[BizarroLand]

To be fair though, freedom of the press should be limited to things that at the time of publishment/boardcast were believed to be true by reasonable actors.

They shouldn't get carte blanche to claim wild conspiracy theories and to turn people into figurative monsters and then claim 1st amendment rights to protect them from the consequences of their public agitating slander.

On the other hand, reviewing and moderating anything other than their current carte blanche status quo would be an inhuman ordeal, so it's not like I have a more perfect idea to replace it with, just an understanding that there are bad actors using the rules of our American Social Contract as a weapon against the fundamental rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that the self-same social contract they are exploiting has promised us for our abidance.

[dcow]

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure it matters. If you don't like the bad actors spreading "disinformation" then speak louder. You're 100% right that it's untenable to moderate "the news". We have laws preventing bad faith actors from spreading demonstrably false information that damages somebody. Anything else is just... insignificant to your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness unless you aren't mature enough to ignore opinions that make you unhappy.