Tennessee Authorities Arrest Man For ‘Posting an Anti-Police Meme’ on Social Media

[Agema]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

"Ignorance of the law" is a legal principle that someone who has committed a crime cannot defend themselves from prosecution on the basis of not knowing what the law was. This has nothing to do with being the victim of a fraud.

The argument being put forward is that tricking people is against the law, because those who are ignorant of the law will be fooled by it.

People rely on correct information to be able to vote: details like when, where and how they can vote. Quite obviously, attempting to mislead them can be criminal as it deprives them of their right to vote.

This is not complex.

 

[Silvanus]

No, I've been asking you how you distinguish between fraud and a joke, and what is needed for you to draw that line.

Could credibly be believed by someone. The end.

And I know you believe the poster couldn't credibly be believed, but thankfully the authorities disagree.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Could credibly be believed by someone. The end.

And I know you believe the poster couldn't credibly be believed, but thankfully the Tennessee authorities disagree.

If you permit me, it's not even that.

Fraud Crimes and Fraud Laws - FindLaw

Fraud is the use of intentional deception to gain something of value. Learn more at FindLaw's Criminal Charges section.

criminal.findlaw.com

Fraud is a broad term that refers to acts intended to swindle someone. In essence, it's the use of intentional deception for monetary or personal gain.

Thousands of people each year fall victim to it. Fraud always includes a false statement, misrepresentation or deceitful conduct. The purpose is to gain something of value, usually money, by misleading or deceiving someone into believing something that the perpetrator knows to be false.

If I said you lost $100 via Space Leprechauns and you believe it? It's a joke. I'm attempting to make you think you lost something, but I'm attempting no value gain in this occurrence.

If I said you need to give me $100 because Space Leprechauns called me up and told me they would kill you and your family if you didn't... but I gave it back once you handed it over because I was making a joke? Still a joke. While the currency did exchange hands, I immediately gave it back to you because the intention wasn't to actually get the $100. As Known As No attempt for Gain. My intent was simply to mess with you.

If I said you need to give me $100 because Space Leprechauns called me up and told me they would kill you and your family if you didn't... and I went out and bought myself something with the $100? You have a case for Fraud. I said something not true in attempts to get something of value from you, and then I got something for myself, or a received a gain from it. That goes along with the definition of what Fraud is.

 

[Houseman]

Could credibly be believed by someone. The end.

And I know you believe the poster couldn't credibly be believed, but thankfully the Tennessee authorities disagree.

Actually the Tennessee case and the DoJ case are different. The latter is loosely based on harassment and seems easily to be on the side of the defendant. The other is with disenfranchisement and seems like a much stronger case. Both are related in that both are being punished for sharing a .jpg on the internet.

People rely on correct information to be able to vote: details like when, where and how they can vote. Quite obviously, attempting to mislead them can be criminal as it deprives them of their right to vote.

In regards to what you and Obsidian are saying, nobody profits from tricking someone into believing that they can vote by text, because it doesn't actually prevent them from actually voting. They don't "lose" their vote. They aren't disenfranchised. They can still go to the polls and vote like everybody else.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

In regards to what you and Obsidian are saying, nobody profits from tricking someone into believing that they can vote by text, because it doesn't actually prevent them from actually voting. They don't "lose" their vote. They aren't disenfranchised. They can still go to the polls and vote like everybody else.

But why would they do that, when they believe that, by voting through text, they've already voted?

 

[ObsidianJones]

But why would they do that, when they believe that, by voting through text, they've already voted?

Added to that: If they thought they already legally voted, they wouldn't dare consider voting again for fear of legal ramification.

But there's another aspect to it. Bar the voters who were conned. We're talking about if someone convinced regular voters that they were able to vote via text when they actually were not able to, that is a felony.

52 U.S. Code § 20511 - Criminal penalties

www.law.cornell.edu

52 U.S. Code § 20511 - Criminal penalties

A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office—
-(1)knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for—
(A)
registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote;
(B)
urging or aiding any person to register to vote, to vote, or to attempt to register or vote; or
(C)
exercising any right under this chapter; or
-(2)knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted electionprocess, by—
(A)
the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or
(B)
the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,
shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(Pub. L. 103–31, § 12, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 88.)

The word "Casting" and "Fraudulent" is right here, in US Laws. Not something I or you or anyone else is just making up. A person who goes out of his or her way to tell people they can vote via text without the express rule of law changing to fit that reality will be guilty of this law.

 

[Houseman]

But why would they do that, when they believe that, by voting through text, they've already voted?

I assume they would get the correct information through the proper channels. I wouldn't know what information or channels that might be, since I've never registered to vote or voted before, but I assume, after you register, you'd get something in the mail.

I've had people come up to me, outside of Walmarts and similar places, asking if I've registered to vote yet. I assume these people are also capable of helping you to fill out some form that gets you registered.

I think it's the individual's responsibility to register to vote and vote in the appropriate manner, including learning how to do all these things. Kind of like how it's the individual's responsibility to do their taxes, including navigating the complicated tax law. If they claim that they've already paid their taxes by text, they're still going to get in trouble with the IRS.

Added to that: If they thought they already legally voted, they wouldn't dare consider voting again for fear of legal ramification.

When you get to the polls on election day, they'll look you up in the system and be able to tell whether or not you already voted through any other means. That's something I learned by watching the hearings. People went on election day and were told that they already voted by mail, when they never did. Then they were given the option to invalidate the older ballot.

So there shouldn't be any problem.

The word "Casting" and "Fraudulent" is right here, in US Laws.

Also "knowingly and willfully..."
Was this a knowing and willful attempt at defrauding people, or a joke?

 

[Avnger]

Also "knowingly and willfully..."
Was this a knowing and willful attempt at defrauding people, or a joke?

We've really reached the point where Houseman tries to argue that "Just a joke, bro!" is a legal defense...

 

[Houseman]

We've really reached the point where Houseman tries to argue that "Just a joke, bro!" is a legal defense...

Is motivation not explicitly mentioned in the law?

 

[Silvanus]

Actually the Tennessee case and the DoJ case are different. The latter is loosely based on harassment and seems easily to be on the side of the defendant. The other is with disenfranchisement and seems like a much stronger case. Both are related in that both are being punished for sharing a .jpg on the internet.

Ah yeah, I misremembered. Edited.

I think it's the individual's responsibility to register to vote and vote in the appropriate manner, including learning how to do all these things. Kind of like how it's the individual's responsibility to do their taxes, including navigating the complicated tax law. If they claim that they've already paid their taxes by text, they're still going to get in trouble with the IRS.

And do you imagine that somebody who misleads others into paying a false account under the pretext of paying their tax is protected by the law? This is a common form of fraud, and people go to prison for it, regardless of whether you think their lies are "credible" or not.

 

[Agema]

In regards to what you and Obsidian are saying, nobody profits from tricking someone into believing that they can vote by text, because it doesn't actually prevent them from actually voting. They don't "lose" their vote. They aren't disenfranchised. They can still go to the polls and vote like everybody else.

I feel like you didn't put in the extra two seconds' worth of thought that it would take to reach the obvious answer.

 

[Houseman]

And do you imagine that somebody who misleads others into paying a false account under the pretext of paying their tax is protected by the law? This is a common form of fraud, and people go to prison for it, regardless of whether you think their lies are "credible" or not.

No, but I think how elaborately constructed such a ruse is would be a consideration for the court.
"The IRS told me to tell you to give me money" would be a waste of the court's time, for example.

 

[Seanchaidh]

No, but I think how elaborately constructed such a ruse is would be a consideration for the court.
"The IRS told me to tell you to give me money" would be a waste of the court's time, for example.

And if a caregiver told this to a legally incompetent patient?

 

[Houseman]

And if a caregiver told this to a legally incompetent patient?

Those would also be factors for the courts to consider.

This scenario is more like those guys who dress up as characters in Times Square and harass tourists for money after taking pictures of or with them. It's not illegal. In fact, it's explicitly allowed. You don't have to give them money. The cops won't take you to jail if you don't.

NYPD Fliers: You Don't Have To Pay Times Square Characters

The NYPD wants you to know that you're under no obligation to pay for photos with the costumed characters in Times Square.

newyork.cbslocal.com

Neither are they arrested for fraud when you willingly give them your money.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I assume they would get the correct information through the proper channels.

ASSUMING makes an ASS of U and some guy named MING.