3 ms·
I think the issue boils down to the definition, and how the courts will interpret it. The definition is far too vague, and the courts will do as they please wi
by jollybean 5y ago
I think the issue boils down to the definition, and how the courts will interpret it.
The definition is far too vague, and the courts will do as they please with it.
There will be some weird fallout over this.
- caseysoftware 5y agoNo, the real place to leverage this is before the courts. I'm not sure of how it works in Canada but in the US, the District Attorney can choose which cases to pursue. A savvy DA (or the Canadian equivalent) can pick cases that fit the public's current notion of "hate speech" and quietly pass on the ones who don't. Therefore, setting precedents for later cases. Judges can't rule in cases which aren't presented.
- a1369209993 5y ago> can pick cases that fit the public's current notion of "hate speech" and quietly pass on the ones who don't. Prosecutorial discretion needs to be considered a crime against humanity.