[cbanek]

> The Macomb County Sheriff’s office responded and found he criticized what Judge Rachel Rancilio pinned on Pinterest as in his opinion inappropriate

> The investigative report also says at no time did he threaten harm or violence.

The burden of proof should be on the side trying to restrict the rights (the judge), not the person exercising their rights. It seems like it was a judgement call over free speech.

Depriving someone of their rights while waiting for due process is not due process.

[mindslight]

Some level of judgment call is always going to be necessary, hence why there is a concept of authority in the first place. The problem is not that this happened, but rather that there is no accountability.

We've come to have absolutely zero faith that when fully resolved, the sheriff or judge will have been brought to justice, nor that the victim will be properly compensated for the time falsely imprisoned (by the government, which can then subrogate). This rot goes so deep that cops shamelessly boast of the corruption as in "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride".

If we want to regain faith in our public institutions, they need to be held accountable.

[DoofusOfDeath]

> The burden of proof should be on the side trying to restrict the rights (the judge)

That statement seems to beg the question, in this case.

[danShumway]

I'm not sure I follow.

I took GP to be arguing that a judge should not be able to preemptively strip someone of their rights before a jury of their peers has determined they're guilty of a crime.

There's an argument that could be made that bail should only be used for dangerous offenders or for flight risks. The father doesn't fall into either of those categories; even the investigative report admits he never made any actual threats.

So even if it's just on an emotional level, there is something kind of disturbing about the idea that someone can be locked up for 10 days over what seems to be pretty obviously protected speech. It's a blurry line, but at some point that turns into preemptive punishment.

None of that seems like obviously circular reasoning to me. I take GP to be arguing that in a just system, if a judge wants to see the father locked up or told to stop posting, the judge should first be required to have a trial with a jury.

[nailer]

What question is being begged?