On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The key part of Rule 2149/8 is that a message doesn't have to be true, but > that the person who writes it believes that it is true. comes tries to > exploit a loophole that he thought would work, so Rule 2149/8 doesn't take > affect here. I proto-judge INNOCENT.
E didn't believe it to be true at the time e allegedly published it. E believed that it would *become* true upon ratification. A better argument for INNOCENT would follow CFJ 1905, which found that the message in question was not public. -root
