The saddest part is that the stated goal of the GBD is exactly the same as the stated goal behind our lockdowns, to minimize the death toll while things settle. Framing this as opposing parties with opposing goals is more about tribal politics than about the facts of the debate or about free speech.
The Constitution makes clear that Freedom of Speech is not absolute, and does not extend to some kinds of speech that can be harmful to society. This is a case where this speech might turn out to be a False Statement of Fact that is not protected and should not be spread, because of the ramifications it has on people’s lives. The merits of the argument are very relevant to the question of whether there is a constitutional responsibility, according to the constitution!
Even deliberate lies are protected by the first amendment unless they fall under the category of defamation. "Harm to society" is an irrelevant distinction under American law.
The Supreme Court has already recognized False Statements of Fact concerning “issues of public concern.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact#Issue...
Wrong again. Yes they are, generally speaking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
(But it’s a good point that the GBD’s goals and the WHO’s are the same, which is a good reason to ask why the debate has veered away from science and facts and is devolving into attacks and bad faith arguments.)
Certainly not. I'm just saying the government should not be directly leaning on you to deamplify it. If you want to deamplify it on your own, fine. If the government wants to make a public announcement that "social networks allowing this sort of thing is bad" that is also fine.
Exactly.
Or if the billionaire is the head of an enemy state.
... and also as long as the speaker isn’t being paid, isn’t speaking for the government, isn’t employing people, isn’t in prison, isn’t a regulator of the bar, the airwaves, the military, or immigration, and more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Some of those exceptions may be relevant to this particular article.
Personally I'm not sure where the line between "public announcement" and "government censorship" lays or should lay, but "the government can do whatever it wants as long as its opponents are shitty people" is not a good outcome.