This is just a refresher link to my post of last month. Ewen Macdonald has been found 'not guilty' of the murder of Scott Guy, however, in too many quarters he will remain guilty in the jury of the people, possibly for all of his life:
he needed his privacy during the trial, it's too late now. Between the Left, to run the fencing racket of their re-distribution, and the vigilante Right, we have all lost that necessary link to owning our lives;
our privacy.
The jury returned a verdict of "not guilty" not "innocent".
ReplyDeleteOkay. Literally yes. But literally, also, if someone, on the facts of a case is 'not guilty' of a crime, they are, 'therefore, innocent of that crime. What's the difference?
ReplyDeletePrivacy needs someone to enforce it mark!
ReplyDeleteI'm deeply pleased that I'm more extreme than you on this issue!
privacy is like fish. we must give up the right to have the state protect our privacy if we give up the state.
But as a classical liberal I believe in a role for a limited state to uphold the rule of law, including prosecution of murder. You've muddled up the issue again.
ReplyDeleteNot muddled at all.
ReplyDeleteThe role of the state should not extend to protecting privacy.
individuals may have a right to privacy but this is not the role of the state. I agree that perhaps the state should not facilitate invasions of privacy by publishing those bring prosecuted but that is as far as I would go.
you see. not muddled at all.
"There is no right to privacy; there is a right to be left alone." - Lindsay Perigo.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the difference?
ReplyDeleteThe jury returned a verdict of "not guilty" not "innocent".
ReplyDelete@eclectic
Innocent until proven guilty ...
I have a right to photograph you, but no right to force you to smile for the camera? But you'd better ask Linz ...
ReplyDeleteYeah, there is a subtle difference there.
ReplyDelete