We usually have “innocent until proven guilty”, not the other way around. He’s already guilty of being a billionaire, no need to add charges unnecessarily.
It’s a completely reasonable belief given everything we know about him that he has access to and consumes csam if he so desires.
That is a reasonable belief based on his actions and character but not provable court.
The real legal principle you’re looking for here is defamation and even then it doesn’t protect him because it’s totally reasonable to conclude he does such a thing
TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
We usually have “innocent until proven guilty”, not the other way around. He’s already guilty of being a billionaire, no need to add charges unnecessarily.
gustofwind@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Innocent until proven guilty is for a court of law not public opinion
lvxferre@mander.xyz 16 hours ago
“Innocent until proved guilty” is also a rather important moral principle, because it prevents witch hunts.
Plus we don’t even need to claim he got CSAM in his laptop — the fact that he leads a company covering child abusers is more than enough.
gustofwind@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Witch hunts? I think you are misguided here
It’s a completely reasonable belief given everything we know about him that he has access to and consumes csam if he so desires.
That is a reasonable belief based on his actions and character but not provable court.
The real legal principle you’re looking for here is defamation and even then it doesn’t protect him because it’s totally reasonable to conclude he does such a thing