Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Then it celebrates a law that actually curtails free speech. Yes. There are already laws that curtail free speech - i.e yelling fire in a crowded theater as the popular example. Its not hard to extend this to the act of lying about information on air. The optimal solution is that the government should have the power to enforce a ban on certain individuals on social media, which should be done through a court procedu…
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre actually isn’t illegal. And your idea of court ordered ban on speech? What is a good example? That Covid absolutely 100% didn’t originate from a lab in China? How about the fact that Covid vaccines stop transmission of the virus? Both of those were actually banned on major social media sites, then turned out to be true. So what you’re suggesting is banning speech that isn’t untrue. J…
The act of it is not, but you can be charged with other things like inciting panic, and so on, especially if someone gets hurt.
Same laws would apply to broadcasting.
>And your idea of court ordered ban on speech? What is a good example?
* Saying that vaccines are causing mass issues, and government is hiding it.
* Lying about what officials said in relation to vaccine. Nobody said that vaccine stop transmission or that vaccines even mean you don't get covid. The whole goal of mandates was to overall reduce the risk of the complications, which were the primary cause of death.
* Claiming that MRNA is untested, or the whole vaccine is untested or can alter the genes
E.t.c and so on
Discussion should not be banned. You can talk about available evidence. You can talk about things that are unclear. But when you straight up lie to promote a political narrative and make stuff up, that should be prosecutable. All of this is easily discoverable in courts.