The entire guilty until proven innocent is for criminal and civil trials
Actually, it's only for criminal trials. Civil trials are decided on the basis of "the preponderance of evidence."
No, I'm pretty sure he had it right. These days you're guilty until proven innocent in both types of trials. Hell, you may not even see a courtroom, if your "crime" fits the narrative of the day. The press will make your life hell anyway. Terrorism, sexual assault, drugs.
Nearly all companies worth working for have drug testing requirements. So it's not as easy as "you don't have to work for them." You effectively can't work for anybody in entire swaths of industry for doing something that is so harmless, several states have decided to legalize it. Do companies check to make sure you aren't violating other laws? Certainly. Do they make you prove your innocence on a quarterly basis? Of course not. That only happens with drug use.
Some employers even have you sign agreements not to drink in public, drive 5 mph under the speed limit, stay under a certain weight, or my personal favorite-- back in to all parking spots. Let's not forget some companies (e.g. church schools) still fire people for being gay. My employer doesn't allow me to post negative comments about my company on forums. Should this shit be legal?
Seems to me that if a person is doing their job well, that a company shouldn't have the right to fire them. I live in an "at will" state. We can fire somebody because the sky is cloudy, and they can't do anything about it. That seems pretty fucked up to me.
I offer proof that 5 is bigger than 15, after all is not one fifth bigger than one fifteenth...
Gee, I don't know. I ain't never seen a fifteenth of whiskey.
...Someone from the back row shouts out "Because our AdSense profile has determined you were visiting websites about cigarettes recently, your health insurance premium has gone up by 5% and you will probably die slightly sooner. Remember, [i]f you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place!"
Is it cynicism if you're just using a Markov chain to predict what other Slashdotters will say?
(Although obviously this is auto insurance, so I'm sure someone can translate the threat appropriately.)
3. Those limits imposed by society. i.e. I'm not allowed to make wiener jokes around my wife's friends. But this isn't a legal limitation, it's a "I don't want to get hit with pots and pans" limitation.
Is that really so different from "I don't want to get get shot at or firebombed by fans of the prophet." Using violence or threats of violence to curb unwanted speech is an age-old phenomenon. I am surprised that people are just now getting rankled about it.
I'm a little befuddled by your conflation of European free speech curbing and the run-up to WWII. Keep in mind that most of the press during WWII was very right-wing and pro-fascist. And not just in Germany. There were several US and British newspapers that saw nothing wrong with Brownshirts destroying the godless communists and social democrats. In fact, it was common for the pro-fascists to hide behind free speech laws when "marching." They would claim it was just a legal protest against social democrats (and Jews). But that's a little off-topic and lot Godwin.
If there is a sentence I could tell the Canadian government it would be " FUCK YOU !! "
Funny, that's the same sentence I hear from Dice with that beta link.
Link to Original Source