I absolutely agree that making false medical claims in advertising is not protected speech. Fraud and threats are already criminal and should treated as such, but the types of speech that are being censored are not primarily illegal forms of speech. The types of speech that are being censored are not limited to cases of fraud or threats, they are whatever types of speech the current executive branch deems harmful. I think that is dangerous, even if I also personally agree that those particular types of legal speech are indeed harmful.

How so? The government/corporate power does not have the power or right to dictate truth.

While there are specific laws against fraud and false advertising there is no law that what is published in the public square must be true.

Yes, but this could easily go the other way. A far right executive could use its power to pressure these companies to remove what it considers misinformation.

This is clearly a violation of the first amendment as misinformation, disinformation and malinformation are by definition protected forms of speech.

I think I agree with the judge here in that the government should not be pressuring social media to censor legally protected speech. It is no matter if that speech is true or untrue, as long as it is protected speech the government should not have the power to censor speech it does not agree with.

One can easily imagine a right wing executive pressuring social media to remove speech it seams false or malevolent. The things the right view as misinformation, malinformation or disinformation would be expansive I am sure, and would no doubt target women’s health, trans liberation or any attempt by the working class to organize. The government should not have this power to censor speech that is covered by the first amendment.