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.
Personally, I like Simone Weil’s idea that total freedom of thought and expression are only truly possible in the absence of propaganda, political parties, and deception.
That is to say, it’s not really free thought if we’re just parroting what the party, news, etc. say.