Is Weev the Anthony Michael Hall character? If so, I can’t wait to see the paper he writes on behalf of the group.

The problem of course is that no one is accused of being a rapist, one is accused as having committed a criminal act, and NOT ‘of being” something.

On can only be a criminal if on is found guilty of the criminal act.

“The accused criminal”….boy that sure preserves the presumption of innocence, don’t it?

i note your counter-examples don’t use characterizations which are prejudicial. banker, guitarist?
Why not murderer, thief?

To state “the accused murderer”….or “the accused thief”….oh no, such phrasing is clear, that no judgement has been made yet as to the accused person, eh? Really? It would “be silly” to claim otherwise? Such prejudicial phrases could be uttered by the Prosecutor to the Jury without on objection by the defense? That’s fair for the prosecution to use that phrasing, you think?

A very sloppy and very loose way of speaking, which tends to be – and I suspect not by accident, either – much to the prejudice of the accused person.

Ardent moralists do not care about legal rights, from what I’ve seen.

“One” for “on”, unless “on” ought to be a “no”, in the above.

The guy’s innocent in all respects until proven guilty, in my book. I care not what the accused’s alleged crime may be.

A trial of the evidence – and not the accused – is required.

It isn’t particularly noteworthy unless you find the nickname ominously suitable for Msr. Strauss-Kahn.

The accusation itself (ie of the crime of rape) must logically be proved prior to the subject being able to carry the denominative qualification of being such as he is accused of being (ie a rapist).

The phrase, “the accused rapist” only makes sense if and only if the accused has already, previously been found guilty of the act which allows him to be so qualified. Until then, he is only an accused person – in this case, the accused banker. “The banker accused of rape.” That is true, that is accurate.

BUT NOT “The rapist accused of rape.”

See the problem now?
Words are important!

As a paedophile(urges, not actions), I can tell you that the risk to my family and friends is at the forefront of my mind every time I jump behind seven proxies and contact someone about my condition. If I tried to comply with a perfectly reasonable request to phone in that an adviser at Stop It Now made, I’d be shitting my eyeballs worrying that my voice was going to be recorded or recognised somehow. That leaves us with the less-than-stellar option of discussing the issue over email, a process that is more than slow enough to have me fighting the tendency to rationalise and sanitise what I say.

I don’t care if you think this guy’s a shitty person for putting in a good word about an alleged rapist, the benefits of not hounding people for associating with DSK outweigh any possible benefit of hounding them.

And how the hell can he afford this building? isn’t it 50k a month? Wouldn’t Weev lose the money he got from credit card fraud and iPad hacking after he was convicted? Did he manage to stuff a lot of it somewhere safe where some loopholes prevented him from giving it up, like a Swiss bank account or something?

Or maybe he just has a pot of gold from having a sweet leprechaun beard.

Like I used to tell a friend of mine 10+ years ago who lied & charmed his way through a number of women in our circle (& had a child with 3 different women): You’re a great guy, funny, charming & intelligent but when my daughter turns 12, we’re history as you just cannot be trusted around women.

Why everyone just runs with whatever he says is beyond me.

Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble, but nobody in France would use “Dom” as a nickname for Dominique. (A real French nickname would be Domi, pronounced doh-mee.) So in addition to being so far off-topic you can no longer glimpse it with a telescope, your statement is as ludicrous as Weev’s own antics.

Thanks for playing.

Is Weeve a trust fund baby, or does he make a ton of money as a hacker?

I wouldn’t…:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/26/us-strausskahn-prosecutors-idUSTRE74P70V20110526?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29

“Alleged rapist” is a better, and more accurate, appellation.

He is presumed innocent…or does the word “presume” now mean whatever the Police Prosecutors and the Press says it means?

or is mere accusation now enough to establish a person’s guilt, if the accuser is properly presented by the Media?

I think you all really ought to wait until the accuser’s testimony has been subjected to a thorough cross-examination by competent counsel, unsympathetic to the witness, in a public courtroom, BEFORE presuming to call the accused a “rapist”.

Or has “American justice” now become just a matter of lip service, of merely formal obeisance to rules and principles, without any regard being had of the substance of the ideals upon which American jurisprudence was once based?

Oh well sex sells, and sexual morality plays sell even better – unlike the dry rights guaranteed the accused under the Law. Right, editors?

IMHO , no accused’s name ought ever to be published before conviction, if they are already in custody.
It does not serve justice, only the interests of the profit-seeking media – and other assassins of character too – to do otherwise.