> Yes you are right that allowing speech that questions election integrity does create some instability. But the way to deal with that instability is not censor

> Yes you are right that allowing speech that questions election integrity does create some instability. But the way to deal with that instability is not censorship. Censorship just convinces people even more that something nefarious is going on. Holding aside whether to use the word "censorship" or "moderation" (and whichever word we choose is politically motivated rhetoric), you're making an unsupported empirical claim that I find questionable. Ideas are contagious, and very bad ideas are capable of spreading and doing significant damage. See all the disastrous revolutions that killed millions of people, 20th century fascism, among other examples of bad ideas that spread via free speech. This speech was a critical part of the chain of causality that led to mass death. Contrary to popular sloganeering, the reality is that more speech doesn't always correct bad ideas, and in many cases has no impact. > If you look at history, top-down censorship has been one of the best tools used by dictators to seize and keep power That's correct, but how did those dictators gain power in the first place? Often via speech. They used their freedoms (of speech) to undermine freedom (of speech). Hitler wouldn't have gotten into power if he didn't convince over 30% of the population to vote for him via the words that came out of his mouth. This is the Tolerance Paradox, which has unfortunately become cliched but is still as relevant as ever. > Without freedom of speech, democracy really is doomed. You've constructed a false binary. I don't think anyone wants to make it illegal or impossible to question elections. The best idea I've heard is that there needs to be some trial in front of a court, where the evidence is brought forward. If the person lied, they go to prison for doing damage to democracy -- analogous to defamation being a crime (but in this instance, the defamation is against society more broadly//the state, instead of an individual). If the person told the truth, then some other people go to jail for rigging an election. If the person made an innocent mistake; well, that's also up to the courts to decide. What I don't want is a media circus, where nothing gets resolved and everyone becomes cynical.