[cauch]

Punished by the same people who punishes all the other infractions.

The same way doctors are punished if they are abusing their patients, or drug dealers who are selling drugs, or rioters that burn cars, or ...

No one is going to build a brand new parallel tribunal to just process the infractions on this law, and it will never fly as it is a clear violation of power separation.

If now you are saying that the current judicial system is controlled by the politicians in power, then this law is harmless: they can already arrest their opponent by just saying "they killed an old lady, let's have a trial to see if they are a murderer"

[thegrimmest]

So you're suggesting that politicians lying be tried (with prosecutorial discretion) by a jury of their peers in order to determine whether a lie was told? How would this law be written? Would politicians be imprisoned for giving a deceptive compliment? eg. "No, that dress doesn't make you look fat at all"

[cauch]

You realize that lies are already illegal in plenty of other situations. For example, lawyers and doctors cannot lie or deliberately deceive. Or you can be prosecuted if you lie when under oath. You know that no lawyer or doctor are arrested for saying "no, that dress doesn't make you look fat at all", right?

It is just extending the laws that already apply to parliament or judicial system to a broader set of situation easily identifiable. Pretending that it is equivalent to be able to raid a political opponent because they said "that dress doesn't make you look fat" is just ridiculous.

We already deal with these situations, and there are easy and proven solutions to avoid misuse.

[calf]

This is just an engineer's disease argument, using "extension" to do all the intellectual work of justifying the position. It's a pseudo explanation and works like how all misinformation works, using specious logic. Ironic given the topic of this thread.