Reply #35: Well if you say so, I guess it must be true, but . . .

[LawDem]

As long as we're being technical here, the presumption of innocence (and the broader concept of due process) can and often does apply to events outside the courtroom that may prejudice a defendant's rights to a fair trial inside the courtroom. For example, prejudicial pre-trial publicity may constitute a denial of due process because it precludes a defendant from receiving a trial before a fair and impartial jury. Gee, what do you think? Could parading a defendant in front of the TV sets of just about every possible juror in American be of some relevance to this concept?

And by the way, yes, even aside from this, another thing the presumption of innocence should do is to preclude the government from deliberately humiliating a defendant (who is innocent in the eyes of the law) in this fashion for political reasons.

Now, as to Freedom of Thought. I'm sure you understand that from a legal standpoint there really is no such thing. It's a term used, by judges as well as others, more in the philosophical sense, since obviously there is no way for the government to punish your pure thoughts. It's only when you express those thoughts that concrete First Amendment issues come into play. Of course, when that happens we are talking about constitutional rights specifically mentioned in the constitution such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression.

And while we're on the topic, suggesting that the philosophical use of the term "Freedom of Thought" applies solely to the context of "state action" is a bit out of step with a lot of great thinkers.