Sadly, it's beneficial to media companies to give provably false statements airtime because they are controverial, which drives views and clicks which drives revenue.
But for society is it beneficial to let false statements have a platform?
That's the danger in censorship, it starts with the best of intentions, to protect people from being misled by obviously wrong facts, but inevitably the opinions of the censors are confused with fact.
You fail to consider that humans implement rules (e.g., your movie is illegal because it's not true) and humans are fundamentally corrupt, selfish creatures.
Provably false statements do not require perfect arbtration of truth.
For example, the president says something on TV, and a talking head straight-face states "that never happened". This is the current level of discourse in the USA.
What you're actually doing when you say this is giving a select group of people power to decide what is and is not false. And that's pure, soft political power.
You do realize scientists need salary for food, clothing, housing, health care, etc.?
As with anything, follow the money. The grant systems that power our “scientific research” these days are anything but unbiased.