We are losing. There is no right way to lose.
Part of the problem is that "Rule of Law" has been replaced with "Pretense of Law". More commonly, this can be observed as "it's not a crime when a Democrat does it". Pick the name of any protected class you like as a substitute for "Democrat".
Another serious problem is seen with the observation that "The process is the punishment". Offend the authorities in many jurisdictions and you can be bankrupted by legal fees needed to defend yourself in court. This is particularly troublesome in "Self-defense" cases. Authorities really do not want ordinary citizens to resist criminal predators with any use of force, or indeed by any means at all.
State sanctions against individuals should be restrained by "Rule of Law" and its corollary of "Due Process". That is the entire meaning of "Presumed innocent until proven guilty".
Let's get real. Most accused persons are guilty as hell. But if the State cannot bother to prove that assertion beyond reasonable doubt, the accused person should go free. And that "proof" should follow certain rules-of-evidence that disallows certain actions of the State.
We don't want police to "round up the usual suspects", plant incriminating "evidence", or obtain "confessions" through torture. Those shortcuts do get convictions. They also get the wrong people, regardless of how you might define the "wrong people". Authorities tend to go after easy targets rather than actual criminals.
Rule of Law is about restraining the State, which otherwise will always tend to become abusive and oppressive.
The "sleight of hand" that you detect is that standards for the State must be different than the standards for an individual. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" does not apply to individuals making personal decisions about whether they will approach or avoid other people. The "Precautionary Principle" is appropriate.
A forum of opinion, likewise, has different standards than a courtroom. And it should. I have no power to throw Alec Baldwin into a dungeon, no matter what my opinion of the man. No apology is needed for intemperate opinion and no proof is required either. We are all posting here mostly for the satisfaction of our own egos and development of rhetorical skills.
Harsh, unsubstantiated opinions do have a risk of making a poster look stupid, especially if poorly written or unusually offensive. Nobody wants to look stupid, so there is some check on opinions. And there is incentive to sharpen one's critical thinking and writing skills too. Everybody makes mistakes (including me). It's all good.
It is different when I am sitting on a jury. I am keenly aware that there must be restraints on what the State can do and rules about how the State does it. I must be very cautious in judgements. I want the State to follow a Rule of Law.
Some of those rules need to be changed.
Great post!