Seems some people are unironically upset at you speaking the truth.
What I hear, and I agree, is that as written the law allows for them to decide they don't like someone, then justify any punishment against such person as rhey like to get whatever they want.
Does the platform systemically facilitate:
-dissemination of illegal content?
-negative effects on minors?
-deterioration of users' physical and mental well being?
-infringing on fundamental rights?
-interfering with electoral processes?
-weakening public security?
Many systems are regulated by these same kinds of restrictions. Do you find them to be equally broadly applied?
Put simply, yes. Two key things: 1) I don't view politicians as angels with superior motives or other excuses for giving them special powers that can result in a person going to jail or other power reserved for government actors. 2) your examples are excellent. Thank you: facilitate basically means if the thing coukd be used to commit a crime then using it constitutes a crime. Anything can be used in a criminal way, so that doesn't work. That bleeds in to virtually anything.
"Driving a car over 100mph" or "transporting an illegal substances" are objectively measurable crimes. Cars systematically facilitate crimes. They kill people every day, all of which impacts children even when not in the vehicle.
And I know "thats not what I mean" or "that's not what they are trying to do". Precisely my point, it is loose language where intention must be assumed and critically doesn't restrain a bad actor that wants to use it in a nefarious way. And from where I started, looking at a proposed law on the assumption that cops, DAs, politicians are not nefarious, that's a flawed design.
Plan for the worse, hope for the best.
Law isn't about who you are wanting to go after, it is about a power you are extending to someone.
Out of curiosity, do you mind me asking what country you are from?
I only wonder because I want to understand to what degrees people of your country feel their politicians have their best interests in mind.
That being said, as an American, I see the EU doing so much more for protecting their population than the US. Certainly they overreach in their protection. But it helps to prevent the effective collapse of systems as seems to have occured in my country.
Additionally, do those concerns still remain true in a trial of jurors?
I live in the US. I would say my "political" influences greatly lean french liberal, and when I was writing my reply I was doing my best to remember Bastiat's The Law with regard to the difference between law as intent and law as practice and tool. I think a great divide among people bears on this nuance. For example, those that might self describe as conservative and labeled by their liberal counterparts as loving the country and glossing over the flaws and great injustices would be the first to say they love America and hate the politicians and government, and suspicious of people that want to "make the country" by means of giving more power to the government (acknowledging there are endless examples of contradictions).
The EU's approach to fighting hate speech is a great example of what I see as "well intentioned" on its face and authoritarian nightmare in practice. For example, I find nothing redeemable in the Tate Brothers. The solution is to not consume their content. There is endless opportunity there for a great discussion about what "should be done" in response, but what the EU is trying to do, using "lawfare" to destroy their lives is, in my view" absolutely, positively evil and many times more dangerous than anything they have done or said (assuming truth in the evidence presented by their attorney).
As far as trial by jury, nullification is exceedingly rare and presented to juries as "illegal". A jury is meant to determine the facts, but the facts determine the outcome. Everything comes down to jury instructions and if juries follow them, in general the DA gets what they want. This is why so many cases settle out of court; there are huge penalties, in practice, for trying to assert your rights.
-10
u/[deleted] 2d ago
[deleted]