First, thank you for changing the overall tone of your comment.
You assume that the state is always right. I agree it is right in most cases, but not always. And calling arguments like "public safety", like "fighting terrorism", is a way for a government to have more power than it ought to (at least from the point of view of its libertarian citizen).
Voting a law should not necessarily close the debate around it. Societal truths may change: "false information" may just be opposite opinions. Saying it is false is not enough to discard it. A non-issue for you (e.g. abortion) may be an issue for the guy or girl next door.
Activists should not be banned from having strange opinions as it is the root of democratic debates. Let them be ashamed in society, but do not jail them. Today's fundamental rights may be revoked tomorrow because society may someday realize that it was, in the end, not such a good idea.
This is basically a political tradeoff between public safety and free speech/freedom in general. I personnally and currently support more free speech. You look like rather supporting public safety. I'd be happy to read your opinion on that topic.
I said this in another thread, but I want to make it clear here as well:
> I generally agree that "inciting" is a loosely defined term and I, too, dislike how easy of a tool it can be for political censorship.
I don't particularly like the idea of restrictions on free speech. But I also don't particularly like when people's health and livelihoods, public safety, the earth's climate are all damaged by sleazy tactics from people who want to make a quick buck.
I don't like that said restrictions are a tool that can be abused by those in power ... but isn't that just about everything? Surveillance? Police forces?
We make tradeoffs because our world is not made of absolutes. The US makes those tradeoffs as well, the line is just elsewhere. Being a "terrorism sympathizer" in the US will potentially earn you a free trip to Cuba. And that is also a tool that has been used for political censorship.
When I look at the end result, though, we have a country where abortion is a right and saying "god hates fags" is not. The US is the other way around. I know which outcome I prefer.
You assume that the state is always right. I agree it is right in most cases, but not always. And calling arguments like "public safety", like "fighting terrorism", is a way for a government to have more power than it ought to (at least from the point of view of its libertarian citizen).
Voting a law should not necessarily close the debate around it. Societal truths may change: "false information" may just be opposite opinions. Saying it is false is not enough to discard it. A non-issue for you (e.g. abortion) may be an issue for the guy or girl next door.
Activists should not be banned from having strange opinions as it is the root of democratic debates. Let them be ashamed in society, but do not jail them. Today's fundamental rights may be revoked tomorrow because society may someday realize that it was, in the end, not such a good idea.
This is basically a political tradeoff between public safety and free speech/freedom in general. I personnally and currently support more free speech. You look like rather supporting public safety. I'd be happy to read your opinion on that topic.