This human has read his history.

I think there’s a disconnect here. Does free speech have to include someone knowingly purposely spreading misinformation with the intent to deceive people? Or someone speaking with the explicit intent to harm another person?

Because I think nobody should be able to silence your thoughts, ideas or opinions but those things don’t encompass all speech.

A few decades ago homosexuality was a mental illness, global cooling was going to kill us all soon, and a healthy diet was a pyramid based on eating a ton of grains. Do you want to live in a world where people arguing against those points of view were prosecuted for "knowing purposely spreading misinformation?" Because that's the world you are advocating.

I feel like we're arguing past one another. This is not about dissenting opinions or someone holding unorthodox views. This is about someone knowingly purposefully making stuff up, presenting it as fact, and spreading it around with the intent to deceive people.

I'm not saying this should a tool to enable internet censors. This should be used to go after the networks of people people producing this garbage. Unless you operate a website or blog where you are literally making stuff up and spreading it around as fact then this doesn't affect you in the slightest.

A lot of good examples of this surfaced when people were talking about what bathrooms trans people should use. It was an entirely manufactured controversy where no-name fly-by-night "news" sites would publish completely fictional stories about sexual assault cases to try and sway public opinion. I, and you, should be equally as mad at someone making up news stories trying to sway public opinion the other way.

You're right, it's not about opinions and who can say what. The issue we're arguing past one another, and the real important one, is who do you trust do decide that. The other guy seems to believe it's possible to have some government that is a benevolent determiner of truth vs propaganda, where I believe the other guy is painfully naive.

Yes, it does, because who decides what is harmful or what is wrong? There is no freedom in speech if there is an authority deciding whether it is harmful. That is restructured speech, not free speech.