2296
2297

PSA friendly reminder (i.imgur.com)

sjl127 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]crack-cocaine-novice 19ポイント20ポイント  (11子コメント)

This is just not true... Anything I say on the internet could be completely made up or bullshit. I'm sober now but when I was using I used to post tons of pictures and all sorts of shit about my drug use (go far enough back in my post history and you'll see), and the fact is, nothing could really be used against me in court. The pictures could arguably all be fake or props of some kind, in fact my entire profile could just be some "persona" I've made up for fun. Not on this account, but on other accounts and other websites I used to post pictures of decently large amounts of drugs as well as being pretty detailed about where I got them. Shit can't be used in court, even this post. I could just as easily be making all this up, or claim someone posted on my account that wasn't me.

Same goes for really anything said, it's pretty impossible to prove that when someone says something on the Internet they aren't joking, lying, or just fucking around.

[–]kolhaircut 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hey buddy, it's your friend. What's your address again?

I'm going to pretend to not send you a bunch of drugs

And you're going to pretend to give me the real address

And when you get something in the mail, you'll pretend it's not drugs

And when you open the package, you'll pretend to not use the drugs

Drugs

[–]saber1001 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

Except during a deposition or trial you would have to perjure yourself when presented with social media posts and at the end of the day foundation could be established by methods way outside of your control. The real legal world doesn't stop at playground "you can't prove it was me" arguments.

[–]Hight5 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

The real legal world doesn't stop at playground "you can't prove it was me" arguments.

It does, actually. "Do you have proof that I did this?" "No." "I rest my case, your honor"

[–]saber1001 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

Except I already said they can get proof. They can show social media posts with your name, get tesitmony from others that you use that account or are known by the account name, show other non incriminating posts that show your identity, etc... Not to mention getting ip address data, meta data, etc... If presented with this evidence and the person still denies, it's not like the judge just throws their hand up since enough foundation is laid then good luck telling a jury it's the internet where nothing can be proven.

The idea where guilty people can soley rely on the internet to mask their actions only exists on reddit.

[–]Hight5 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

You aren't understanding at all. If you have no proof of something, you can't accuse some one of that 'something'

You provided examples where there is proof...

[–]saber1001 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm responding to the post where the idea was that there is no proof for online statements outside of confirmation from the perpetrator, which is just not true.

Edit: This entire argument was responding to someone who acknowledged they had incriminating posts but that it couldn't be proven. Reality is that it could and for every online post there is always other ways to prove. The ease and availability of doing so depends but the magic words of "prove it was me, prove it was not a joke" is not some be all end all for online evidence of illegal activity.

[–]KSrager92 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Actually, it's pretty easy to become admissible especially during discovery. The only hard part would be whether it is relevant, which in itself is a pretty easy standard to prove: is it more or less likely to prove that a certain fact exists. R. 403. They can use it as character evidence, and if you're the defendant in the case, its a statement used against a party by a party (R. 801(b)(2)) they can also use it to impeach you by prior inconsistent statement, bias, or for many other uses. Tying it to you would also be pretty easy. And whether you meant it or not, you wrote it, and if it is relevant, it can be used against you.

[–]PERVERTED_PANCAKES 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well, first of all you need to know whether you're dealing in criminal or civil court. Civilly, you have to prove that it exists, that its relevant, and that its not protected by privilege. Of coursing proving it exists might be pretty easy if its publicly available, and being publicly available also implies it's not privileged. Like, I'm also pretty sure you could just not disclose it, move for summary judgment, or settle if you don't want the information getting out. I don't know why you're assuming tying it you would be easy. An anonymous forum like reddit is going be difficult to tie to someone. It's only going to be easy when you're talking about a public social networking profile or a public blog or website post with your name clearly associated with the statements. There are many tools in the arsenal of competent counsel when it comes to protecting your client's interests within the bounds of ethics and the law. Of course, not putting anything on the internet in the first place is the ideal course of action.

[–]saber1001 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agree, but if they already found the reddit post chances are they have other links to prove it and at that point denying it when presented during discovery is not ethical.

Their lawyers may or may not know otherwise and if not are perfectly fine in forcing enough foundation to be laid then it comes down to whether the other side will prove it up but it still can be proven up regardless if the defendant denies it.

[–]KSrager92 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're right. Tying it to the individual would be hard, but not impossible. It happens all the time. Civilly, and only a fraction the larger criminal procedure, you would need to prove that this person owns this account, and he has access to this account, bonus if you get exclusive control established. Civilly it would be easier because of the preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), but criminally, you invoke a bunch of 4th amendment issues which I REALLY don't want to go through (long story short, reasonable expectation of privacy, warrent requriement, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, seizure, and search issues." But like I said, it's not entirely impossible. Difficult, yes, but if it's worth proving, why not?