> they don't meet the minimum standard to actually have an opinion on the topic
Who should judge that and why? I think that’s what makes free speech a basic right in functional democracies - there is no pre judging it. Challenging authority and science is important if we want to seek truth.
In the case of vaccines, for example, people were getting censored for discussing side effects. Myocarditis is now officially acknowledged as a (rare) side effect of the MRNA based COVID vaccines. But not long ago it was labeled as a “conspiracy theory” and you would get banned on Twitter or Reddit for mentioning it.