I think it is important to note in this regard that in internet discussion, the parties involved are often debating not only facts but also morality. This is fi

I think it is important to note in this regard that in internet discussion, the parties involved are often debating not only facts but also morality. This is fine, because people on the internet are their own beings and not institutions of democratic government with a formal separation of power. A judge is explicitly not tasked with what the law "should" be, as that is the role of the lawmaking parts of government. The place of a judge is to measure the facts against the law as fairly as possible. One of the founding principles of legal thinking is that equal acts should be judged equally, and one of the ways to maintain equal laws for equal citizens is through jurisdiction. If you did some action XYZ and it is not immediately clear whether you violated the law or not, "but other citizen ABC did the same thing back in 1976 and then the judge ruled that it did not violate the law" should be valid reasoning for the defending lawyer.