Assuming there are already laws defining what you can say/publish, I'd assume that these laws are only relating to how material that is already illegal should be handled?

What is legal is of course varying between EU member states, but e.g. hate speech or nazi propaganda usually falls under the same paragraph and is already illegal.

I agree that this is a very difficult distinction, but the distinction isn't new in any place where there aren't already hate speech laws for example

These laws are extremely vague, and already applied very selecively. For instance, if you look at Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech, the European Comission admits that they want the websites to perform the function of the judge, jury, executioner:

"Isn't it for courts to decide what is illegal?

Yes, interpreting the law is and remains the responsibility of national courts. At the same time, IT companies have to act in line with national laws, in particular those transposing the Framework Decision on combatting racism and xenophobia"

So if you're a website operator, and it has the text that says "slaves, obey your masters", should that be deleted? Why or why not?

What about "do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, she must be quiet"?

>Or scientific articles that go against the politically correct narrative?

Wut?

James Damore was fired for citing scientific articles, for example.

You can also watch the swedish documentary Hjernevask which shows what happens when science goes against the PC system, it's fascinating.

Norwegian documentary, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs&list=PLaJtMuDnR5...

(The links in the Wikipedia article go to videos with a bit higher quality than the Youtube playlist.)

Damore was fired for what he said, not what he cited while saying it (I'm not saying it was justified). Misrepresenting events as a rhetorical tactic is essentially propaganda - it will never do anything but hurt both sides of the argument.

But what he said we're citations. Nobody is misrepresenting anything.