[vladTheInhaler]

I'm not sure what you think a law would look like that is completely impartial. The very existence of a law represents a thumb on the scales of otherwise unconstrained human behavior. What specifically should we make laws impartial to?

[mc32]

We don’t have to consider ridiculous extremes. We need to consider our philosophy, mores and ethics to inform laws.

We don’t say, it’s illegal to commit theft, well, unless you’re the government or the judge, then it’s okay because we know you must have good intentions.

[vladTheInhaler]

Okay, so we should not give exemptions to specific categories of people who are a priori assumed to be good. I think that's fair. Are you concerned that that's the situation in the original context? Or would be, if we somehow knew who the original commenter was talking about?

[mc32]

It would be healthier to not know the identity to avoid introducing unnecessary bias in the decision.

It shouldn’t be like: oh it was Joe the grocer, yeah he’s okay, let ‘im go. Vs, oh it was Ernie the latrine digger, he always makes my skin crawl; throw the book at him!

[vladTheInhaler]

So if the hate brigades were being launched by a group with a long track record of bad-faith and abusive behavior, you don't think that should inform your decision making?

[mc32]

Why not make a rule to address all brigading? why targeted against groups you like or dislike? The groups you like and dislike are not going to be concentric with other people's so keep it consistent.

[capitol_]

Because opinions are not all equal, some are better and some are worse.

Even if both antivaxxers and doctors have opinions on if people should get vaccinated it would be insane to treat them equally.