Thank you for the question.
The act currently doesn't capture opinions, good faith statements or honest mistakes, and these new prohibitions wouldn't change that. These are for statements an individual knows to be incorrect or false, and for when they have the intent to disrupt the conduct or results of an election.
Paragraph 482.01(g).... In fact, all seven statements here have been scoped and integrated in order to protect the legitimacy of the electoral process while respecting freedom of speech. They are also, again, designed to capture intentional bad actions in a narrow set of circumstances that are very specific to the electoral context.
Any of these statements could be removed, but it would leave a gap in terms of potential statements that could be made. For example, say an election result isn't ready. The ballots still need to be counted overnight and news outlets have agreed that election results won't be ready until the next morning. A candidate could potentially go on social media and say, “I have won the election.” That is something paragraph 482.01(g) would capture.
Again, I will stress that it's for when a person knows a statement is false and they have the intent to disrupt the conduct or results of an election.