Firstly, it was a hastily enacted state of emergency law in the wake of the Reichstag fire in 1933 that eventually led to Hitler's rise to power. Certainly, the Weimar Republic lacked the necessary checks and balances to prevent the misuse of power, in addition to the law being an indefinite one, but a three-month state of emergency is nothing to just brush off. It's a precedent that requires a high level of scrutiny.
Secondly, there are plenty,
plenty of examples of supposedly "acceptable internet safety measures" that sooner or later were abused to enforce censorship, precisely because they've been phrased very broadly. Take Russia for instance:
http://www.interpretermag.com/fsb-increasingly-involved-in-misuse-of-anti-extremism-laws-sova-says/
Thirdly, France's very own slogan names liberté as one of its key principles and I'd like it to stay that way. After Charlie Hebdo, France has already
implemented one of the more intrusive surveillance laws which were ultimately still unable to prevent the Paris attacks. Instead of talking about possibly adopting new, even more intrusive surveillance laws and measures at an emotionally charged time, the French authorities should look into what exactly went wrong this time and carefully take the necessary measures at an appropriate time. Given that the perpetrators of terror attacks have often been known to authorities before, it's evident that simply increasing the mass data collection of every citizen is not a sensible solution.
See also French civil rights group La Quadrature du Net's appeal:
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/together-in-sorrow-looking-at-the-future
