Ignorance of the law is an excuse?
>the conventional criminal conduct requirement of 'awareness of some wrongdoing.'
I interpreted the summary's description to mean that the law as-written seems to imply, "preponderance of the evidence," which is how civil law findings can be determined, as opposed to require a significantly higher burden of proof in the form of, "beyond a reasonable doubt," that criminal proceedings require. The defendant wasn't quoting those on a terrorist list or writing his own content, he was quoting or paraphrasing a work that is considered art, without there being any specific or credible intent to actually cause bodily harm to those whom his rants were directed toward.
I expect that had there been a credible threat (ie, action of his that demonstrated planning or intent to cause harm), or had the words been either been his own original words or had been quoted from a source considered to be sometihng other than artistic expression there would have been less doubt about his intentions.
>>>Bennet Hasselton cannot be defeated. He's merely resting. Bennet Hasselton article shows up only if someone mentions Bennet Hasselton three times in a single post.
You bastard!
Aaargh! you made me do it too!
Factorials were someone's attempt to make math LOOK exciting.