|
|
|
|
|
|
by literallywho
183 days ago
|
|
|
>You'd somehow have to prove you didn't look at it, ever, or at least be trusted enough for people to take your word for it. How could one prove a negative? It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, isn't it? They'd have to prove that you've looked at the spec files. |
|
|
In the US at least, for criminal cases, the burden of proof for guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt". For civil cases they are much more lenient and use the "reasonable person" standard.