Originally Posted by
Bjauck
I was bemused by one of the explanations given by seeking reforming "hate laws" was that the wording behind some of the existing laws was "archaic". Surely there is a reason for that as the existing wording has legal precedent (including common law caselaw) behind the definitions. That helps creates certainty of definition and application of the law, a fundamental tenet, or at least goal, for a modern democracy, I would have thought. Amendments can be added to cover additional communication methods.
Up-to-the-minute or "on trend" wording may perhaps be more indistinct and uncertain. Therefore requiring subsequent legal argument (time and resources!) to help determine its meaning and application.