All Accused People Should Have the Right to Name Suppression Until They are Proven Guilty.

I saw this debate elsewhere. (here [1] to be precise). It seems quite interesting, but PRO did not present an argument. (There were several back-to-back forfeits). Perhaps you might wish to actually engage in debate on the topic, Martley?I'm going to define a few terms here, as the resolution is really ambiguous otherwise.Firstly, it should be understood that "name suppression" refers specifically to the suppression of the release of the information of the accused to the public prior to the verdict. Meaning, if X is not found guilty, anyone who is not directly involved should not be aware that X is being charged., or, stated another way, only those who are involved in the trial should be aware of the information of the accused. "Right" in the scope of this debate should be understood as a legal right born of a moral right. The most obvious and easily accessible example I can find to describe this would be the right to Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly [2]. We can start from certain axiomatic statements (particularly those of Libertarian Origins*), and arrive at one's moral right to speak as they please, print what they please, and gather with whom they please. It then falls to some group (which government currently) to defend this moral ride by codifying it into law. Thus, we have a legal right, codified in the First Amendment, born of a moral right, born of certain axiomatic principles.** So, our resolution can be summarized as follows:For all X, if X is charged with a crime and found not guilty, X is should not be known to the general public, and there does not exist any person Y such that Y was not either present at the trial or knows someone that was, and knows X was charged.I don't think any symbolization of this is necessary, as there is no syllogism to follow it. If you would like to address this for any reason, please do so in the comments prior to accepting, Martley. It will ensure the debate is focused on the specific topic at hand, and avoid any confusion.I'm not going to structure the debate in any particular way beyond this:1. Burden of Proof shall be shared, though not necessarily equally. It is up to the audience to decide whether BoP has been reasonably upheld by each participant. 2. If you decide to begin your case in Round 1, i ask that you simply type "No round, as agreed upon". Otherwise, we shall begin arguments in Round 2.3. Keep this a civil endeavor. 4. If you notice Logical Fallacies, please explain how the use of said fallacy diminishes the strength of the argument. Simply asserting "My opponent is guilty of [insert fallacy here] fallacy." does not constitute an argument, and is to implicitly state "and this makes them incorrect". This is simply committing The Fallacist's Fallacy. [3]*This is not to say the Libertarianism is in anyway true or correct. However, the methodology used is identical to the methodology this debate will be centered on. **This is in reference back to Libertarianism. Three principles are used as axioms, whether justified by derivation or simply assumed, to arrive at certain conclusions, in this example, the conclusion is that we have he right to speak as we please, provided we are not infringing on the rights of others.[1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.usconstitution.net... [3] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...