[sdsaga12]

Being able to read both Galileo's contention that the sun does not move and the church's condemnation of his theory.

Being able to read both the corporate press's arguments in favor of invading Iraq and independent voices critiquing those arguments.

Being able to, in short, inform myself of competing views on an issue.

As Richard Feynman said, "science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts."

If arguments are obviously wrong, they are easily refuted.

Censorship leads invariably to tyrrany, which is why the USA's bill of rights enshrined the right to free speech and free press as the first and most fundamental guaranteed right.

Freedom of speech truly is the eternally radical idea [1], it seems.

[1] https://www.thefire.org/what-is-the-eternally-radical-idea/

[hutrdvnj]

> If arguments are obviously wrong, they are easily refuted.

Let's assume we live in an idealized world, where everyone could indeed easily refute false information. In this case you're right.

This is unfortunately not the case for many. The US citizens are a good example, Trump can claim voter fraud and continue to do so even if there's zero evidence. This is not an opinion, but false information. However, many people still believe Trumps words, and if they crowd up, storm the capitol and kill police officers, based on false information, then this has nothing todo with freedom of speech.