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.
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.