No. This is called selective enforcement and is the worst thing in the world. It gives the enforcers the option to pick on whoever they want and give a pass to whever they want, as if there were no law at all. There is effectively no law at all, because literally anyone doing anything can be called either guilty or innocent at the whim of the person doing the enforcing, or whoever controls them.

You've just described how laws actually work - but we have created modern judiciary system so that it will tend to produce outcomes considered fair by the majority. Algorithmic enforcement of justice without human deliberation of case-by-case specifics would be worse that the worst horror stories about soulless bureaucracies.

That's why we have judges and lawyers, so that the outcome can be decided as a communal process instead of just one person deciding what is punishable - even if the person is the developer building the automated justice dispenser and they'll be not around when the decision is taken, it would still be made by the whims of a single enforcer.

You have observed the fact that even the least ambiguous and least subjective language possible still requires interpretation, not that laws are meant to be ambiguous or subjective.

No, what it does is require the courts to interpret the meaning of the word and create precedent. That’s not the same as selective enforcement.

They literally said that the ambiguity is good because it keeps everyone on their toes because no one knows if they are safe. That's their own words not my invented re-interpretation.

"The ambiguity of these questions is a feature rather than a bug. Being unable to tell when something is "advertising" forces everyone to think twice..."

Courts performing the job of interpretation is indeed not the same as selective enforcement, but this comment expressly advocates for deliberate ambiguity. Not unavoidable ambiguity.

They obviously did not know they are asking for selective enforcement by that name, or why that is a bad thing, a far worse thing than the advertizing or whatever other bad behavior they imagine "forces everyone to think twice" curtails, but that is what ambiguity in a law gets you.

Let alone a whole other dimension to this, that it doesn't even curtail what they think.

They think they are attacking advertizers, but advertizers are fine under selective enforcement. Really they are only attacking themselves and all other little guy individuals. Google and Amazon and all other advertizers have the money and the connections at city hall to get their own behavior selectively allowed. It's only you and me and themselves who will ever have to "think twice".

And it goes on down from every slightly bigger fish vs every slightly smaller. The local used car dealer uglifying your neighborhood has more friends on the police force and at the mayors office than you do, so they get to do whatever, and you get to think twice.

> They obviously did not know they are asking for selective enforcement.

I knew. I said it anyway. I maintain that selective enforcement establishes a chilling effect.

The only chilling effect it has is "don't anger guy in charge", not "don't do bad thing".

It is a "cure" that is both ineffective and worse than the disease.

It's putting knives on the outside of cars to have a chilling effect on jaywalking.

I think it's one thing you think it's another. Why don't you get curious or steel man instead of prosecuting?

This has not been an unknown matter of opinion or speculation since the dawn of writing. You are free to think otherwise, but it is only the freedom to be ignorant.

So we end up in a system in which those with money to litigate will do what they want? I'd rather have airtight laws instead.

Can you point to an airtight law regarding speech that exists today - both as written and enforced? I can't.

This is a worse is better[1] situation. Specifically, I'm arguing against the MIT approach to lawmaking.

The MIT approach:

> The design must be consistent. A design is allowed to be slightly less simple and less complete to avoid inconsistency. Consistency is as important as correctness.

Thinking about laws like software terminates thought.

1. https://www.dreamsongs.com/WIB.html

That's where we are right now. Airtight laws are impossible in complex systems.

Sure, but I meant airtight as a point on a spectrum rather than absolute thing. Meaning: you should prefer laws which are both generic and unambiguous.

There would be a chilling effect on speech. People would be afraid to speak or be imprisoned for saying the wrong things. North Korea is the only country that bans advertising.

> North Korea is the only country that bans advertising.

Outright banning, yes maybe. But many countries or local governments severely regulate advertising in one form or another, and no one is crying foul either.

These countries typically ban alcohol, gambling, children and pharma ads. They still let a large number of ads through.

Well those sound like a great place to start.

Some of us actually go as far as ban billboards, electronic billboards, or even during elections - some counties in Germany limit all kinds of election related propaganda to a few large billboards at the entrance roads, and the rest is kept clean from the bullshit.

They didn't start out banning those ads. Those ads were banned because they were found to be more harmful than they are worth. We've come to realize that much of the ads we're subjected to these days are also harmful, so it's natural for us to want them banned as well.