• Throwaway
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Boiled down, theyre laws against arbritary speech. Sure they might define it, but those definitions always leave enough wiggle room to abuse.

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      by that logic, all laws should be abolished because all laws can be used for abuse.

      • Throwaway
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        If its either an easily abusable law or no law, Id rather no law.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          you know drug laws are easily and constantly abused in America? so you would rather we have dealers selling cocaine to gradeschoolers.

          seems legit.

          there is nothing like a law that can’t be abused, but you huffed too much libertarian glue in the US.

    • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No… one is a law against speech against a large entity of power that holds control of the nation.

      The other is a law against speech against fellow specific individuals.

      If you are seriously trying to equate “I don’t like (religion)” with “I think (group of people) deserve to die”, then you are on the wrong side of history mate.

      That would be a very bad take and I hope to hell and back again you are smart enough to see the difference between those two.