zlacker

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.

>>tener+(OP)
That's where we are right now. Airtight laws are impossible in complex systems.

>>_def+Q
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.

>>tener+(OP)
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