“Freedom of expression and freedom of speech is fine, but not if its hateful hyperbole aimed at society, its institutions and its elected officials.”
While I think this is a sound idea, I also think that, in a divided country like the U.S., this kind of law might leave too much room for interpretation. For instance, say the Republicans designate something as a harmful hyperbole that should be grounds for an arrest. The Democrats might respond by saying it’s legitimate criticism of government policy, and should therefore not justify any arrest. I do, however, agree about the non-absolute nature of freedom of speech. Just like any freedom, it stops where the others’ begin.