Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So no, trying to offend someone, and saying something and not really caring if its offensive or not, are not, objectively, the same thing.
That's an argument of consciousness and is actually quite subjective. The person that says the harmful thing but does not care if it offends also makes a subconscious note of it potentially offending. You have to hold such a position in order to even claim "I don't care if it will offend."
In order conclude that you don't care if it will offend, you have to implicitely conclude that it may offend and it may not offend.
So it is not objective but quite subjective.
Only in the case of mental disability (autism) where the person truly is not aware of the relations can you claim it to be objectively not the same thing.
This is the problem with law: you can prove mens rea quite often in murder 2 cases. It is the extent of mens rea that is difficult to prove. The subjective conclusions drawn by the justifications of defense are just simply degrees of mens rea.
If you were to ask the person why there are speed limits in neighborhoods of less than 50 mph, close to 100% of people would say it had something to do with safety. Bam, mens rea: guilt has been proven for almost 100% of the cases at that point.
It is now a subjective argument of the degree of consciousness to such a guilt...at that point.
Figured I'd throw my 2 cents in since this is also part of my job (but it is not all of my job. I just have not know how criminal law works and figure out how it applies to cyber laws...I also have to know tort law stuff..which is frustrating and boring as hell).