Let me be more direct - how do you think these powers of restriction on "influencing people" you want, will be used by an administration you don't want? Do you think there might be some foreign countries where such powers are already in place, that could give us a clue how things might turn out, or is America too much of a unique exception to be able to learn from anyone else's experience?
Tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a generally liberal crowd is a figure of speech which implies, by and large, the need for complete reform.
To far-right "conservatives", white supremacists, violent insurrectionists, and paranoid militias, it implies something completely different.
In other words, someone tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a liberal following in regards to a judicial appointment is a very different thing from Trump or other far-right "influencers" tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a large and frequently violent crowd in regards to their false claims of stolen elections, because it's reasonable to assume that people upset about the replacement of RBG aren't going to literally burn down the capitol, whereas it's clear that a (small but sufficiently significant) subset of Trump followers were not only willing to, but able to and intent on, burning down the Capitol in response to the false stolen election claims.
Codifying a double-standard of when it's "reasonable to assume" that certain threats are figurative based on political orientation of the speaker is just the kind of thing that pours fuel on the fire.
