[Skybird]

With the court sentence against Weinstein, dangerous ground has been entered. When guilt no longer must be proven by evidence, but can just be claimed to make it sufficient for a guilty-verdict, then this is very worrying. Unwanted opinions can easily be supressed then - not by mobbing the perosn holding that opinion or by yelling the speakign person down at a university mob meeting, but by indeed loicking this person away in prison.

This comes at a time when "micro-aggressions" are being used as an excuse for demanding the other to not voice his opinion if somebody else feels "insulted or hurt" by it, China implementing a system of social reward points for publicly demonstrated collective compliance and social sanctionising of behaviour not expressing compliance, , and in Germany the SPD tries to reach legislation that encourages mutual denounciation, developing an app for making it easy to denounce somebody, and wanting to form a full new security apparatus behind this mechanism. C claimed to be just for hunting Nazis and hate comments and racism, it in fact is open for denoucning everything and everybody which and whom you do not like and claim to feel offended by - with the state immediately jumping by your side to your rescue, so is the plan. We have had denocunciation regimes in Germany already twice, first in the third Reich, and then in the SED regime in the GDR. Now we seem to get it for the third time.

I do not like Weinstein, to make that clear. But the witchhunting mentality that is spreading in civil societies throughout the West and the systematic erosion of most profound principles of our law and order system by courts and governments themselves, I like much, much less. They are dangerous. And they are there to be abused - and they will be abused. Thats why they are being implemented. The abuse in the name of wanted opinion manipulation, is the intention. Gleichschaltung.

Dangerous grounds. And it gets worse year by year.

An evidence-.based sentence is difficult to be acchieved at times, it is hard to bear at times that sometimes it is not possible, and it means more work in general, but it is in our best interest if we stick to this fundamental principle: in dubio pro reo. Guilt must not just be claimed, but must be proven by evidence. Else we sooner or later end up in hell's kitchen. And its not as if we have not already seen claims of sexual assault dissappearing in admittance of it being a lie to just damage the accused on grounds of false claims.