Looks like asking about sensative laws on Quora is a bad idea.
All I wanted to know, was why fake ID's are no defense in statutory laws. Never heard a good reason for that, so figured a lawyer/judge would know.
It annoys me when people get annoyed at honest questions. (And my personal theory, is if ID's were a defense, they'd just make up fake ID's as a matter of course and beat the rap.
Which I can understand the logic behind prohibiting, but that doesn't sound legal/constitutonal to say "We don't care if any reasonable person could only verify age by ID, so if it's a good fake sucks to be you", and was hoping an expert could supply more.
Originally posted by cdtm
Looks like asking about sensative laws on Quora is a bad idea.All I wanted to know, was why fake ID's are no defense in statutory laws. Never heard a good reason for that, so figured a lawyer/judge would know.
It annoys me when people get annoyed at honest questions. (And my personal theory, is if ID's were a defense, they'd just make up fake ID's as a matter of course and beat the rap.
Which I can understand the logic behind prohibiting, but that doesn't sound legal/constitutonal to say "We don't care if any reasonable person could only verify age by ID, so if it's a good fake sucks to be you", and was hoping an expert could supply more.
You should have just asked me because I know this answer. Come on: I'm good for more than jokes and insults.
The US Legal System does not operate under mens rea, only actus reas.
Basically, the US Legal System only needs to prove that you committed the criminal act, not that you had a guilty mind committing the crime. Another way to word this is, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." In legal terms, in the US, you only need to prove actus reas.
In other more modern countries with better judicial systems, you must prove actus reas as well as mens rea. In your example, if the person was shown an ID that any reasonable person would view as legitimate, it doesn't matter if they commit a crime after ID Verification - as long as those actions were conducted, in good faith, under the notion that the ID verified the ID-presenting person's attributes.
In other words, you must prove the person committed the crime and the person intended to commit the crime. This is not applied extremely broadly in all cases, however. But it does save otherwise innocent people from the strong arm of idiotic justice.
https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/criminal-law-actus-reus-mens-rea
Originally posted by dadudemon
You should have just asked me because I know this answer. Come on: I'm good for more than jokes and insults.The US Legal System does not operate under mens rea, only actus reas.
Basically, the US Legal System only needs to prove that you committed the criminal act, not that you had a guilty mind committing the crime. Another way to word this is, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." In legal terms, in the US, you only need to prove actus reas.
In other more modern countries with better judicial systems, you must prove actus reas as well as mens rea. In your example, if the person was shown an ID that any reasonable person would view as legitimate, it doesn't matter if they commit a crime after ID Verification - as long as those actions were conducted, in good faith, under the notion that the ID verified the ID-presenting person's attributes.
In other words, you must prove the person committed the crime and the person intended to commit the crime. This is not applied extremely broadly in all cases, however. But it does save otherwise innocent people from the strong arm of idiotic justice.
https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/criminal-law-actus-reus-mens-rea
Doesn't that mean when Traci Lords got a passport, technically the government themselves were breaking the law?
The way I heard it, they didn't go after the industry, otherwise they'd have to go after themselves, too.
Oh, Nancy🙂
Tensions flare over Pelosi’s comments about four House Democratic women and border bill
“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi said in an interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that was published online Saturday. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”
lulz
Originally posted by cdtm
Doesn't that mean when Traci Lords got a passport, technically the government themselves were breaking the law?
No, she falsified her birth certificate to get a fake ID. She committed fraud against the government to get the fake ID.
Originally posted by cdtm
The way I heard it, they didn't go after the industry, otherwise they'd have to go after themselves, too.
It also happened many years ago and there is a certain level of discretion they can take if they want.
However, similar cases where the men were technically raped by underage girls due to false perceptions (for instance, going to a that is 21 and up) actually got the rape charge and their lives ruined.
It just sucks. You need money.
Originally posted by Robtard
Disney cast a Black actress as Princess Ariel in the upcoming live action The Little Mermaid and the usual suspects are upset, because apparently fictional mermaids can't be Black or something.
So, if Marvel decided to make the Wesley Snipes' character Blade into a white guy you wouldn't be whining or bitching about it?
Yeah... right. 🙄
So I guess apparently fictional vampire hunters with superpowers can't be white or something? Even though Sarah Michelle Gellar's Buffy is?
Originally posted by Robtard
The only time it matters (to me) is when a character's skin color/back ground is integral to the character. eg Making T'Challa say Japanese would be silly, as being a Black African is a key part of his story.
This is racist and bigoted of you. White-skinned people have lived in Africa for thousands of years. Wakanda could very well be full of white-skinned people.
Disregard the period-specific portrayals of mermaids and their ethniciities. Disregard the mythology and cultural origins. Casting the incorrect races is just cultural appropriation of ancient Assyrian goddesses.
More seriously, mermaids seem to have a mythology origin with the goddess Atargatis. You're looking at Babylonian and Greek ethnicities, from antiquity, for your mermaid "appearance" sources.
This old-timey painting would more accurately represent what a mermaid would look like:
If we take them from their origin mythologies and represent them with their cultural origins, it's an odd and even incorrect casting of a character. It's also another weird discrimination against gingers: Hollywood has a weird track record against gingers.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Atargatis
https://www.ancient.eu/article/221/the-mesopotamian-pantheon/
It should never be done, imo. It's just virtue-signalling BS is all it is. I'm not ok with the character of Blade (and I love those movies, btw) being made into a white guy anymore than I am the character of Superman being made into a black guy or Cinderella being made into a black or asian woman or Pocahontas (yes, I realize she was actually real) being made into a white woman.
All of this f***ing with our culture for sjw purposes has got to stop.