[codedokode]

> The answer is extremely, extremely simple actually: because the outcome of that would be bad, while the outcome of controlling misleading advertising is good.

I don't think that is how law should work. For some people the outcome of regulating free speech would be bad, many wouldn't care, and for many people (for example, for the President and his team, some of his supporters, members of the government) it would be great.

There is no such thing as "make something better for everyone". It is always "make better for one and worse for another". For example, if you raise minimum salary there will be people upset with that (people who pay the salary; people who see the prices raise).

Also it would be better if the law would be precise and there would be no need to interpret it in someone's favor.

[ethanbond]

That is how it actually does work. We elect leaders on the basis of them expressing some approximation of our desired future, they appoint judges who express some approximation of our desired future, everyone is constrained by each other and by each others' believable interpretations of some documents, and example case after example case is brought forth and tested on the basis of "will ruling this way yield a positive outcome for society?" where "outright rejection of the court and legislative system" is considered an intrinsically bad outcome.

> Also it would be better if the law would be precise and there would be no need to interpret it in someone's favor.

Sure would! Unfortunately we have no reason to believe this is even theoretically possible.