Davi Ottenheimer on Nostr: doesn't appear to be true. Of course you think you do? Screws v. United States, 325 ...

doesn't appear to be true. Of course you think you do? Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945). A Georgia sheriff beat Robert Hall to death in the courthouse square. Convicted. The Supreme Court, like you seem to want here, invented a specific-intent requirement, he was acquitted on retrial, and in 1958 Georgia elected him to the state senate. That intent doctrine gutted federal police-violence prosecutions for decades. So yes, I know how intent is evaluated. It's evaluated generously for the KKK and corrupt labs, and yet strictly for teenagers. Morris settled attribution because, just like OpenAI/Anthropic, it says the code's accesses are the liability of the launch person. Screws is what I said before. The intent defense has a documented history as a lever built for impunity, and reaching for it here repeats the pattern whether you know the history or not.