Goethe wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> Perhaps our criterion of illegality should be whether the message >> included intent to deceive, not absolute positive belief in the >> statement's truth. > > I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care > for it so it disappeared from Murphy's draft. Intent to deceive is a > good way to cover, say, making true statements but sending them from > an "imposter" email account. -Goethe
I moved the misleading-identity stuff to Rule 2170 (which causes such misdirection to self-ratify if not detected promptly, thus avoiding a future Annabel crisis). I think that (a) you're discussing intent to mislead in general, and (b) Zefram and I objected to what used to be called recklessness wrt the truth (i.e. publishing a statement without bothering to consider whether it was true or not). Would you be happy if such recklessness were defined as another form of intent to mislead? I also see no harm in adding an exemption for any statement for which IRRELEVANT would be an appropriate judgement on an inquiry case on that statement.
