What I feel, and what I believe most people who aren’t already bought in feel, is that there is no such nuance. At best, such laws are redundant with existing l

What I feel, and what I believe most people who aren’t already bought in feel, is that there is no such nuance. At best, such laws are redundant with existing laws against threats of violence. But in practice, even in places like America that are comparatively lax, that’s just the motte. The bailey is throwing people in jail for things like stickering and flyering because they can be construed as harassing those who disagree with them. Or arresting those speaking non-threatening but “offensive” language because such speech is necessarily going to provoke violence from their opponents (i.e. "inciting a riot"). There are other similarly informal polls from sources which could be classified as slanted. In themselves, they could be dismissed, but there's a backdrop of existing polling in western countries at large, which find the same public coldness toward such laws--and yet they get them anyway. And, again, the public consultation results themselves are available. You're only going to find right-slanted sources for polls because the right know that they have the public support on this. The pointed lack of polling data from those behind the legislation is damning in itself; they measure public opinion on everything. The notion that they just forgot to do it in this case is absurd.