re: ACLU goes full retard: innocent until proven guilty unfairly favors the accused

quote:

---

Also, by saying that that the harassment has to "effectively denies a person equal access to the school's education program or activity" seems like a high bar for the accuser to have to clear to have the accused be culpable for harassment.

---

considering this is under Title 9, it seems like the appropriate definition

quote:

---

The only part of the proposed rule that seems like it needs work is the definition of sexual harassment. It would be defined as unwelcome sexual conduct that's "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the school's education program or activity."

---

From a philosophical standpoint, I agree with your premise since they don't define the sexual conduct qualified as "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive," would be more helpful if they provided more illustrative, bright line criteria but thats the text of the rule and, if ambiguous, consult the legislative history so I respect that.

quote:

---

Also, by saying that that the harassment has to "effectively denies a person equal access to the school's education program or activity" seems like a high bar for the accuser to have to clear to have the accused be culpable for harassment.

---

Its comments like these that open you up to ridicule and derision OF COURSE there should be a high bar for accusers to meet before ruining an accused's life and reputation, thats the whole point of due process and the 4-6 Amendments and the Equal Access provision is straight Title IX text so I can't fault them for going textualist on me.

quote:

---

If it is, they need to explain why they have changed their position on the presumption of innocence or why it is somehow different here.

---

it can be summarized in 3 words: orange man bad

i can't wait to see their nuanced position, though, to see them try to do just this.

quote:

---

Do you think the ACLU's position on this is actually "innocent until proven guilty unfairly favors the accused"?

If it is, they need to explain why they have changed their position on the presumption of innocence or why it is somehow different here.

---

Another stupidass comment, when renowned and powerful organizations like the ACLU publish controversial headlines/statements like this that imply injuring the concept of due process and proof beyond reasonable doubt as relates to the accused, rightly makes them vulnerable to criticism ITS SUPPOSED TO BE HARD FOR THE STATE OR STATE ACTOR TO PUNISH A PRIVATE CITIZEN, THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COUNTRY DUUUDE

The fact that the ACLU supports literal kangaroo courts shows you exactly where they stand.

These are the same people that ran anti Kavanaugh commercials because he wouldn't admit that he might have committed a crime

quote:

---

since I don't know much about Title IX.

---

That's never prevented you from posting about other topics on here....

quote:

---

But it just feels like a pretty big burden for the accuser. But of course, the rulings likely have or will have flesh out the standard.

---

The accuser has absolutely no burden under the original rules. The accused isn't allowed to know who is accusing them nor are they allowed access to legal representation or cross examination. The accused was essentially guilty and had to prove their innocence without being able to present evidence. Why would you remotely support something like that?

quote:

---

Another stupidass comment, when renowned and powerful organizations like the ACLU publish controversial headlines/statements like this that imply injuring the concept of due process and proof beyond reasonable doubt as relates to the accused, rightly makes them vulnerable to criticism ITS SUPPOSED TO BE HARD FOR THE STATE OR STATE ACTOR TO PUNISH A PRIVATE CITIZEN, THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COUNTRY DUUUDE

---

Do you have some personal aversion to grammar and sentence structure? Can you translate that into everyday English?

quote:

---

Do you have some personal aversion to grammar and sentence structure? Can you translate that into everyday English?

---

IDK you're the supposed "attorney" around here maybe you should be better at reading comprehension, surprised anyone would ever give you a law license if thats actually the case

quote:

---

We advocate for fair school disciplinary processes that uphold the rights of both parties in campus sexual assault and harassment cases.

Today Secretary DeVos proposed a rule that would tip the scales against those who raise their voices.

We strongly oppose it.

---

quote:

---

The new proposal adds protections for accused students, giving them a presumption of innocence throughout the disciplinary process and the right to review all evidence a school collects. They would also be able to cross-examine their accusers, although it would be done indirectly through a representative to avoid personal confrontation.

---

The denial of the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to cross examine one's accuser is the denial of two of the cornerstones of due process.

All dictatorships require the denial of those two rights so deny citizens of those two rights and you can kiss all of your constitutional rights and freedoms goodbye.