[redm]

"court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet on the grounds that his or her constitutional rights being violated"

"Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought."

So if they are found innocent, it wasn't Murder thus the scenario your suggesting is not valid. The principle of Innocent until Provent Guilty still applies and is a fundamental tenant of American law.

[toomuchtodo]

You're confusing murder and manslaughter. Murder requires a level of intent. Manslaughter does not.

[redm]

I believe you misunderstood my point/opinion.

The original comment stated a murderer (alleged in this case) is tried and found innocent of Murder by a court of law and then, due to this ruling, may take down information to the extent it defames them.

My point was that if a Judge/Jury acquited the alleged murderer, then they are, by definition, not guilty of murder.

Of course, it's rarely that black and white, i.e. OJ Simpson or someone getting off on a technicality, but since were discussing this at a high and abstract level, the alleged murderer should not be considered and treated as a murderer.

Furthermore, my second point was that everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and be innocent until proven guilty. The fictitious person in question should never have been called a murderer in the first place, just an alleged murder.

[toomuchtodo]

I believe I did misunderstand your point. Thank you for the clarification.