I think in practice free speech should be limited if it’s clearly damaging. In case of anti-vax movement, it’s just crystal clear that allowing them to spread the word was detrimental to public health. So I’m in favor banning those who use their rights to free speech to undermine the policies and efforts that are put forward to save lives.

And I see how the concept of “misinformation” can be used very broadly to silence political opponents. But I do wish there was a perfect solution.

> I think in practice free speech should be limited if it’s clearly damaging.

The problem with that position is, who decides what counts as "clearly damaging"? What if the government and media were extremely anti-vaccine and chose to censor pro-vaccine speech instead, calling it "clearly damaging"?