Both calling something disinformation and disinformation itself are clearly protected free speech. Especially if the "disinformation" is political in nature.

Exercising editorial control over publications and an information networks that you own or manage is also free speech.

As is engaging in discussion about it with people who own or manage them.

Who's making the determination something is disinformation? You? No thanks.

Reference Wuhan Labs.

How.

How do we determine when something is true or disinformation? That's what good faith pro-social and pro-truth people ask. They talk process, principles, and reasons.

That's at least 50% on you guys for bundling it with a lot of other conspiracy stuff.

I mean, a lot of very smart people told me that you shouldn’t be allowed to say things like “masks don’t work”. They also said hate speech isn’t free speech. Who am I to argue?

Personally I found everything in the article to be ludicrous and to have Jack-all to do with the First Amendment, but I am not very smart.

Withholding federal funds from colleges for not cracking down hard enough on speech the government doesn’t like isn’t related to the first amendment? Or it is but it’s ludicrous?

1A is not about federal funds.

The 1A is regularly used to decide cases about funding as speech; Rosenberger v. University of Virginia for example forbade U of V from withholding funds from religious news organizations on campus.

I am sure there are arguments that this behavior is within the bounds of the constitution but the 1A definitely applies.

I can imagine you saying "1A isn't about hellfire missiles" after airstrikes on political enemies.

Did they say "you shouldn't be allowed to say those things" or did they say "you shouldn't say those things"? Pretty big difference.