[YEwSdObPQT]

> Of course there's an objective standard. You look at the politicians, the judges, and look up their standard. It's gross (no pun intended) that one needs to do that, but AFAIK lawyers do that all the time.

1) No that isn't true. There is one rule for those that are in the club and another rule for the rest of us. e.g. Just today I saw a new story of Jimmy Carr being criticised for jokes about the Holocaust. I had told the exact same joke and uploaded it to Youtube / Facebook or Twitter I would expect to have a visit from the authorities.

2) Even 1) wasn't true. What you are describing is not an objective standard. I would rather they have in black and white "You cannot joke about the Holocaust", "You cannot say <slur>". At least you know what you could and couldn't say.

The standard is vague so it can be applied selectively and arbitrarily by the authorities when they see fit. Social media platforms do the same.

> More cases (both civil and criminal) are decided on those bases than you'd expect. (Can't speak for all places, but I'm passably familiar with UK law and precedent... and I suspect the US is similar)

You should not be criminalising unpopular speech because it may "caused offence". What is and isn't offensive is entirely subjective and what is an what isn't considered offensive is entirely transitory.

[hnfong]

Yes I agree with all that you said.

It's still something that can be "objectively" figured out, like you did.