[ralfn]

In criminal law in most nations intent plays an extremely important role.

Yet these mind reading devices do not exist. Is it because there are other ways to establish intent?

> A rule that you can break by having the right or wrong thoughts isn't a rule.

Yet somehow those kinds of rules are enforced in a courtroom thousands of times a week.

In this context, deception would have been proven by simply proving the person knew the information was untrue. You be surprised how often people publicly admit to that in some other context. And then suddenly "intent" is proven.

>Words have generally agreed upon meanings,

Especially in a legal context. But that doesn't make the classification of "promoting false information" easier.