Reducing all objections to anything to "disagreement" or "not liking it" is a sure sign of bad faith discussion.

I'm not claiming that the objections are of equal merit, but a moral/legal system is clearly not going to work on a societal level if it's just going to be "it's fine to disregard the legal system if you think there's a good reason for it".

A moral system that doesn't allow one to break the law for any reason, no matter how good the reason is, can hardly be called a moral system at all. Obedience to the state is not a functional moral code.

>Obedience to the state is not a functional moral code.

What's your bar for "functional moral code"? More importantly, what makes you think the alternative (ie. "it's okay to break laws if you think there's a Really Good Reason for it") is functional?

Where did I say that?

If that's not your opinion please explain what you mean by courts being more "proactive"

By shortening enforcement timelines. In the current system, it would take years for someone to bring a case before a court and even more years before the company would pay any fines.

Courts and the government in general should be more proactive by shortening execution timelines. Shorten the time it takes to go from "Maybe tech companies shouldn't censor people" to "We're arresting Mark Zuckerberg today and he's going to jail next week" from a decade to something resembling weeks.

I'm tired of slowness. I want events to happen quickly.

>"We're arresting Mark Zuckerberg today and he's going to jail next week"

To be clear you want the state to more aggressively police/prosecute "bad" people on social networks?

Prosecution in general, not just for social networks but for everything in society, shouldn't necessarily be more aggressive, just faster.