3 ms·

And who decides what speech meets that standard? Have you read the other posts in this thread? The "official" position on a variety of facts and best-practices

• grumple 6y ago
  > The "official" position on a variety of facts and best-practices has changed multiple times during the course of this pandemic. Has it? It's remained stable as far as I can tell; maintain distance from others, minimize interactions with others. There has been some evolution in disease treatment, but it has been a rather measured evolution. > It's profoundly disturbing how enthusiastic some people are to start censoring anything that goes against the official narrative. This is a bit unfair. I'm in favor of censoring speech that demonstrably causes harm. This is done in many nations where they are arguably more free than the US despite our age-old slogan from the early 1800s which implies we're unique in having demoratic freedoms (namely European nations). There does not seem to be a significant propaganda effect or unwarranted censorship in those nations - in fact, quite the opposite, as they appear to be better educated and better informed than Americans. Perhaps in the past, America's version of free speech guaranteed liberty; but now it's just as often used (if not more, in our media) to cause harm - anti-vax, hate speech of all sorts, anti-mask, advocating taking hydroxychloroquine without supportive medical evidence or examination, general misleading of the American public.