No.
The next post is saying "You were wrong cnredd."

You EXPLICITLY stated that MALICE was required in order to prove guilt.
And now, when you actually post the information, it only talks about INTENT.

The only thing this distinguishes is that if somebody "accidentally" leaks the information, the person is not culpable.
(Somehow I think our next step is going to be what the Republicans can get away with claiming "accident" means...)

This in no way substantiates your claim.

And the thing that kills me is that you later REPEAT your original claim of "malice" which you DID NOT PROVE.


cnredd: Did you maliciously do so?...Nope...


Your claim of malice is false!
malice
n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being. Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice. Malice is an element in first degree murder. In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may increase the judgment to include general damages. Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a "public figure" to win a lawsuit for defamation.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1197&bold=malice||

It doesn't matter whether or not "malice" is present or not. Lack of malice does not excuse one from the crime.
(And if you think about it, why the heck would anybody want to make the law require proof of "malice"???)
Intentionally leaking the information IS the crime. As it should be.