On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 12:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I firmly believe that the publication of a false fact is inherently >> misleading. If it is done purposefully, it is purposefully misleading. >> >> I do see your argument. What you claim is that you published a document, >> and that it's not your fault that the document happens to be wrong, and >> you didn't say "I hereby assert that this document is correct." But >> that's generally a "washing your hands" mockery of causality, and, as >> a judge, I wouldn't allow that as an escape clause. E.g. I would say >> that if you publish a document claiming X, it's the same as you claiming X, >> just the way that if you publish a document claiming "I act", it's the >> same as you acting. You can't have one part of ISID work without the >> other. > > The actual loophole appears to be that comex's claims were so ridiculous > that no reasonable person would believe them, and therefore they were > not intentionally misleading (as nobody would be mislead into believing > them).
There is a legal principle. Making a false statement under oath misleads the court and is punishable, whether or not the jury believes you. And we are loosely modeling the legal system. -Goethe
