• boatswain@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      My understanding is that intention is not uncommonly litigated; I believe the question of “intent to deceive” is central to trademark law, for example. That’s also what the the “degrees” of murder etc are about.

      Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. I do read an awful lot of contacts and talk to lawyers.

    • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      intention is litigated every day. Intention is what differentiates murder from manslaughter. Intention is what differentiates free speech from defamation.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      This is not a legal text, you little cheat.

      This is a sentence in natural language, want me to start asking such questions about everything you write?

      If you make a deepfake of someone and share it, then it’s defamation. Taking a picture voluntarily shared and editing it is not a crime.

      • EamonnMR@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        By litigate I mean, if a person is creating something and says they don’t plan to distribute it, do we take their word for it?

        If it ends up getting distributed anyway, should we take their word that it was an accident?

        We consider people’s private data important enough that if you leak it even by mistake you are on the hook for that. You have a responsibility.

        I think that rather than framing this as something harmless unless distributed and therefore intent to distribute matters, we should treat it as something you have a responsibility not to create because it will be harmful when it is inevitably distributed.