The article complains about misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and other ill-defined terms being used to censor speech. The opposition to this and the indiffer

The article complains about misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and other ill-defined terms being used to censor speech. The opposition to this and the indifference of the population generally suggests the age of free speech is over. These conversations get mired in debate over free speech maximalism or what is disinformation. I think that's besides the point. Perhaps a better question would be when is it okay to suppress speech. On what basis do we measure and catalog harmful speech or disinformation. I can see some, like speech calling for violence against certain groups. But that's already illegal. What about when government goes outside established frameworks to also protect 'truth' from disinformation or catalogs some opinions as harmful. I'm religious, I believe in ultimate truths, so I have ideas of misinformation and disinformation. But our governments today are secular. They don't believe in ultimate truths - so on what basis can they claim something is disinfo or misinformation and suppress it? When we say harmful info or discourse - harmful to who. I haven't been hurt, I don't know anyone who has. I do however see governments and corporations being harmed by speech online. Isn't the real issue that there is a new medium the internet that lets ordinary people speak freely and this is very uncomfortable for the political and business elites and they wish to suppress that. Isn't the question not really about free speech but more about how much control can States exercise over channels of public communications before they can reasonably be called tyrannical?