Actually what we learn (or should learn in high school) is that pleading ignorance: "I did not know this or that" is a terrible starting argument for many crime

Actually what we learn (or should learn in high school) is that pleading ignorance: "I did not know this or that" is a terrible starting argument for many crimes. This is what I was referring to in my observation. Stallman should know better than to argue ignorance. Beyond that, the law is complex and generalizations (which I myself did) run the risk of oversimplifying realities. I was specifically referring to this case, where Stallman argues that his friend was just misled. I believe that argument not just "tone deaf" but actually wrong.