> The idea is that the state should not generally be in the business of determine what political speech should be legal I understand, but how can the same stat

> The idea is that the state should not generally be in the business of determine what political speech should be legal I understand, but how can the same state allow mobs and employers to harass people and sometimes destroy their lives because they do what the state allows? The state doesn't just declare freedoms, it protects them. For example, if the state doesn't throw you in jail for your opinions, can someone else do it without the state intervening? > Do you seriously not see the difference between, "this opinion should not get you thrown in jail" and "this opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power"? I see that the first statement comes from the state and it is valid for everyone; the second is subjective and is made by a group of people who have taken on themselves the role of judge, jury and executioner. Granted, it's a statement that is in your right to make; but if you act on it you can become responsible of harassment, stalking, mobbing.