The claims have been made that the bill's requirement that a knowing violation of the statute occurs is unjust. The claim that it is too burdensome to require that a person knowingly violates the law before they can be said to meet the exceptions to the bill fails to understand the flexible nature of the requirement. A typical jury instruction regarding what the requirement 'unknowing' means states as follows: 'Knowledge may be proved by all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. You, the jury, may infer knowledge from a combination of suspicion and indifference to the truth. If you find that a person had a strong suspicion that things were not what they seemed or that someone had withheld some important facts, yet shut his eyes for fear of what he would learn, you may conclude that he acted knowingly.' The knowing standard is clearly flexible enough to produce justice in our courts in all circumstances.
On the recordApril 9, 2003
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the flexibility of the knowing violation standard in a bill.
Share
More from Marsha Blackburn
Aug 4, 2026
Insurance regulation has long been, and should remain, a responsibility of the states. The Federal Insurance Office Abolishment Act would eliminate unnecessary federal overreach, cut red tape, and return power to the states.
Jul 14, 2026
Public safety is one of the top priorities for Tennesseans and continuing to build on the progress of the Memphis Safe Task Force is a key part of my vision for Tennessee.
Jun 9, 2026
We need to make it easier for federal prosecutors to combat and prevent carjackings.
Aug 1, 2026
Taxpayers should not be spending a penny on research done by those who want to push harmful gender transition surgeries and radical gender ideology on our kids.





