• kent_eh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    30 days ago

    Leaving it open ended and subjective is setting up for failure.

    Having a specific list always misses something, and bad actors will find ways to abuse the gaps in that list.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        No they don’t. The argument is that good actors get overly punished for doing things that shouldn’t be illegal yet are. You’re not even being logically consistent in your arguments.

        • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          30 days ago

          They absolutely do. One of the best ways to get a community banned on these platforms is to get the rules as ambiguous as you can, and then flood the community with bots breaking the rules.

              • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                30 days ago

                At the societal level with hate speech laws you can’t use bots though. You’re going to have to waste the courts time by wasting real people’s time dragging them in front of judges for protest actions. Eventually the courts will just make it a fine that police can quickly issue.

                • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  30 days ago

                  Sure you can. These bots are called “lawyers.” Zionists and Scientologists being extreme examples of abusing the courts and ambiguous laws to produce similar results.

                  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    30 days ago

                    Except that they’ve been largely unsuccessful at the legal level. Courts in every western country recognizes the valid right to protest Israel and the actions of the Israeli government and expressly does not consider that anti-Semitic or hate speech.

                    There have been a few minor edge cases in some countries around controversial slogans like ‘From the River to the Sea’, and directly expressing support for organizations like Hamas, but by and large hate speech laws have not been abused. They’re mostly used to shut down and arrest neo Nazis and xenophobic rioters.

                    Israeli propaganda money is much better spent on convincing business leaders and the public at large that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic than it is at trying to convince constitutional lawyers.