> Uh, we already do that. Fraud, defamation, uttering threats, false advertising, perjury, filing a false report, etc.
Sometimes I think "free speech" is a misnomer, and the common phrase should be "freedom of discourse."
Fraud, defamation, threats, perjury etc aren't really discourse. They don't serve ideas (and in fact, tend to do violence to ideas).
In any case, you're correct that 1st amendment and other free speech rights are not unlimited indulgences that excuse one from certain legal obligations to be truthful, or to not threaten. In spite of this, the US and most industrialized democracies remain remarkably supportive of freedom of discourse from a state perspective.
2) "Climate science is obviously very wrong, the Earth is changing on its own."
3) "Climate change is fake and it's a conspiracy"
4) "Climate change is fake because George Soros is trying to hurt America so his secret Jewish cabal can rule the world"
5) "Climate change is fake because George Soros is trying to hurt America so his secret Jewish cabal can rule the world and here are specific plans for the violence necessary to stop it"
---
We cross the line into "not truthful" at 2. Moderation doesn't take it seriously until 4. Law enforcement doesn't take it seriously until 5, if ever.
Moderation in a private vehicle for speech could take it seriously at any stage they choose (and I'd argue that the freedom to decide where the line is inside private stewardship is in fact part of freedom of discourse).
And there probably should be forums which have content standards based on truth according to the best efforts of those running the place to determine the truth. Perhaps not every forum should be that way, but some could be, and I think that's the standard that things like scientific journals aspire to.
#4/#5 -- I have questions about whether police/executive enforcement should be directly dealing with cases like this, but it certainly seems to me that people would be within their freedom of discourse rights to take someone making those statements to court. And courts are also places where questions of truth/fact are taken seriously along with questions of law, and obligation to be truthful solidly outweighs any freedom some might imagine they have to lie.
The theoretical ability to falsify something (or to prove it) has no bearing on the realities of propaganda, extensive domain knowledge or the lack thereof, and how such positions are ultimately arrived at.
Namely, trust in the institutions.
How many facts that form the bedrock of your worldview have you, personally, verified? Have you, personally, walked down the chain of evidence for certain scientific (i.e. falsifiable) claims and personally attempted to falsify them?
Sometimes I think "free speech" is a misnomer, and the common phrase should be "freedom of discourse."
Fraud, defamation, threats, perjury etc aren't really discourse. They don't serve ideas (and in fact, tend to do violence to ideas).
In any case, you're correct that 1st amendment and other free speech rights are not unlimited indulgences that excuse one from certain legal obligations to be truthful, or to not threaten. In spite of this, the US and most industrialized democracies remain remarkably supportive of freedom of discourse from a state perspective.