[NTLK] SOPA Legislation

[Tony Kan]

Actually any law that breaches the ancient "innocent until proven guilty
presumption" is bad law.  There is good reason why this presumption has been
adopted as it recognizes that a false negative (resulting in a not guilty
ruling when in fact that person was guilty) is better than a false positive
(resulting in a guilty ruling when in fact the person was innocent).  It's
so ancient that traces of it can be seen in 6th Century Roman Law and Jesus
Christ predates that example by promoting it in Matthew 13:24-30 circa 30
AD.

Doesn't the DMCA also have similar provisions where accusers can have the
accused banned from an internet service without needing to prove the
accused's guilt?

Cheers

Tony Kan

Christchurch
New Zealand

-----Original Message-----
From: newtontalk-bounces at newtontalk.net
[mailto:newtontalk-bounces at newtontalk.net] On Behalf Of Laurence W Brown
Sent: Monday, 16 January 2012 7:08 p.m.
To: newtontalk at newtontalk.net
Subject: Re: [NTLK] (no subject)

It - meaning the below analysis of SOPA - appears to be correct, and if so
could eventually harm any site or service that any company decides, for
whatever reason, however outrageous or flimsy, the continuing operation of
which they do not wish to permit. Said corporate entitity gets to shut them
down, and /if/ there's enough money to fight, /maybe/ the victim can come
back by "proving themselves innocent." SOPA is, truly, an excellent example
of the law that money can buy.

Sent from my 2Padc
[snip]