It seems to me a repeating pattern that once freedom of thought, speech and expression is limited for essentially any reason, it will have unintended consequences.
Once the tools are in place, they will be used, abused and inevitably end up in the hands of someone you disagree with, regardless of whether the original implementer had good intentions.
As such I’m personally very averse to restrictions. I’ve thought about the question a fair bit – there isn’t a clear cut or obvious line to draw.
Please elaborate and motivate your answer. I’m genuinely curious about getting some fresh perspectives.
You’re responsible for substantive harm you cause in the physical world and that can be proven. This is the only constraint. It is ugly and at times unpleasant. This is the fundamental threshold of democracy. If absolutely any information fails to be disclosed openly for the citizen to be fully informed, that is a fundamental failure of democracy and is authoritarianism. Fuck all fascists. Citizens have a right to be skeptical, a right to share that skepticism, and a right to be wrong. There are no exceptions, only precedent that erodes into authoritarianism.
Are you saying that there should be no limits to free speech and free expression, with no exceptions?