That's literally the opposite of the scientific method. A healthy scientific community rejects "scientific consensus" because the scientific method is about testing hypothesis including previous work (see the replication crisis).

As an example, the study proving that hydrocholoroquinine was useless for treating COVID was retracted by The Lancet. Turns out that the data was faked, and yet the paper still gets cited.

A good scientist doesn't hold any "scientific facts" as sacrosanct. Only hypothesis, theories, and evidence.

The debate wasn't about scientific fact. It was about whether a journalist was spreading misinformation and according to whom. The debate is about the Orwellian term "misinformation" and has less to do with science than with Scientism.

Does the logic not work the other way? If you start defending censorship of a position, you have lost the debate.

It does not.

It is scientific fact that countries which start censoring for “correctness” in increasingly many categories end up being Not Great places to live.

Can I express something that has been whirling in my head for some time already?

So, all you folks shrouding their polemic tripe under the mantle of Freedom and Liberty of Speech, please stop.

You claim Liberty to express whatever crosses you mind, but I want to claim my own right to “Passive” Freedom of Speech: the freedom to form my own ideas, settle into an opinion, build my own ethical compass, free from the manipulation, the doublespeak, the deceit of fake news, astroturf and pure induced mental fatigue on subjects that are important and demand careful and good faith reflection.

Get out of my mind, it’s my own rightful and exclusive property!