[patrickm129]

The solution to this is sentence enhancements.

For example, pass a law making the distribution of PII unlawful if the intent of the distribution is to cause violence or unrest. The law itself would cover everyone evenly.

With a few sentence enhancement clauses, the same statute that protects everyone equally can add additional terms of incarceration or mandatory minimums for judges and law enforcement.

[adolph]

The law itself would cover everyone evenly.

The key flaw of this theory is the dependance on law enforcement practice.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/04/14/theory/

[baybal2]

You cannot do so because US congress is prohibited making laws "abridging the speech."

Such law abridges what somebody says, and thus cannot be made.

[robotresearcher]

There are well-established exceptions that include incitement to violence. Wikipedia's summary:

"Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

[baybal2]

I cannot find any reference to that in the US constitution text.

[robotresearcher]

So?

These exceptions are given. What’s your point?

[centimeter]

"Enhancing" punishments on accusations as vague as "causing unrest" surely won't be abused...

[patrickm129]

I totally agree. The law is incredibly vague, I was just mentioning it as a "solution".

[asab]

demonstrating intent in court can often be quite difficult. focusing instead on outcomes for the judges may help

[patrickm129]

Yup. Thankfully in a criminal investigation, the burden of proof for "intent" is typically on the prosecutor. I'd rather give the prosecutor a harder time than a defendant.