I understand the use of ‘allegedly’ when it is about a crime that is still under investigation. But a punch?
How is that ‘allegedly’?
Was it in a dark alley away from prying eyes?
If you see a guys fist and a victim’s face, what more do you need?
You all are talking past each other because you’re talking about different things. They can’t say he’s guilty until he’s convicted, because he isn’t guilty until then. They also don’t have to say he ‘allegedly’ punched someone when multiple people reported witnessing it, the other guy’s face is bloody and and there is video of him hitting the guy. Saying he’s guilty of a crime and saying he punched someone are two different claims.
I understand the use of ‘allegedly’ when it is about a crime that is still under investigation. But a punch? How is that ‘allegedly’? Was it in a dark alley away from prying eyes? If you see a guys fist and a victim’s face, what more do you need?
Innocent until proven guilty. Newspapers can’t say someone is guilty if there wasn’t a trial yet.
Newspapers certainly can, because of the First Amendment, but they are cowardly.
No they legally can’t. It’s defamation until a verdict is in. First Amendment isn’t freedom from consequences of your speech.
It isn’t defamation unless it is actually false, and the risks are a civil lawsuit.
You all are talking past each other because you’re talking about different things. They can’t say he’s guilty until he’s convicted, because he isn’t guilty until then. They also don’t have to say he ‘allegedly’ punched someone when multiple people reported witnessing it, the other guy’s face is bloody and and there is video of him hitting the guy. Saying he’s guilty of a crime and saying he punched someone are two different claims.