• KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    They claimed that the FTC never alerted them to any wrongdoing before filing the lawsuit, so how could they have known they were violating the law?

    “The police never informed me I was doing anything illegal before arresting me, so how could I possibly have known?”

    Ignorance of the law isn’t a defense against breaking it in any other sector…

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m sure they did, but they felt that this was more profitable, even if they got caught.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think the saying is that possession is 9/10 of the law.

        But I agree. Of course they intended to fuck people over. That’s their job, pretty much.

    • APassenger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Ethical behavior is a thing for SO many reasons. One of them is it tends to keep you on the right side of the law.

    • LordGimp@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s literally the basis of qualified immunity. If law enforcement gets a pass explicitly due to ignorance of the law, why wouldn’t their financiers? Further, if the punishment for the crime is a fine, then the law can only ever meaningfully punish the poor. The concept of law is working exactly as intended in this country.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s not what qualified immunity means.

        Qualified immunity protects the police (or other state actors) from civil suits arising from their conduct while lawfully performing their duties. It does not shield them from criminal prosecution.

        • LordGimp@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The civil suits that only have standing when there is criminal conduct already involved? You don’t get one without the other. The only practical difference to a member of the public is the legal standard needed to prove guilt. Seeing as the criminal justice deck is already stacked in the favor of protecting their own enforcer, the difference is moot. It remains one of the only legally viable defenses where ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse.