>... because no one who interprets laws does so with any regard to their purpose and therefore all laws which govern speech will be enforced arbitrarily No one

>... because no one who interprets laws does so with any regard to their purpose and therefore all laws which govern speech will be enforced arbitrarily No one does not necessarily beget the other. But I would say that "power corrupts" is very true. If you give somebody power over who can talk, that's very tempting to misuse. So why give anyone that power? It's too powerful to be used with restraint in the long run IMO. >I can definitely see that not happening, or at least not succeeding when it's attempted, because it could happen now with hate speech laws Honestly if it did actually happen, what would you do about it? Would you complain in the newspaper? Online? What if your complaint was classified as "terrorist" content? I mean does it really actually HAVE to happen IRL for you to see that this type of power should not be held by politicians?