• FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 days ago

    It’s something like when someone openly commits murder but, until they’re convicted, they only “allegedly” did it

    • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      If someone openly commits murder, you are in fact allowed to say they did it without saying “allegedly”. Otherwise there would be no free speech, it would mean you could not say anything that was not already whitelisted by the state.

          • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            But I’m talking about cases where it is plainly obvious that these people committed the murders, but they still don’t state it as a fact unless they’re convicted

            • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              So I am not a lawyer. But it can’t possibly be the case, that you are not allowed to publicly say something trivially provably true, unless you have a court’s word that it is true. That would effectively mean that there is zero free speech.

              • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                I don’t know if it’s that they’re not allowed by law or it’s media policy, but this is what they do. The guy who committed mass murder at a movie theater in 2012, for example, was referred to as an accused killer. Also, nowhere did I say they weren’t legally allowed to call these people murderers, I said that they don’t. I was responding to a comment about how the media words these things as if they aren’t obviously true.