[nilespotter]

It is.

[LargeWu]

Not all speech is, or should be, protected speech.

[ImJamal]

Due to how polarized so many western countries are, do you really want to take the chance of the other side determining what is protected?

[gruez]

The current standard is "imminent lawless action", which hardly fits covid misinformation.

[LargeWu]

The thing about standards is they are able to be re-evaluated from time to time. I think it's worth examining what legitimate purpose spreading health misinformation serves, and how that is beneficial to society.

[gruez]

> I think it's worth examining what legitimate purpose spreading health misinformation serves, and how that is beneficial to society.

"it's worth examining what legitimate purpose giving due process to criminals serve, and how that is beneficial to society"

Nobody is for spreading misinformation. The trouble is determining what "misinformation" is, and who has the power to determine that.

[LargeWu]

I don't think it's feasible to address individual users.

I think a good place to start is treating the falsification of data in research studies like fraud, potentially with criminal penalties.

Another avenue is requiring social media businesses to make reasonable efforts to flag health misinformation. If Facebook et al are making billions in revenue off false information, they should have a responsibility to combat it, at the risk of penalties.