Harmful speech and misinformation should not have a platform.
Democracy is a system in which your party loses elections. And when they lose, do you want them dictating what you can and can’t say?
No one has a monopoly on the truth.
In fact, our greatest scientific discoveries (the closest thing we have to Truth) have been forged by “offensive speech”. The ability to offend actually helps minimize misinformation.
That's what we're doing now: it's a neoliberal "free market" and the acolytes of the Chicago School tell us that the incentives of capital will eventually lead to the best possible outcome because rational actors will make perfect choices with complete information.
So you've proven the point that there is debate to be had on these matters.
Exactly what tobacco company execs said when they denied the links between smoking and cancer and other diseases.
Exactly as the climate-change denialists say when they delay and distract from efforts to address global warming.
Spreading doubt, deflecting criticism, and diverting attention are right out of the playbook for bad-faith actors.
What are we going to do to stop them?
- Oppressive Speech: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/000484008023703...
- Why We Should Ban Oppressive Speech Acts: https://publicseminar.org/essays/why-we-should-outlaw-oppres...
Your "misinformation" is the notion that masks work, vaccines are not "100% effective" as originally claimed, and that the coronavirus strain causing covid-19 is man-made. You want to stifle political opinions that threaten your narrative, and you have twisted your words in such a way that you are framing state censorship as a form of liberation. Your advocacy for state controls on speech would be far more at home in a totalitarian regime such as the DPRK, and I suggest you pursue your ideals there.
https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
When it's limited to private, it's obvious to the speaker that holding those opinions is a personal choice, not a publicly acceptable opinion.