Getting fooled by satire isn't generally considered reasonable.
Tennessee Authorities Arrest Man For ‘Posting an Anti-Police Meme’ on Social Media
- Thread starter Dwarvenhobble
- Start date
The reasonable person standard doesn't necessarily apply in all cases; unreasonable persons have voting rights. I don't know the particular details of law and jurisprudence surrounding voter deception.
Generally? If it's something that might credibly be believed and acted upon, and is intended to deceive rather than as an obvious joke. Look at why fraud is illegal, and jokes are not. The line is in broadly the same place.
Not everyone is tech-savvy. It's obvious to us, but I can easily imagine elderly voters, who aren't very au fait with mobile technology or online security, being fooled by that poster.
I don't think that that image is something that might be credibly be believed. Whether it's intended to deceive, or just be a joke, I wouldn't know.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
1)Silvanus' example is not about ignorance of the law but rather technology.
2)Excuse for what? Being fooled by a poster isn't against the law.
That law defines how people can vote.
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.
I'm just saying that, if ignorance of the law is no excuse, then tricking people who are ignorant of the law shouldn't be illegal.
If I say "you have to give me $100, it's the law", should I be arrested for that?
Then you haven't spoken about technology or cyber-security to many people who aren't technologically knowledgeable or capable.
And the law says fraud is illegal.
When the law identifies somebody who's a victim of fraud, d'you know what they do? They don't just let the fraudster off on the basis of "freedom of speech", and tell the victim that their ignorance makes them a fair target. The law is squarely on the side of the victim.
It's not about technology, it's about the law.
" As alleged in the complaint, between September 2016 and November 2016, in the lead up to the Nov. 8, 2016, U.S. Presidential Election, Mackey conspired with others to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages designed to encourage supporters of one of the presidential candidates (the “Candidate”) to “vote” via text message or social media, a legally invalid method of voting. "
We're essentially discussing whether or not this counts as fraud
Of course, but that's based on "when the law identifies somebody who's a victim of fraud".
We have yet to solidly determine if this is fraud.
Anyone else get the vibe that this is essentially old man houseman throwing a tantrum?
Petulantly arguing a pointless stance against fraud, because his pet fraud case got shut down?
Petulantly arguing a pointless stance against fraud, because his pet fraud case got shut down?
Knowledge of technology obviously speaks to how likely it is that someone could be taken in by the poster, and that directly changes whether or not it's a credible risk that it deceives somebody.
But you've been making arguments that assume from a starting point that it's not fraud and that the same metrics don't apply. How can you be discussing whether or not it's fraud while operating under a presumption that the characteristics of fraud aren't applicable?
I mean if you're actually claiming that? Yeah that would be fraud. Like that's a really common type of fraud. Phony fines are fraud. You have to know that. You just have to.
What? You mean those automated phone calls claiming to be from the IRS threatening fines and imprisonment if I don't pay money aren't protected by the constitution? Next you'll tell me that freedom of religion doesn't protect my right to commit ritualized murder in the name of Khorne...
No, I've been asking you how you distinguish between fraud and a joke, and what is needed for you to draw that line.
But yes, innocent until proven guilty. That's how it's going to be done in court.
Okay: You have to give me $100, by law.
So, I should expect the cops to show up real soon, yeah?
Funny, but with the lack of judge, jury, and bailiffs, this forum doesn't look like much of a court.
If you attempted to actually collect on it and particularly if you threatened consequences for not paying up, you could expect the cops to show up. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Freedom of speech is not absolute any more than freedom of religion is, and, last time I checked, running a religious murder-cult was illegal.
Did I say "this forum is a court", or are you just pointing out the obvious?
OI course it isn't, because people are getting arrested for posting memes.