[aka1234]

> "No, the criminal in the above is absolutely on the wrong side of the law. That's the assumption after all."

In America at least, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So the assumption should be that the defendant is on the right side of the law. It's the prosecutor or complainant's job to prove the defendant is in fact on the wrong side of the law.

To call a defendant 'the criminal' (and saying the defendant is in the wrong) is putting the cart before the horse.

[gpm]

You're nitpicking the language in a hypothetical here. Of course the court can't assume the defendant is guilty, but the purpose of the word criminal here is to say that in the hypothetical the defendant did actually commit the crime they are accused of.

[jjcon]

> You're nitpicking the language in a hypothetical here.

That is exactly what you are doing by picking a bone with the phrase wrong side of the law

[gpm]

No, it isn't. By saying the EFF is on the wrong side of the law you are implying that they are acting badly, this is simply not the case and needs correcting.

There is a reason why falsley accusing someone of a crime is libel in and of itself and is actionable under the law regardless of damages, I don't think this quite reaches that standard, but it is damn close.

[jjcon]

EFF IS on the wrong side of the law. Yes everyone deserves a defense but you yourself admitted IA was in the wrong and EFF is choosing to go to bat for them.

[gpm]

No. As explained above acting as legal council for someone who has broken the law does not make you yourself be "on the wrong side of the law".

[jjcon]

And as I said - EFF isn’t acting as blind legal council - they are tying themselves to IA even saying they are proud to stand with them and pledging financial support for them. This is totally different from a public defender being elected for a citizen. I didn’t say it was illegal for EFF to do this or that they were breaking the law, I said they were on the wrong side of the law.

[__s]

Read their argument in the context of legal proceedings after the defendant pleads guilty

The lawyer is still on the right side of the law after the plea

[jjcon]

A defense attorney defending a guilty criminal doesn’t typically pledge financial and moral support and state publically that they are proud to stand with them (not for, with). EFF is tying themselves to IA far beyond just acting purely as a legal representative.

[gpm]

Taking a political stance that the existing law is bad is not only not illegal, but it is one of the few things that is very explicitly legal. Doing so does not put you on the wrong side of the law. This includes when your political actions involve making statements in support of, defending and funding the legal defense of those who have broken the law.

[chadash]

> In America at least, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Is this true for civil cases? I presume no one is being charged with a crime here...

[aka1234]

> Is this true for civil cases? I presume no one is being charged with a crime here...

Yes. The publishers are saying 'the Internet Archive violated my rights and has caused monetary damages. They owe us for those damages.' It's up to the publishers to provide that the Internet Archive violated those rights.

Now civil trials and criminal trials have different standards for evidence and determining guilt. In criminal trials, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a criminal offense.

In civil cases, the complainant (plaintiff) just has to prove via a 'preponderance of the evidence' that their rights were violated. Meaning, it's more likely than not their rights were violated.