Hacker News Reader

Not true - it is a strict liability offense meaning neither intent or context were relevant for a conviction.

(The purpose of such offenses was so, for example, companies couldn't say "I didn't intend to break the tax laws so please reduce my sentence")

View on HN

James Mathews of Sky News said exactly the same phrase in the interview with Dankula. He wasn't tried.

This is practical demonstration than intent and context matter. The other explanation would be, that the law is selectively enforced. Which is worse?

I mean, the law _is_ selectively enforced, and it's the CPS' job to decide who to prosecute. That's not so much a legal issue as a social/structure and purpose of police issue.

Moreover in terms of the general law and how that law should or shouldn't be written, I can only recommend this discussion which is more detailed than any discussion we could have here and a more informed source:

http://barristerblogger.com/2018/03/24/its-time-to-change-th...

And what was his intent? Courts just ignored his statements. and the video made clear that is was comedic intent.

What do you think his intent was?

I think that Dankula's intent was the one that the video made clear - comedy.

Mathews didn't realize what he did, when he cited Dankula in the interview, until Dankula pointed it out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com