• HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t know about the states, but here in Canada the government takes the position “ignorance of the law is not a defence”.

          • LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            “Malice” implies intent. Accidents are not malicious. Neglect in the worst case. So certainly any charges could not be based on malice.

          • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Christ you’re a cordial fellow

            I was, I thought quite clearly, having a joking poke. Obviously “didn’t know lol” isn’t a defense.

            • LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Consider florida, where if you are caught with shrooms that are wet, freshly picked, they cannot convict you for carrying contraband because you do not necessarily know what you picked.

              Laws are often based on intent. In some cases, penalties vary depending on intent. It would be an unacceptably brutally harsh law to judge someone under a presumption of harmful intent for something they might have no awareness of.

              QR codes can have icons on them. Certainly if I created such a t-shirt, I would put some cool looking icon in the center of it. Someone being dragged through the system might argue “i did not know that qr code was real… i just liked the cat in the middle of it”.