(02-15-2016, 09:08 PM)Omega Wrote:

(02-15-2016, 12:42 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: They wouldn't. Legal questions are interpretations of the Charter or the laws. To formulate one, you must refer to specific articles and clauses. Asking for a definition of toxicity wouldn't be accepted by the Court.

Well then I think the first and foremost job of this thread needs to be to come up with a definition of toxicity to be voted on before any kind of anti-toxicity legislation is passed.

This probably isn't a problem that can be legislated away. Legislating an anti-toxicity law will, in all likelihood, lead to further toxicity when people try to use the law to punish people they don't like and will end up with people arguing in Court whether their actions really meet the definition of toxicity. I also doubt there would be an anti-toxicity law that could do anything but egregiously violate freedom of expression.

Your heart's in the right place, but I don't think there's a legislative solution to toxicity. It's a cultural problem -- as in, our political culture, I don't mean cultural activities -- not a legal problem.