[InefficientRed]

Certain pockets of the gaming community are crime-adjacent with respect to online harassment (not the type this law describes; actual, clearly illegal and clearly not constitutionally protected harassment).

You see similar things in other crime-adjacent communities. E.g., I've known many taggers who support stiffer penalties for people who tag in national parks, deface uncontroversial monuments, etc but are afraid that those stiffer penalties might result in a crackdown on their own plainly criminal art installations.

Similar with petty theft. Lots of people will say stuff like "I love boosters they are taking care of the common man" while simultaneously going into fits of rage when their own property is stolen.

"I spend enough time around people who commit this crime that I can see how much damage this type of behavior can cause, but I also think my particular flavor of it is harmless."

[yuuu]

I honestly do not understand how people can be so myopic that they cannot, at all, anticipate the second-order effects that will come from legislation they "like" because it bans things they "don't like."

[InefficientRed]

I'm not sure how this is responsive to the normalization of deviance.

Criminal harassment isn't a "don't like" thing. It's just a misdemeanor crime. Harassment people isn't "just free speech" even if it is speech. Graffiti isn't "just art" even if it's art. There has never been a time in the USA where you could systematically harass someone without committing a crime.