Apr 3, 2020, 11:33 AM
—“I’m not sure making being wrong and lying the same is going to work. Intent is an incredibly powerful part of our system. It’s the only substantial difference between murder and justifiable homicide. Judging just action/outcome without judging the intent isn’t going to create a workable system”—Greg Hamilton
That can’t be true, because our legal system already does it. It always has. All this does is extend it from commercial to political speech.
Think of it this way: philosophy was invented as a competition to the law to give permission to lie.
—“Well I’m missing something because it appears you are saying being wrong is lying. … That without intent to deceive to are as guilty as if you had intent. “—Greg Hamilton
Being wrong, or failing due diligence?
You can perform due diligence and still be wrong without fault. You cannot avoid due diligence and still be wrong without fault.
This is why the law distinguishes between Restitution, escalating to Punishment, and escalating to Prevention.
Means motive and opportunity.
We cannot know intent.
We can however know due diligence.
Which is how we test your truth or lie in law.