[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.

[gpm]

I'm beginning to think you actually just don't know what "the wrong side of the law" means. Here is the definition

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20the%20wrong%...

Exercising their first amendment rights to support an organization that broke the law is unequivocally legal, a healthy part of society, and not on the wrong side of the law.