On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:19 AM, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> There was no intent to mislead as to the truth of the claim here; the >>> intent was that the claim would be questioned and ultimately denied. >>> It did not matter to the scam whether anyone actually believed the >>> claim was true. >> >> It doesn't matter whether you wanted people to be misled. coppro >> intentionally published a false statement, and there is no evidence e >> was unaware that it would mislead people. Compare my scam >> distribution and the statement about the empty proposal pool, which I >> would surely have been convicted for had I sent the distribution >> knowing it would contain that statement. > > Of course it matters. R2215 specifically refers to a statement "that > is intended to mislead others...".
I've already brought forward the theory that a deliberate inaccuracy published by an official or eir deputy as part of an official's duty should be taken, prima facie, as an intent to mislead; something spoken from a position of authority is inherently given more weight as being the truth, so deliberate inaccuracies are inherently misleading as to the truth. The only mitigating circumstances would be where the inaccuracy is necessary and noted (e.g. the game state is uncertain and noted as such). To date, no one's commented on this theory nor used it in court; I wish a judge would either accept or give a reason why to reject it. (I'm not following this scam so I don't know which posts were part of official duties or not). -Goethe
