I hope this is bait because that's not how it works.

Okay, my bad. I didn't know he was not participating in the embargo.

cperciva 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is exactly how it works. People who are part of the embargo are responsible for making sure that anyone they share information with -- which should usually be nobody! -- are aware of and abide by the embargo.

▲

john_strinlai 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you cannot be subject to an embargo of which you had no knowledge and took no participation in.

the embargo was already broken when pete received the information.

▲

michaelbuckbee 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So if I read the post here and told someone, would I be breaking the embargo?

	▲	kinduff 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, you didn't. I misread.

▲

dylan604 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is not a situation where "Ignorantia juris non excusat" applies.

▲

garbageman 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm trying to follow but how could one possibly know information (the embargo) that has not been shared?

For the law, you can say that the law has been published and is at least available for review.

	▲	dylan604 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		that's my point. Someone cannot come at you saying you were still under the rules of the embargo if you had no idea the embargo existed so now you're in violation and get to suffer the consequences. You cannot say that about the law.

▲

landl0rd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, it is.