Consider florida, where if you are caught with shrooms that are wet, freshly picked, they cannot convict you for carrying contraband because you do not necessarily know what you picked.
Laws are often based on intent. In some cases, penalties vary depending on intent. It would be an unacceptably brutally harsh law to judge someone under a presumption of harmful intent for something they might have no awareness of.
QR codes can have icons on them. Certainly if I created such a t-shirt, I would put some cool looking icon in the center of it. Someone being dragged through the system might argue “i did not know that qr code was real… i just liked the cat in the middle of it”.
I don’t know about the states, but here in Canada the government takes the position “ignorance of the law is not a defence”.
You’re not being ignorant of the law - you’re being ignorant of the weird computer square printed on the shirt you thrifted
Claiming you didn’t know it could cause harm isn’t a defense in court in Canada.
Anymore bullshit?
Christ you’re a cordial fellow
I was, I thought quite clearly, having a joking poke. Obviously “didn’t know lol” isn’t a defense.
Consider florida, where if you are caught with shrooms that are wet, freshly picked, they cannot convict you for carrying contraband because you do not necessarily know what you picked.
Laws are often based on intent. In some cases, penalties vary depending on intent. It would be an unacceptably brutally harsh law to judge someone under a presumption of harmful intent for something they might have no awareness of.
QR codes can have icons on them. Certainly if I created such a t-shirt, I would put some cool looking icon in the center of it. Someone being dragged through the system might argue “i did not know that qr code was real… i just liked the cat in the middle of it”.
“Malice” implies intent. Accidents are not malicious. Neglect in the worst case. So certainly any charges could not be based on malice.