[cma]

> You're condemning people who argue against you here, not because of anything they said, but because of your assumptions about what position they might have taken in a different controversy about different people.

Can you prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Should you have to?

[SpicyLemonZest]

Well, I’m not sure what “have to” means. If I got a Washington Post article published about how suchandsuch person made a HN comment I don’t like, I would call that a clear case of harassment, no matter how much proof I had that the comment was wrong.

[cma]

So the law should be Washington Post has a criminal-trial style burden of proof for articles?