[dionidium]

Clearly, in a democracy you should be allowed to argue that an election was stolen, even if the evidence for your case isn’t strong. You can also argue for astrology or homeopathy or natural cures or any other in a long list of things that I think are pretty obviously untrue and harmful if propagated.

[philjohn]

The core difference is between arguing something, and stating something is a fact.

Just like if you offered homeopathy "medications" or natural cures and stated they are curative, you're likely to fall under jurisdiction of medical licensing authorities (notwithstanding the "health supplement" loophole in the US).