NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, under this new bill, they could sue people involved in anything that is mistaken for a terrorist plot, if the people do not move to rectify the situation.

The government will soon be able to sue parties involved in "hoaxes" that are mistaken for terrorism if a new bill is passed by Congress. The bill, entitled "The Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007," was introduced by the Senate and will amend the federal criminal code to include a number of new clauses meant to up the ante on wasting government resources. The amendments include extensions to the prohibitions on the spread of false information and mailing threats, increases to maximum prison terms, and allowances for civil suits so that local and federal governments can attempt to recoup expenses related to an incident.

The bill's introduction comes several months after the city of Boston made headlines over a "bomb scare" that turned out to be something not quite so serious. The Great Mooninite Scare of 2007 was, in fact, a guerrilla marketing campaign carried out by a marketing agency employed by the Cartoon Network for its popular late-night show Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Circuit boards with LED lights in the shape of a Mooninite were placed all over 10 cities in the US: Boston, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, and Philadelphia.

The signs were in place for several weeks without incident. However, that changed one fateful day in January when a passenger on Boston's mass transit system spotted one and alerted the authorities. The rest, as they say, is history. The police descended upon Boston and shut down large parts of the city over what they thought was an act of terrorism. After realizing that the Mooninites were of no harm, the authorities were quick to call the incident a hoax and arrested two people who were employed to put the signs up. A judge eventually said that the suspects did not appear to have intended to create panic. However, that did not placate city officials who remained outraged at the incident, promising to push for harsher punishments in the future for incidents that waste government resources.

That brings us to where we are today, with the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007. Although the Mooninite scare was determined to not be a hoax (but rather an unfortunate series of poor decisions), the provisions in the bill would allow the government to take civil action against parties involved in perceived hoaxes if they fail to "promptly and reasonably inform one or more parties... of the actual nature of the activity" once they learn about investigative action taking place. In the case of Boston, this means that everyone involved could be sued for not immediately informing the police of the campaign upon receiving news of the emergency reaction.

This sounds all well and good—who wouldn't want the government to be reimbursed for resources wasted during a hoax? However, it also assumes that the local governments themselves aren't contributing to the unnecessary waste of resources. The government can sue individuals for contributing to the wasting of resources (even if accidentally), but individuals cannot sue the city in return for the same.

Reimbursement-wise, however, things seem to have worked out in the aftermath of the Boston scare. The companies involved in the Boston scare did in fact end up settling with the city, agreeing to pay $1 million to reimburse the city of Boston and another $1 million to fund Homeland Security. They even issued a statement taking responsibility for the marketing campaigns that caused such disturbance, although the two suspects originally arrested in the event are still being charged for putting up the signs despite the apparent settlement between the companies and the city. Will they get to sue in the end too? It seems unlikely that someone who truly wants to incite terrorist-like panic would be deterred by the possibility of a civil suit. So what is the point of this bill, exactly?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070508-mooninites-meet-the-terrorist-hoax-improvements-act.html

I try not to be a serial thread-starter, but there are a few things in the news to good not to make a thread about.

Apparently, under this new bill, they could sue people involved in anything that is mistaken for a terrorist plot.

No, that's not what it says at all. It says they could sue people involved in something mistaken for a terrorist plot if those people believe it to be perceived as a terrorist plot and do not move to rectify the situation.

Read what you post.

the provisions in the bill would allow the government to take civil action against parties involved in perceived hoaxes if they fail to "promptly and reasonably inform one or more parties... of the actual nature of the activity" once they learn about investigative action taking place.

Merely doing something perceived as a terrorist plot would not create liability. Doing something perceived as a terrorist plot and not acting to correct that perception once you are made aware of it would be.

And frankly, I have no problem with that. If someone does something that authorities think is a terrorist plot, KNOW the authorities think it's a terrorist plot, and do nothing to inform them that it is NOT a terrorist plot, deserves to be made to pay every cent of the cost.

The government should be more careful and get some common sense.

The government will soon be able to sue parties involved in "hoaxes" that are mistaken for terrorism if a new bill is passed by Congress.
Wow, just fucking wow.
They arn't being sued for portraying something as terrorism, but for being mistaken for terrorism. With the kind of shit the government pulls in terrorist accusations, I'm sure some lawyer is writing up a lawsuit against every single member of the population.

Merely doing something perceived as a terrorist plot would not create liability. Doing something perceived as a terrorist plot and not acting to correct that perception once you are made aware of it would be.
Of course there is no difference if you don't think what you are doing could be misconstrued as a terrorist plot.

And frankly, I have no problem with that. If someone does something that authorities think is a terrorist plot, KNOW the authorities think it's a terrorist plot, and do nothing to inform them that it is NOT a terrorist plot, deserves to be made to pay every cent of the cost.
Civilians should not be held liable for government overreaction and incompetence.

Make sense to me.

It is similar to shouting 'Fire!' while in a theater, and not bothering to rectify the situation by explaining that after seeing that cliffhanger ending you yelled "My eyes are on fire!".

If a person doesn't clarify their intentions or attempt to explain an action, someone could misconstrue what they said as "My pants are on fire!" or "I am going to set this place on fire!".

Of course there is no difference if you don't think what you are doing could be misconstrued as a terrorist plot.

Read what I said again.

It doesn't matter if you don't THINK it can or can not be. This only counts, ONLY COUNTS when you ALREADY KNOW that they have, and still do nothing.

It only counts when you KNOW someone has done it, and don't do anything about it.

What matters is not that you did something mistaken for terrorism, it's that you did something that got mistaken for terrorism, and you KNEW it got mistaken for terrorism, and you did nothing about that.

That's perfectly fine. If someone thinks your lite brite board is a terrorist bomb, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable that is, and you know this, and you can't be bothered to pick up the phone and call the police you fucking deserve to get sued.

I'm glad that lawmakers are doing something about this situation. I completely agree with them, terrorist hoaxes must be improved. Every hoax I've ever seen has been totally lame.

Read what I said again.

It doesn't matter if you don't THINK it can or can not be. This only counts, ONLY COUNTS when you ALREADY KNOW that they have, and still do nothing.

It only counts when you KNOW someone has done it, and don't do anything about it.
Sounds like the Terrorist Hoax Improvement Act of 2007 disagrees.

(B) APPLICABILITY- A person described in this subparagraph is any person that--

`(i) engages in any conduct that has the effect of conveying false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed to indicate←→ that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1);

Doesn't sound like they have to know at all. Sounds like the decision of whether they are liable is up to the gov using the very generally defined term "reasonably."

The "they know stuff" is its own subsection, as well as the "failure to notify" part.

Sounds like the Terrorist Hoax Improvement Act of 2007 disagrees.

Source?

Doesn't sound like they have to know at all. Sounds like the decision of whether they are liable is up to the gov using the very generally defined term "reasonably."

Um, "reasonably" is a very specific legal term. IE it is a jury question. It is not the government who gets to say "we think it was reasonable", that's the jury question.

So basically this means that someone can be held liablle if a jury finds it reasonable that the government would believe it to be a terrorist act.

What the hell is wrong with that exact?

seriously, what the hell is up with people getting all upset about legislation they don't understand.

Resasonableness is and always has been a jury question.

so I can be sued if I had IRA tattooed on my forehead...

seriously, what the hell is up with people getting all upset about legislation they don't understand.

Resasonableness is and always has been a jury question.

For the man on the Clapham omnibus.

Merely doing something perceived as a terrorist plot would not create liability. Doing something perceived as a terrorist plot and not acting to correct that perception once you are made aware of it would be.

And frankly, I have no problem with that. If someone does something that authorities think is a terrorist plot, KNOW the authorities think it's a terrorist plot, and do nothing to inform them that it is NOT a terrorist plot, deserves to be made to pay every cent of the cost.Let's examine the Boston example. Boston declares a possible terrorist threat. The marketing agency sees this on the news and one worker asks another what it could be that the city has found. And the second worker replies 'Holy cow, that must be us, since little cardboard space-invader-thingies-with-leds-in-them look just like nail bombs now that I come to think of it. Let's call the police and alert them'.

Or how about someone forgets their luggage at an airport. The luggage is found 'abandoned', and is justifiably treated with suspicion. A possible terrorist threat is declared and a robot sent in to examine the luggage. The woman heres about a 'terrorist threat at the airport' on the news (because she just so happens to have been watching a 24-hour news channel ever since she got to her hotel). 'Jeebus' she thinks, 'that terrorist threat could be my lost luggage' and immediately calls the police and alerts them... as do hundreds of other people travel through the airport that day and want to cover their asses, just in case the terrorist threat is actually something that belongs to them.

It's a completely bollocks idea, and a huge waste of time and money.

The way most people find out about terrorist threats is when they blow up, the security services manages to stop it before the actual big day through intelligence, or, as in the case of the IRA, they are kind enough to tell you they have left a bomb in city and give you its general location. Terrorist threats are not found by some schmo who thinks a bit of cardboard with flashing LEDs could be a bomb.

Source?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-735


Um, "reasonably" is a very specific legal term. IE it is a jury question. It is not the government who gets to say "we think it was reasonable", that's the jury question.
So by "very specific legal term" you mean it is still an arbitrary definition by some other body related to government.

No, that's not what it says at all. It says they could sue people involved in something mistaken for a terrorist plot if those people believe it to be perceived as a terrorist plot and do not move to rectify the situation.
The problem there is that the court needs to know what the perpetrators believe.

And this still ignores that the legal definition of reasonable is nothing like the literal definition of reasonable, and yet juries aren't always instructed on this difference.

so I can be sued if I had IRA tattooed on my forehead...
If some one calls the police and they investigate it, you can be sued for compensation of resources wasted.

It's like a "fund our bullshit" free for all.

If some one calls the police and they investigate it, you can be sued for compensation of resources wasted.

this leads to the question of what the police choose to investigate

suburban woman: "hello I have a Muslim man who spends allot of time indoors I think he's a terrorist"

Police chief: "my God well be right over to beat up this man and perform an illegal search, before we send him off to gitmo course when hes found innocent in 10 years time he may try to say something about it but hey like he will be able to afford a lawyer!"

Sounds like the Terrorist Hoax Improvement Act of 2007 disagrees.

Doesn't sound like they have to know at all. Sounds like the decision of whether they are liable is up to the gov using the very generally defined term "reasonably."

The "they know stuff" is its own subsection, as well as the "failure to notify" part.

You are misreading the bill. Here is the whole thing (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-735) and here is the statute it is amending (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001038----000-.html).

Anyway, your quote leaves out the critical AND:

`(B) APPLICABILITY- A person described in this subparagraph is any person that--

`(i) engages in any conduct that has the effect of conveying false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed to indicate that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1);

`(ii) receives actual notice that another party is taking emergency or investigative action because that party believes that the information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1); and

`(iii) after receiving such notice, fails to promptly and reasonably inform 1 or more parties described in clause (ii) of the actual nature of the activity.'.


Thus, (1) the improved Act is actually more narrow than the existing statute.

(2) In order to be liable you must
(i) engage in any conduct that has the effect of conveying false or misleading information where such information may reasonably be believed to indicate that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1)AND

(ii) receive actual notice that another party is taking emergency or investigative action because that party believes that the information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1)AND

`(iii) after receiving such notice, fails to promptly and reasonably inform 1 or more parties described in clause (ii) of the actual nature of the activity.'

So, to spell it out even more clearly, you have to (1) engage in the hoax activity, (2) recieve actual notice that the hoax activity is being treated as a real terrorist threat, and (3) fail to notify the investigators that the activity is just a hoax.

You need your links fixed, or the first one.

And this still ignores that the legal definition of reasonable is nothing like the literal definition of reasonable, and yet juries aren't always instructed on this difference.

and failure to do so is grounds for reversable error.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-735

Thank you for supplying the source. And now, that we look at the law, we can see the part you left out.

In fact, analyzing the superceding section to the one that you quoted and we see:

`(b) Civil Action-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1) is liable in a civil action to any party incurring expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response to that conduct, for those expenses.

additionally, you fail to note the other subsections that go along with yours, namely:

`(B) APPLICABILITY- A person described in this subparagraph is any person that--

`(i) engages in any conduct that has the effect of conveying false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed to indicate that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1);

`(ii) receives actual notice that another party is taking emergency or investigative action because that party believes that the information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1); and

`(iii) after receiving such notice, fails to promptly and reasonably inform 1 or more parties described in clause (ii) of the actual nature of the activity.'.


Namely ALL THREE of these circumstances must be met, not just the first one.

next time let's demonstrate a bit of intellectual honesty and quote the WHOLE relevant part, k? Either quote the law CORRECTLY and not intentionally leave out important parts, or learn how to read a statute before commenting on what it says.

Because by your own source, the law doesn't say anywhere NEAR what you think it does.

Edit: DAMN YOU CAT TRIBE!!!!!!

You need your links fixed, or the first one.

I fixed the first one, thanks. The second one I believe is fine.

Now, are you going to fix your misanalysis of a very clear provision of law?

The problem there is that the court needs to know what the perpetrators believe.

And this still ignores that the legal definition of reasonable is nothing like the literal definition of reasonable, and yet juries aren't always instructed on this difference.

*sigh*

Here we go again. All common law and all modern penal codes are wrong because they have elements of mens rea. Blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes:

I fixed the first one, thanks. The second one I believe is fine.

Now, are you going to fix your misanalysis of a very clear provision of law?

seriously, don't you just love when people say what a law says, and to support it quote ONE part of a three part condition that is further defined by a superceding subsection above it?

seriously, don't you just love when people say what a law says, and to support it quote ONE part of a three part condition that is further defined by a superceding subsection above it?

Exactly. If you aren't going to read what it actually says, you might as well cut and paste the law using the letters to spell "this law iz stupid" :p

You are misreading the bill. Here is the whole thing (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-735) and here is the statute it is amending (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001038----000-.html).

Anyway, your quote leaves out the critical AND:

`(B) APPLICABILITY- A person described in this subparagraph is any person that--

`(i) engages in any conduct that has the effect of conveying false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed to indicate that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1);

`(ii) receives actual notice that another party is taking emergency or investigative action because that party believes that the information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1); and

`(iii) after receiving such notice, fails to promptly and reasonably inform 1 or more parties described in clause (ii) of the actual nature of the activity.'.


Thus, (1) the improved Act is actually more narrow than the existing statute.

(2) In order to be liable you must
(i) engage in any conduct that has the effect of conveying false or misleading information where such information may reasonably be believed to indicate that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1)AND

(ii) receive actual notice that another party is taking emergency or investigative action because that party believes that the information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1)AND

`(iii) after receiving such notice, fails to promptly and reasonably inform 1 or more parties described in clause (ii) of the actual nature of the activity.'

So, to spell it out even more clearly, you have to (1) engage in the hoax activity, (2) recieve actual notice that the hoax activity is being treated as a real terrorist threat, and (3) fail to notify the investigators that the activity is just a hoax.
So if I avoid receiving notice, I'm okay?

Got it.

The title of this law is far too misleading.
When I see "Terrorist Hoax Improvements", I expect to see funding initiatives for the establishment of financial incentives based upon originality or amount of police time wasted.

see this is why I get pissy when laypeople try to read law. They look at the first part, and go "OMG, it makes it illegal to do A! that's horrible. See, right here, it says 'a'"

No.

It says it's illegal to do A, and B, and C, all together, and only when X and Y, or Z apply.

You can't look at one piece of a law. They're not written that way. You have to understand what the definitions are, and what the state of mind of relevance is, and what the conditionals are, and what is a defense and who has the burden to demonstrate what before you can truly comment on what it says.

If you quote one TINY little section of the law to stand for the proposition that this is what the law says, while ignoring ALL the other defining and conditional sections that apply to the section you just quoted...you just look stupid.

So if I avoid receiving notice, I'm okay?

Got it.

depends on how you mean by avoid. Reckless disgregard has always been considered intent. If you purposfully try and avoid learning of the consequences of your actions, then you can be held to have known them.

see this is why I get pissy when laypeople try to read law.

Is this the fault of the laypeople, or the complicated nature of the law, though? Law is something that affects us all, and is essential in a democratic society; is it right that you need to do so much study to have even the slightest idea what's going on?

Statutes can be hideously badly drafted, so it's no wonder people get confused. My favourite is s 36 Trustee Act 1925:

(4) The power of appointment given by subsection (1) of this section or any similar previous enactment to the personal representatives of last surviving or continuing trustee shall be and shall be deemed always to have been exercisable by the executors for the time being (whether original or by representation) of such surviving or continuing trustee who have proved the will of their testator or by the administrators for the time being of such trustee without the concurrence of any executor who has renounced or has not proved.

Could you really blame a layperson for not understanding that?

Is this the fault of the laypeople, or the complicated nature of the law, though? Law is something that affects us all, and is essential in a democratic society; is it right that you need to do so much study to have even the slightest idea what's going on?

is it the fault of them? no, not really. But the reality still is what it is.

Heart surgery is horribly complicated too. I'm not going to presume I know how to do it, nor am I going to attempt to do so.

Now I'm ALL FOR transparency in the law, but we need to accept the limitations of what the situation is.

depends on how you mean by avoid. Reckless disgregard has always been considered intent. If you purposfully try and avoid learning of the consequences of your actions, then you can be held to have known them.
And this is an aspect of the law with which I disagree.

And this is an aspect of the law with which I disagree.

shocking.

You disagree with the idea that people who conciously avoid taking responsibility for their actions should not get off because they made effort to get away with it?

So you encourage people to actively avoid taking responsibility for their actions?

is it the fault of them? no, not really. But the reality still is what it is.

Heart surgery is horribly complicated too. I'm not going to presume I know how to do it, nor am I going to attempt to do so.

Now I'm ALL FOR transparency in the law, but we need to accept the limitations of what the situation is.

At least heart surgery has the decency to give its technical terms different words. You can hardly blame people for not realising that legal definitions of words aren't necessarily the same as common definitions. Imagine if you were looking through a surgery textbook, which stated something like 'place your hand on the chest', only to later discover that 'place', 'hand', and 'chest' meant something completely different.

There is obviously going to come a point when you need specialists, in any subject; law is no different. What should be different, however, is how clear the areas before you need that specialist are.

Anyway, this is a hijack. The clarity of statutes is just something that bugs me.

This makes sense to me...

I have an idea though, why don't people just smarten up and STOP FUCKING AROUND WITH TERRORISM??? Maybe then their ass won't get sued...

At least heart surgery has the decency to give its technical terms different words. You can hardly blame people for not realising that legal definitions of words aren't necessarily the same as common definitions. Imagine if you were looking through a surgery textbook, which stated something like 'place your hand on the chest', only to later discover that 'place', 'hand', and 'chest' meant something completely different.

There is obviously going to come a point when you need specialists, in any subject; law is no different. What should be different, however, is how clear the areas before you need that specialist are.

Anyway, this is a hijack. The clarity of statutes is just something that bugs me.

for this I agree. Legal definitions don't always mean the same things as layperson definitions, and in that I would agree.

However, I would also posit that while not knowing the legal definition for "reasonable" is alright, and not something you would expect a layperson to understand, you WOULD expect a layperson to understand that a statute that reads: "a AND b AND c" does not mean "a".

Regardless of whether or not you fully comprehend what "a" means, the law clearly does not mean just that.

You disagree with the idea that people who conciously avoid taking responsibility for their actions should not get off because they made effort to get away with it?
Avoiding taking responsibility is the same as avoiding the knowledge of the consequences?

Avoiding taking responsibility is the same as avoiding the knowledge of the consequences?

if you are intentionally avoiding knowledge, and knowing would have consequences of its own.

Yes, it is.

shocking.

You disagree with the idea that people who conciously avoid taking responsibility for their actions should not get off because they made effort to get away with it?

So you encourage people to actively avoid taking responsibility for their actions?
I object to the law hinging on knowledge of my thoughts, which it can't ever have.

If it's possible for me to avoid learning of something, then it's possible for to happen to miss learning about something. I like the part of this law that requires I be notified - but as soon as it can make decisions based on whether I knew someone was trying to notify me, that's a system guaranteed to screw someone over.

I prefer the legal system to have holes than to trap people who can't have known they did anything wrong.

Guess I won't be messing with football anytime soon....

<snip>

So, to spell it out even more clearly, you have to (1) engage in the hoax activity, (2) recieve actual notice that the hoax activity is being treated as a real terrorist threat, and (3) fail to notify the investigators that the activity is just a hoax.

In other words, this law might actually make it harder to punish a company like Cartoon Network because, before doing anything to them, the authorities would have to figure out who was doing whatever was freaking out the local morons and inform them of it and give them a chance to clear it all up. It is only if they refuse or fail to do so that they would be hit with a big bill.

I object to the law hinging on knowledge of my thoughts, which it can't ever have.

If it's possible for me to avoid learning of something, then it's possible for to happen to miss learning about something. I like the part of this law that requires I be notified - but as soon as it can make decisions based on whether I knew someone was trying to notify me, that's a system guaranteed to screw someone over.

I prefer the legal system to have holes than to trap people who can't have known they did anything wrong.

LOL.

There is a fundamental contradiction in your thinking. On the one hand, you say the law shouldn't hinge on knowledge of your thoughts. On the other hand, you say that those without guilty knowledge shouldn't be held guilty.

Your whole concept of criminal law is a house of cards.

Human experience and human reason teach us that mens rea is not only an important part of the law, but it is often the most important part. Knowledge and intent can be shown by evidence in a courtroom the same way anything else can be proven in a courtroom. And in the case of criminal law, we have the presumption of innocence so mens rea has to be shown by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally Posted by Arthais101
depends on how you mean by avoid. Reckless disgregard has always been considered intent. If you purposfully try and avoid learning of the consequences of your actions, then you can be held to have known them.
And this is an aspect of the law with which I disagree.
Refusing to pick up the phone just in case it might be the police calling to tell you to stop doing something, is generally taken to mean that you knew what you were doing was a bad thing.

If you spend 3 months ducking and hiding to avoid receiving a cease and desist notice, and then you claim afterwards in court that you didn't know because you didn't receive notice, no one is going to buy that argument.

But the one thing I don't understand about this law is why they gave it that hilariously idiotic name.

But the one thing I don't understand about this law is why they gave it that hilariously idiotic name.

Too true. (As are your other comments).

Too true. (As are your other comments).

I was under the impression that this law required one to notify authorities if it is apparent that the hoax is being treated as a terrorist threat, even if the authorities haven't notified you.

So, if this law were in effect before the Boston "scare", Cartoon Network would have had to notify authorities of what happened when it was obvious that it was being treated as a threat, regardless of whether the authorities notified the ones responsible or not.

Not responding to anything you said, but one of Muravyet's comments got me thinking, and I know you're a lawyer and all.

so I can be sued if I had IRA tattooed on my forehead...

Imagine what could happen to Muslims going to Mosque, wearing the hijab, or just praying salaat. :(

Refusing to pick up the phone just in case it might be the police calling to tell you to stop doing something, is generally taken to mean that you knew what you were doing was a bad thing.
But it shouldn't. What if I never answer the phone? Even without any reason to believe the police are trying to call me, I decide never to answer the phone. Then, when the police do try to call me, they fail to reach me because I chose not to answer the phone. Your system requires knowledge of why I didn't answer the phone, and it can't have that.
If you spend 3 months ducking and hiding to avoid receiving a cease and desist notice, and then you claim afterwards in court that you didn't know because you didn't receive notice, no one is going to buy that argument.
You're assuming I'm aware someone is trying to serve me. What if I'm not?

And how can the court tell?

There is a fundamental contradiction in your thinking. On the one hand, you say the law shouldn't hinge on knowledge of your thoughts. On the other hand, you say that those without guilty knowledge shouldn't be held guilty.
Not without knowledge. Incapable of knowledge. That's an entirely different thing.

The system you're espousing could hold me responsible for having done something I couldn't have known was wrong. And yet somehow I can be punished for it despite having had no reason to foresee that.

That's entirely contrary to the point of punishment: deterrence.
Human experience and human reason teach us that mens rea is not only an important part of the law, but it is often the most important part.
It's never an important part. The law is designed to influence behaviour. Why the behaviour occurs is immaterial.
Knowledge and intent can be shown by evidence in a courtroom the same way anything else can be proven in a courtroom.
State of mind leaves no physical evidence.
And in the case of criminal law, we have the presumption of innocence so mens rea has to be shown by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
First of all, that protection only exists in criminal trials, so there's still a huge capactiy for abuse within the system in other trials, and furthermore no reasonable juror should ever be swayed by evidence of mens rea, because no such evidence can ever be persuasive.

Read what I said again.

It doesn't matter if you don't THINK it can or can not be. This only counts, ONLY COUNTS when you ALREADY KNOW that they have, and still do nothing.

It only counts when you KNOW someone has done it, and don't do anything about it.

What matters is not that you did something mistaken for terrorism, it's that you did something that got mistaken for terrorism, and you KNEW it got mistaken for terrorism, and you did nothing about that.

That's perfectly fine. If someone thinks your lite brite board is a terrorist bomb, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable that is, and you know this, and you can't be bothered to pick up the phone and call the police you fucking deserve to get sued.

This was to cover that little marketing thing gone wrong, wasn't it?

It's never an important part. The law is designed to influence behaviour. Why the behaviour occurs is immaterial.
If this were true, we wouldn't have a seperation between Manslaughter and Murder.

http://www.listentome.net/mooninite.jpg

http://www.listentome.net/mooninite.jpg

Only a complete moron would think that was a terrorist act.

If this were true, we wouldn't have a seperation between Manslaughter and Murder.
Yes.

Not without knowledge. Incapable of knowledge. That's an entirely different thing.

The system you're espousing could hold me responsible for having done something I couldn't have known was wrong. And yet somehow I can be punished for it despite having had no reason to foresee that.

That's entirely contrary to the point of punishment: deterrence.

You've confused yourself. I'm not the one advocating a system where mens rea isn't a required element of a crime -- you are.

Whether you knew something was wrong or should have forseen something are both issues of mens rea. I advocate the current system which requires these elements for criminal behavior. I no longer know what you are advocating, because you are fundamentally contradicting yourself.

It's never an important part. The law is designed to influence behaviour. Why the behaviour occurs is immaterial.

If you wanted to influence something, you wouldn't care why the behavior occurs?

Mens rea is relevant to influencing behavior. We seek to create a situation where people don't commit crimes, to punish those that do commit crimes, and to rehabilitate criminals. State of mind is relevant to all of these purposes.

State of mind leaves no physical evidence.

1. Physical evidence can be evidence of state of mind.

2. We don't require "physical evidence" of every point in a criminal trial. We do require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

First of all, that protection only exists in criminal trials, so there's still a huge capactiy for abuse within the system in other trials,

We've been talking about criminal law. If you want to talk about civil trials that is a different matter, but you are still bizarre in claiming that intent would be irrelevant.

and furthermore no reasonable juror should ever be swayed by evidence of mens rea, because no such evidence can ever be persuasive.

Ridiculous. I can show evidence of an intent to commit bodily harm or to defraud as easily as I can show evidence of "physical" elements of crimes.

If this were true, we wouldn't have a seperation between Manslaughter and Murder.

Yes.

See, this is a central example of how you are being completely unreasonable.

The difference between manslaughter and murder is relevant to the culpability of the person accused of a homicide.

The difference between manslaughter and murder is relevant to the deterrence of homicides.

The difference between manslaughter and murder is relevant to the rehabilitation of one that has committed homicide.

Please explain by what criteria it is reasonable and good policy to treat manslaughter and murder as identical crimes.

Do you even know what the difference between manslaughter and murder is?

see, the problem is CT, that llewdor holds the opinion that because we can never truly, with 100% certainty know the state of mind of a person, as the state of mind is not a "thing" we can examine, any attempts to discern a state of mind is, fundamentally, a guess.

And because state of mind can not be demonstrably proven, state of mind should be irrelevant.

This, however, is a nonsensical position as, to go down to this tautology would require one to admit that nothing, in any circumstance, can ever be 100% known, and we can not demonstrate conclusively that this is not, in fact, the matrix.

he would eliminate state of mind entirely, as, in his opinion, state of mind can not be known. However to chip away at what is possible with human knowledge to the point where we admit we can not know FOR SURE what someone was thinking, we must admit we can not know FOR SURE that the crime was not in fact committed by a genetically identical replicant made by aliens from the planet Bentratu 8