1. The alternative, censorship, is worse when it inevitably is turned against you.
2. Even if censorship is better, it violates individual rights, which are sacred and cannot be abridged except in a narrow range of cases.
It is possible that people with viewpoints that differ from your own are not “wrong”, they just have different values.
Yes, rights are not up for a vote or negotiation, and the existence of bad actors does nothing to negate my rights.
There's a difference between a demagogue and an individual who threatens or assaults another. Nobody is arguing the latter is not a criminal.
But for the former, what I've often observed is that demagogues are very good at dog-whistling; they're adept at finding the razor's edge between dog-whistling and outright calls to violence. They're also great at spinning any perceived censorship into proof of their righteous "dissent" which plays right into their hand.
So to come back to the statement you made, presumably in exaggeration -- yes, we do have to allow people to lie if we want free speech. The destructive viral effect of such lies can only be addressed scalably with some kind of an immune system.
You cannot solve societal or cultural problems with legislation. Then you will have two problems. Solving the root of America's problem with demagoguery requires solving the root. That is very tricky considering America's history as the world's police force. These aren't problems that can be fixed in a generation even when there is a common desire to fix them.
BTW does anyone in Amerikka even understand what the heck "ammending" even means...?
If it's not working, change it. Not that I expect people who think Texas' electricity bills aren't fucked up to understand that "maaaaybe you're not actually right"...
But yeah. To be plain, maybe you're wrong. Probably. Most likely.