. . . The potential chilling effect to social media users is
   exacerbated by the indefiniteness of some of the Hateful Conduct Law's
   key terms. It is not clear what the terms like "vilify" and "humiliate"
   mean for the purposes of the law. While it is true that there are
   readily accessible dictionary definitions of those words, the law does
   not define what type of "conduct" or "speech" could be encapsulated by
   them. For example, could a post using the hashtag "BlackLivesMatter" or
   "BlueLivesMatter" be considered "hateful conduct" under the law?
   Likewise, could social media posts expressing anti-American views be
   considered conduct that humiliates or vilifies a group based on
   national origin? It is not clear from the face of the text, and thus
   the law does not put social media users on notice of what kinds of
   speech or content is now the target of government regulation.
   [1]https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trials-amp-appeals-amp-compensat
   ion/1284762/judge-carter-enjoins-new-yorks-new-online-hate-speech-law-o
   n-first-amendment-grounds?email_access=on

References

   1. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trials-amp-appeals-amp-compensation/1284762/judge-carter-enjoins-new-yorks-new-online-hate-speech-law-on-first-amendment-grounds?email_access=on