[Guvante]

We shouldn't allow the government to act quickly? That is nonsensical, going slower during a crisis makes zero sense.

You can argue what boundaries should be relaxed and how far to relax them but "hold the government to a tighter standard ahead of time during a crisis" is the opposite of helpful.

We normally hold the government to a strict limit due to there being no time limit.

[WhiskeyChicken]

> That is nonsensical, going slower during a crisis makes zero sense.

I never said anything about "going slower," I disagreed with your assertion that "we all agree" that government should be allowed to "overstep bounds" in a crisis. I am unsure why you think speed of action implies violating boundaries. Speed up your crisis response all you want, but do so within established boundaries.

> You can argue what boundaries should be relaxed and how far to relax them

I can argue whatever I want. And my argument is that no boundaries whatsoever should be "relaxed" for any reason. Ever.

> We normally hold the government to a strict limit due to there being no time limit.

No, we hold the government to strict limits because we have seen throughout history what governments that are not held to strict limits do to people during times of "crisis" and "emergency."

[Guvante]

At the time we worry less and give deference to the government. Sue later if they screwed up.

Exactly what is going on is what you want, you don't need to add "they shouldn't have done anything in the first place" as if they very act of trying to prevent misinformation that was actively leading to the spread of a contagious virus was fundamentally flawed.

[WhiskeyChicken]

> trying to prevent misinformation

An unsubstantiated and highly arguable claim.

> that was actively leading to the spread of a contagious virus

Again, so you claim.

And, yes, it was "fundamentally flawed" either way because it involved government exercising powers it has no right to exercise.