and he has NEVER been made to show any accountability—He has always recieved a slap on the wrist and sent on his way, all because of his money, fame and past athletic glory.
It may make me less of a fair minded person in other peoples eyes, but I would bet my bottom dollar that Lawrence Taylor indeed paid for sex with this underaged young woman, exactly as he is accused of doing…
I don’t think it should be mandated as a rule.
Nevertheless I will usually look very poorly upon someone who doesn’t give the suspect the benefit of the doubt without having first hand knowledge of the case. There’s simply far too much nonsense in the press to trust it, and rape is very frequently made up; indeed anecdotally I have heard that women who have not been raped are actually more likely to report a rape in a one night stand kind of scenario than women who have been raped have been, which is a horrendous state of affairs for absolutely everyone.
In this particular case, had he been of good character my personal view is that he should have been given the benefit of the doubt until the trial. Given his previous history… I think it’s reasonable to be pretty sure he did it, or something wrong anyway.
This is not true.
It would be a bad bad BAD rule. We are just people having conversations here, not some kind of official body.
The SDMB is neither a court of law (limited by law), nor a news organization (limited by custom). We are a bunch of people yakking at each other (limited by nothing), and are as free to offer our opinion as to guilt or innocence as if we were standing around the microwave at lunchtime at work.
We are limited by the rules of the board, but, IMHO, those rules should not include this change for all of the points made above and in you own post.
Cite it, then. How is not libel if I say that so-and-so killed someone? Sure keeps news people from saying it.
There’s no need for a rule like this. I’m not sure what it’s supposed to say - would we require the OP to start his post by saying “In the U.S., everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?” Would a mod have to pop into every thread about a legal case and issue a reminder? It’s unnecessary and I don’t see the point. People know how the legal system works. It is not intended to prevent laypeople from having opinions about cases or the people involved in them.
The people who own newspapers and stations are in the business of making money, so if they feel they can avoid a lawsuit by inserting a single word into their copy, they are going to do that. For the same reason, a lot of papers and stations will identify an accused criminal by his full name [hence the old joke “have you ever noticed that all the presidential assassins have three names?”] to prevent confusion with someone who has the same first and last name but no middle name. Do they have to do this? No.
It’s possible for news organizations to influence a criminal case or the sway public perception of an individual accused of a crime. This is a message board. It has a smaller reach and does not have the same authority. It’s essentially a group of people shooting the breeze. It’s not a news station or network.
As for libel and slander defenses: it’s not libel if it’s true, for starters. If you sue someone for libel or slander, you have to prove that they spoke with either intent to harm you or reckless disregard for the truth, and you have to prove that you were harmed by their statements. If you’re being prosecuted for murder, good luck proving that your reputation was harmed by a message board post.
Wait. Wait. Wait. Back up.
If by we, you mean posters, yes they remain liable for their own torts–defamation being an example of defamation. If, by we, you mean the board, I’m not going to go into it, beyond saying we’re probably not liable.
But you are assuming, somehow that not using “allegedly”=defamation, and simultaneously assuming that using “allegedly” means you’re not defaming someone. Neither of these assumptions is correct. See e.g., Mason & Smith, Magazine law: a practical guide - Page T-4 (1998) , Magazine Law: A Practical Guide - Peter Mason, Derrick Smith - Google Books (This is apparently a book on the defamation law of England, but US law is similar on this point).
Yup – you’d never be able to have a single conversation about a criminal case – or at least, they’d be incredibly boring. No one would be allowed to offer one’s opinion – just state the facts of the case over and over and over.
Pardon me, but this is one big steaming pile. (The argument, that is, not said poster). EVERYONE judges everyone and everything. We’re talking about a big case, in the media, and everyone is looking at the facts and offering their opinions.
Basically, YOUR opinion is that no one else should offer THEIR opinion on a criminal case. Because that would be “judging.” Correct?
I should probably point out here that, given the SDMB is avaliable in England, and therefore published there, any posters here can be sued in England if they say something libellous under our law, which is rather stricter than yours… this is the reason the National Enquirer blocks British IPs.
It seems to me that whenever a case is reported posters will side with whatever they want to be true…