Before "the internet" we got our information from defined sources - the TV, Radio, Newspapers. Controlled, safe and targeted. Control the news, and control the people.
When social media started to take off, those in power were keen to get their messages out to a wide audience via this new medium, and followers followed.
Then, awkwardly, the followers found their own voices, contrary opinions were getting out and some people didn't like it - Government people, public figures, groups with agendas didn't like contrary opinions.
So after a few test cases, a way was found to use a law designed for public broadcasting and isolated obscene phone calls to stop anyone with an internet connection and an opinion (or a joke even) to voice that opinion (or joke). A "malicious communication" was born. The trouble was, no-one really new what a "malicious" communication was, and it came down to the person hearing or reading the words to decide if it was malicious or not. Effectively, someone/anyone could decide (arbitrarily) if they thought something was malicious or not, if they were offended or not. The right not to be offended was born. Stealthily and quite broadly.
So that nicely dealt with anyone getting their opinions out on the social networks, on the internet. But what about those still saying stuff that people don't like out in public? Well, perhaps now that a right not to be offended has been established online, and people are aware of it and using/abusing it, and it's spreading and getting ubiquitous, perhaps now is the time to stop people saying stuff in public that we don't like. Let's have a test case ....
Not quite 1927, and not quite Nuremberg, a little bit more subtle but none less effective.
