HN will flag you for being stupidly confrontational or promoting known conspiracy theories; you can introduce facts provided you back them up with non-insane sources.

The longer things stay vague, the more I become concerned that this may be a scenario that is so common that it has an enduring meme [0], where:

1. The person claims that a broad swathe of facially reasonable and views are being rejected or forbidden in a way that is an unfair overreaction.

2. Pressed, they refuse to provide any concrete details, even in a safe context.

3. They are actually facing difficulty from a much much narrower--or entirely disjoint--set of view.

In this case, OP has claimed the average HN commenter is hostile to a general class in the form of "our liberty has been improperly infringed by a false appeal to security", especially national security.

I don't think that claim is credible, and I'm offering to demonstrate it by rattling off a bunch of counterexamples... However, that won't mean much if it turns out OP real grievance has some important details they are trying to keep secret.

[0] https://xcancel.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...

This is nonsense. HN is very lightly, and fairly, moderated.