"and stores should be required to post disclaimers when the product doesn't pass muster."
What about this is restrictive of free speech? If anything, YOU want to restrict the speech of the store to not allow them to say things they sell might be nonsense.
I think for medical things, oversight and general blurbs are fine. Its also fine if the store in question wants to post a blurb where they disagree with the "vetted" version. But this tramples on nobodies free speech, only on your personal sensibilities.
It creates a huge transaction cost on content "that advocates a particular approach to health, nutrition, or medicine". First, some unspecified actor will need to make sure that such content is vetted by experts, however that status is to be determined. Secondly, stores will need to make sure that each item containing such content provides a suitable disclaimer. Thirdly, some bureaucracy will be tasked with enforcing these rules.
It would simply be much easier to not produce any content "that advocates a particular approach to health, nutrition, or medicine."
"and stores should be required to post disclaimers when the product doesn't pass muster."
What about this is restrictive of free speech? If anything, YOU want to restrict the speech of the store to not allow them to say things they sell might be nonsense.
I think for medical things, oversight and general blurbs are fine. Its also fine if the store in question wants to post a blurb where they disagree with the "vetted" version. But this tramples on nobodies free speech, only on your personal sensibilities.