The article didn’t even consider the possibility that tech companies just happen to disagree with the Great Barrington Declaration and saw it as speculation and misinformation, which it is to some degree. It also doesn’t discuss the possibility that this Declaration was signed by a small minority of scientists. Instead, it spends all it’s time trying to frame this as a conspiracy, a large group being silenced by a small group of powerful people.

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!