• edgemaster72@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    162
    ·
    4 days ago

    Well but see the intent isn’t to render it unfit to be reissued, the whole point is that you want it to stay in circulation so as many people as possible see the additional message.

    • drath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      This is legalese. The

      “with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued”

      probably relates only to the

      “or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt”

      part, and not the whole

      “Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together”

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      No. If you can’t spell out “rapist” on facebook without being canceled. you sure as hell can bet your butt on a dollar note with that remark not staying in circulation. and you’re supposed to know that. so if you write that on a dollar bill, i don’t think it’s “plausible deniability” to say “i considered this dollar bill fine for further circulation”.

      • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        You wouldn’t need plausible deniability because the prosecution would have to prove that your intent was to make the bill unfit for circulation. Intent is already notoriously difficult to prove in a court of law, and it would be very difficult to prove someone wanted to take a bill out of circulation by writing a message on it that they hoped would be seen by people.

        Even if the result is that the bill gets taken out of circulation, the court would have to prove that you knew that would happen and wanted it to.