A) The historical position of the US is that human rights (freedom of belief and speech among them) are inalienable. It plays out different for non-citizens but

A) The historical position of the US is that human rights (freedom of belief and speech among them) are inalienable. It plays out different for non-citizens but up until the current administration, largely the same constitutional and due protections have been judged to apply. B) We're talking about the government proactively monitoring communications for thought crimes. That doesn't actually protect or help anyone. C)The "reprehensible" positions here are things like "genocide is bad" or "Trump is a fascist." I don't know about you, but I don't believe such thoughts should be illegal.