They literally said that the ambiguity is good because it keeps everyone on their toes because no one knows if they are safe. That's their own words not my invented re-interpretation.
"The ambiguity of these questions is a feature rather than a bug. Being unable to tell when something is "advertising" forces everyone to think twice..."
Courts performing the job of interpretation is indeed not the same as selective enforcement, but this comment expressly advocates for deliberate ambiguity. Not unavoidable ambiguity.
They obviously did not know they are asking for selective enforcement by that name, or why that is a bad thing, a far worse thing than the advertizing or whatever other bad behavior they imagine "forces everyone to think twice" curtails, but that is what ambiguity in a law gets you.
Let alone a whole other dimension to this, that it doesn't even curtail what they think.
They think they are attacking advertizers, but advertizers are fine under selective enforcement. Really they are only attacking themselves and all other little guy individuals. Google and Amazon and all other advertizers have the money and the connections at city hall to get their own behavior selectively allowed. It's only you and me and themselves who will ever have to "think twice".
And it goes on down from every slightly bigger fish vs every slightly smaller. The local used car dealer uglifying your neighborhood has more friends on the police force and at the mayors office than you do, so they get to do whatever, and you get to think twice.
This has not been an unknown matter of opinion or speculation since the dawn of writing. You are free to think otherwise, but it is only the freedom to be ignorant.
"The ambiguity of these questions is a feature rather than a bug. Being unable to tell when something is "advertising" forces everyone to think twice..."
Courts performing the job of interpretation is indeed not the same as selective enforcement, but this comment expressly advocates for deliberate ambiguity. Not unavoidable ambiguity.
They obviously did not know they are asking for selective enforcement by that name, or why that is a bad thing, a far worse thing than the advertizing or whatever other bad behavior they imagine "forces everyone to think twice" curtails, but that is what ambiguity in a law gets you.
Let alone a whole other dimension to this, that it doesn't even curtail what they think.
They think they are attacking advertizers, but advertizers are fine under selective enforcement. Really they are only attacking themselves and all other little guy individuals. Google and Amazon and all other advertizers have the money and the connections at city hall to get their own behavior selectively allowed. It's only you and me and themselves who will ever have to "think twice".
And it goes on down from every slightly bigger fish vs every slightly smaller. The local used car dealer uglifying your neighborhood has more friends on the police force and at the mayors office than you do, so they get to do whatever, and you get to think twice.