I think it's worth noting that the supreme court case 'New York Times Co. v. Sullivan' referenced in the paper was over an ad taken by supporters of Martin Lut

I think it's worth noting that the supreme court case 'New York Times Co. v. Sullivan' referenced in the paper was over an ad taken by supporters of Martin Luther King Jr, critical of police treatment that had a gist of truth but factual inaccuracies, resulting in a suit by the police department. I think the spirit of the court's unanimous decision is still relevant. I'm not sure it's possible to restrict speech that is clearly false, harmful and should be restricted, without also opening the door to restrictions on speech that is considered undesirable, such as the aforementioned NYT ad. This is especially difficult the more complicated the potential falsehood to be considered.