mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> > Raj Feridun wrote:
>
> >> If Clinton raped someone let them come forward and press charges.
>
> > There are valid reasons why people who are assaulted may not come forward,
> > publicly or otherwise. Untruth is only one, and a minor one at that.
>
> But no valid reason for a trial before deciding guilt or innocence?

NOBODY knowing is a perfectly valid reason for a trial, though any verdict still
does not determine what if anything, has already happened. Parties involved may
know perfectly well what did or did not happen, but simply choose not to tell or
admit to the truth.

> >> Then a jury can decide based on the evidence and testimony. Failing that
> >> you really need to just shut up with the unfounded aspersions.
>
> > So do you believe the decision of a judge who is not involved in the matter,
> > or a randomly selected bunch of amateurs, likewise not involved in the
> > matter, and probably selected specifically because they know little or
> > nothing of the case or scientific issues involved for the prosecution or
>
> So, you are opposed to the US Constitution?

The parts and usages that protect criminals.

And I fail to see why you so specifically limit the discussion to the US
Constitution in this post or another. Why not note, for example, how Japan, under
their own Constitution granting freedom of speech and press, has put more
restrictions on sexual depictions of those under 18 (but also grown more tolerant
regarding what is permissible in adult entertainment) in recent years?