Things appear to be running out of control with legislation and those who own a monopoly over it (the state). Click on image for a brief exposition of this above.
For example, during the plandemic, people all over, were coerced by their employers and the state no less, to cooperate with masks, lockdowns and vaccines shots. Which, allegedly, the state and some large corporations knew were a net harmful intervention at the time but hid that from the world.
And under the historic common law that would already be illegal, through tort. Now there is growing evidence coming out showing that this might be true enough to stand a test of justice in court.
So the state, created new statute, overnight, to cause a 'tort', to their peoples, to the extent that was required to get general compliance. Power, through the states' monopoly of the law.
Not only that. This hasty statute, disregarded the lessons of the centuries from common law, without much further thought about the unintended consequences or ignoring the lessons of this wisdom.
Now we're starting to see the same thing with speech too. Both compelled speech and free speech.
This is not to say that people are simply free to say what they like, even considering the first amendment of the US constitution. On top of that freedom to say what you like, you are obliged to make sure that by doing so, you cause no harm to those you have control over in any way.
Else be breaking the law to which you are morally obliged to obey. At least within social organisation as it stands today
For example, any person sitting within a large group of people in an enclosed space, has a relatively large amount of control over the attention of the rest of the people there. To falsely shout FIRE within that space would be considered battery in common law and rightly so.
As we've seen with the combined stabbings, free speech and open borders protests, social media gives a user control over the rest of the platform but to a less than certain extent which may or may bot be enough to be deemed harmful. If this passes a threshold in common law yet to be determined, then that is subject to battery and no further political legislation using the power of the state and its monopoly over the law, is required. The common law already is perfectly satisfactory and all it needs to be tested in a court of law.
There would not be a thousand political prisoners in jail for saying hurty words. They would be in jail for breaking the law, for which they are morally obliged to obey, within the current society. That would be justice, not politically determined.
But does a user have enough control over the rest of the users on a platform to cause harm in common law? And even if it does, there is no need for further statute to protect the people from harm. If a civil arbitrator were to consider it does not give such control then it is not causing harm already and is not breaking the law.
This opportunity for justice following the protests was never tested in court. It was decreed by the divine law of the state. A quasi-religious systemic activity.