First, he didn’t even give the typical, whiney, ‘he’s accused but not convicted’ defense. No, Stallman went much further than that.
I find it curious that she talks about this as if it is a bad thing. The most sensible thing is to wait until conviction to pass judgement. Why is that whiney?
> The most sensible thing is to wait until conviction to pass judgement.
This is the most sensible thing if you're a juror on a case. Otherwise, judgment may be called for long before a trial even starts, particularly when it comes to dead men (or participants in an elite criminal network which operates above the law) who will never even be brought to trial.
> This is the most sensible thing if you're a juror on a case.
No, it's the most sensible thing in each and every single case, whether you're a juror or just someone reading the news.
Let the pitchforks remain in the past, and let's enjoy the benefits of living in a civilized society where rule of law and demonstration of guilt is what dictates punishment.
Do you honestly believe moral judgments of historical or famous figures have to be suspended in every case where word of their misdeeds emerged after their deaths and they were never brought to trial?
It's painfully obvious that "moral judgement" should not be mandated by a random blogger with an axe to grind and desperately seeking the spotlight to signal his/her own personal moral virtues to the world.
Everything else is the equivalent to grasping at pitchforks.
I find it curious that she talks about this as if it is a bad thing. The most sensible thing is to wait until conviction to pass judgement. Why is that whiney?