That depends. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the framework of most Western law. This creates more burden on the prosecution (i.e., the police), and creates a law enforcement environment that biases as "guilty until proven innocent".
I called the police to get my daughter to a hospital. Long story short, I gave all the details, and am now a convicted felon. I published the whole story online if you want to dig. My story isn't special, either, and people who believe the law defines morality have been very fortunate to lead such a sheltered life.
One important reality, though, is that "forced" is a sticky word here. Anyone sufficiently anti-FAANG and tech-savvy enough will find a workaround, so the constraints are far less than most dominant forces across the lens of history.
To put it bluntly, men are dumber. They're wired for task-to-task thinking, and their purposes are heavily motivated by challenges.
Women, by contrast, are wired for safety, which is a far more holistic approach to purpose because they consider connections men wouldn't even _consider_.
The downside of being smarter, though, is more unease about things you see that may present as a risk. It keeps females away from the bottom of the performance bell curve (men rank lowest in most metrics), but also from the top (men rank highest as well).
All of it is reprogrammable by operant conditioning (a large part of it often happening within marriage), but those are the biological primitives.
I'm not so certain about that. In the world of securities, civil lawsuits are a profit-making scheme.
I'm not an expert on it, so I'm wondering: as it stands, can an SEC court indicate that Amazon made a material change to their company value by walking their promise to be greener back?
Who, exactly, is responsible for the FBI, CIA, NSA, et al. if they over-reach?
We tend to believe there's an implicit checks-and-balances system in place, but the most dramatic historical time time a government official wanted to defund a secret-holder of the government was JFK.
In other words, how is this not a quiet dictatorship by another name?
What I have concerns over, honestly, is the climate science driving these thoughts.
Nobody has explained to me sufficiently in plain language how carbon dioxide is bad for the environment. I've heard plenty of good explanations for water control, but my limited biology understanding has me presuming that more carbon emissions is advantageous to plants.
The USA's legal system is, plainly, only driven by the interests of the groups willing to pay the insanely high legal fees to do anything about it.
Over here, privacy is an afterthought, and I sincerely doubt anyone will discuss it this election: nobody profits financially from it.