[lelanthran]

I gotta know, which of those specific points in your second citation do you have a problem with? The only one I can see having a problem with is "d. Subversion...".

I expect that most voters welcome efforts that aim to stop other groups using violence and intimidation to suppress their speech or legal religious activities.

The only problem with these proposed laws is the same problem with all existing laws - selective enforcement.

[no-name-here]

I was responding to the grandparent commenter’s claims that ‘public anger’ no longer exists - so whether you want to point to one of those examples, right-wing pushes to pass new laws labeling those impacting “civil tranquility” as domestic “civil terrorists”, or public anger seen across social media (Reddit, etc), my point is that the argument that public anger no longer exists seems unsupported.

[lelanthran]

I understand now, apologies.

I agree with you, that public anger still exists[1], but I will not consider that link I mentioned in my response as an example of the suppression of public anger.

A new law that specifically calls out people as criminals when they attempt to limit a person from entering their place of worship, etc is not a law suppressing the expression of public anger.

======================

[1] One can even make the argument that Trump got elected on the back of public anger. The values he espoused are unpalatable, but there is little question that the whole suppression of opinions in the last decade have had much to do with his popularity.