Thought control??? (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###)

In article <v2ih2b$lqek$2@dont-email.me>, immibis  <news@immibis.com> wrote:

On 21/05/24 17:48, James Kuyper wrote:

It also doesn't apply outside the legal system. If you actually
witnessed a crime, you're not required to pretend that the perpetrator
is innocent, and if you've witnessed something exonerating, you're not
required to accept the decision of a court that incorrectly found
someone guilty.

>
In Germany you may be required to. Implying that someone committed a
crime which a court found them innocent of may be considered defamation
or insult.

I think you are beginning to get why it is a bad idea to be discussing
legal issues on an international forum like this one.  It all depends on
jurisdiction.  So, anyone who makes sweeping statements like "Innocent
until proven guilty" is making a bad assumption that all jurisdictions are
the same - the same as the one(s) with which the speaker is familiar.

Also, even in Germany, they can't control people's thoughts.  You are
still not required to *accept* trial court results.  You can think what you
want; you just (apparently) can't talk about it.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long.  As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs.  In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/LadyChatterley