That's fallacious reasoning (cherry picking fallacy, perhaps?). You're implying that taking a certain measure to stop terrorist organizations is a bad thing because North Korea does it. The last statement is also implying that by sharing this commonality, we become as oppressive as North Korea (or were you making the slippery slope argument?).
Not at all, Mr. Devil's Advocate. There is no conclusion (ergo no fallacy, because it's not an argument). I was merely attempted to point out, succinctly, that the limiting of speech and expression is very inviting for oppression. What better way to deal with dissenters than simply make it illegal to speak out? It all comes back to the safety vs. freedom struggle.
But the real question is safety for you today, safety for whom tomorrow? One of the greatest dangers is stepping aside and siding with arguments like, "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear." But who watches the watchers? Who keeps their power in check if they decide to abuse it?
It's a very important safeguard against tyranny, preventing the government from overstepping its duty to the people it serves.
You argue that too much freedom is a bad thing. Probably true, we wouldn't want military grade weapons falling into just anybody's hands, nor weaponized plutonium.
Government is formed via societal contract, and in our particular society (the USA), there are certain expectations that the people are expected to uphold, namely with the recognition of person rights. All men have the right to freedom of speech, which is recognized as an unalienable and necessary fundamental truth. However, there are also the rights of other people, which must be maintained and others may not disrupt.
By birthing a child, the parents assume a contract as put forth by the government to be responsible for the child's well-being -- this is expected by our society. Physical child abuse is clearly a heinous crime, but what of emotional child abuse, should that fall under freedom of speech?
Having a child is in most cases, voluntary. We have abortion clinics and adoption services should the parent not wish to take responsibility, so it is not as though the parent is being forced -- they have chosen it (ignoring the matter of personal belief making it not a choice: the freedom to worship does not exempt one from the law). The parents have limited rights over the child (legal rights), because they, like the government, have been contracted to look out for the child's well-being and should they be negligent in their duty, are subject to punishment as determined by the state.
The matter changes once the child reaches adulthood as recognized by the government. Full person rights are granted, and the parent is free from the contract. However, there is still the matter of libel and slander.
Libel and slander only deal with falsehoods that affect a person's physical well-being and are factual in nature (including loss of job, etc.).
I'll halt here after making this distinction, because I feel an adult person's emotional well-being should not be protected by the above clause. Whether or not your offended or emotionally hurt from someone's speech isn't their problem, even if your depressed state caused you to lose your job. This is so the limitation on speech is a tangible, objective, and measurable occurrence.
But this brings us to the topic of harassment, and how that differs from the aforementioned. I'll stop for now, before I write a book.