"A federal appeals panel has upheld the 20 year sentence of a lolicon found to have received illustrations of underage sex by email, saying that “it is not a required that the minor depicted actually exists”, and so ruling art not to be universally protected free speech."

I think that using a particularly narrow example of restricted permissible expression isn't proof that society is getting closer to the totalitarian nightmare of 1984.

Or (to name a more current example) just say at the NY airport that the security measures are bullshit! ... just as doublethought-enhancer.

Only because you don't have 24/7 surveillance on you. Yet.

Or, frankly, when a punishment for a crime is increased by its intent (e.g. race related or anti-homosexual) -- it's not only the crime that is punished but the thought behind it as well.

As far as hate-crime goes, the notion behind increased punishment there is that the victims include an entire terrorized community, not just the direct victim. If I throw some trash on some guy's lawn, there's one victim (the guy). If I burn a cross on some guy's lawn, there are multiple victims (the other black families in the neighborhood). It's an important distinction.

For hate crime: yes, you've explained the justification for the designation. But it is thoughtcrime. You've merely said that it's legitimate.