[force_reboot]

All facts are going to be interpreted differently. So (a) alone is clearly not a good criterion. But if you are saying that (a) and (b) combined imply that a statement should be forbidden, then my critique still applies.

If you forbid Larry Summers from forming one plausible opinion based on the facts, even though you allow others (e.g. the opposite opinion), then your reasoning still must be along the lines that I outlined.

Why can't the public be trusted with the fact that Larry Summers draws one opinion from the data, even though other people have drawn different opinions.

Whenever your reasoning contains something like (b), my critique is going to apply, because you are arguing against a viewpoint based on its consequences, not on its truth (even if you also doubt its truth).