In reality all rights are contingent upon and in direct conflict with each other. This is not some special case, and no, contingency and conflict does not make one side immediately the worst case scenario of itself.
"Your right to prevent incitement to violence does not exceed my right to free speech. To have it otherwise is to live in a panopticon."
It factually does exceed that right and that fact does not yield a panopticon.
> It factually does exceed that right and that fact does not yield a panopticon.
Poor analogy. The panopticon analogy was to relate the fact that allowing inspection of every single message sent by everyone ever is a panopticon. Preventing someone from speaking doesn't equate to a panopticon.
I am very concerned for the worldviews of people who genuinely think it's a good idea to let the government (and consequently, any entity with moderately-skilled hackers and a motive to mass collect data) view every message sent between private parties.
