I get your point and fundamentally agree that true, lifesaving information was being censored. However, there is no distinguishing of misinformation or truth in the first amendment. That is the beauty of it. Arguing that truth was being suppressed is a slippery slope b/c one man’s truth is another’s misinformation in this twisted worl…
I get your point and fundamentally agree that true, lifesaving information was being censored. However, there is no distinguishing of misinformation or truth in the first amendment. That is the beauty of it. Arguing that truth was being suppressed is a slippery slope b/c one man’s truth is another’s misinformation in this twisted world. Freedom of speech is simply that— the right to speak freely without the government determining what is misinformation or truth.
I get your point and fundamentally agree that true, lifesaving information was being censored. However, there is no distinguishing of misinformation or truth in the first amendment. That is the beauty of it. Arguing that truth was being suppressed is a slippery slope b/c one man’s truth is another’s misinformation in this twisted world. Freedom of speech is simply that— the right to speak freely without the government determining what is misinformation or truth.