Well... actually you are arguing that they aren't crimes. You are arguing that governments should not be given the power to limit what you see or hear. Threats

Well... actually you are arguing that they aren't crimes. You are arguing that governments should not be given the power to limit what you see or hear. Threats fall under that umbrella. You say 'let readers and listeners decide for themselves what they want to hear', but that is exactly the course of action of this legislation. It's not a proactive government censorship stopping any abuse from happening, but a post-facto avenue to pursue for readers and listeners who do feel abused. There is no 'right to hear' being removed here.