3 ms·
> No it's not, it's literally not relevant (or at least shouldn't be). You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arr
by saghm 4y ago
> No it's not, it's literally not relevant (or at least shouldn't be). You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arrested or not.
Isn't the idea that the intent behind actions being legally relevant pretty well established? There's a difference between different degrees of murder and between murder and manslaughter based not on whether the actions themselves differed, but whether the intent to kill was there (and not even that, but how _long_ it was held, e.g. "spur of the moment" versus premeditated). It seems like in any case where intent is relevant, looking at the context of the accused would be necessary to determine the scope of the crime.
- jaywalk 4y agoIntent behind speech that "caused someone anxiety" should be entirely irrelevant, because nobody should ever be arrested for it. Period.
- saghm 4y agoThat's not what I'm referring to; that's just in the headline. The context I'm referring to is in the parent of this comment chain, which describes both the actual image being shared and some of the writings of the accused along with others who they feature on their website. I think there's room for debate about whether that context is relevant, but it's not what I'm responding to.
- jaywalk 4y agoYes, mens rea (state of mind/intent) is part of many crimes. But we're not talking about murder, we're talking about a social media post that "caused someone anxiety." Whether intent matters for other (actual) crimes is irrelevant.
- aydyn 4y agoIntent and beliefs are not the same thing.