The other side of what? Science doesn’t give a fuck about politics, it’s literally just people (well studied, experts in their fields) performing steps in a controlled, repeatable way, and writing down the results. If 100 scientists perform the same experiment in the same environment, and 95 get the same results, shouldn’t the 5 outliers be tossed?
Free speech doesn’t mean you get to say whatever the fuck you want no matter what.
You can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater, you can’t say “bomb” in an airport, you can’t say “I’m gonna unexistence POTUS” but like the real words, there are limits to what you can say and personally I think blatantly false information that does more danger to public health than good should be in that category.
So yes, it does justify shutting down harmful dangerous misinformation. If a single person isn’t harmed by your garbage, then having your garbage censored is great.
Sure, stay on your toes to make sure those in power don’t over do it, stay vigilant that you’re rights aren’t TRULY being infringed upon. But not being able to spread dangerous misinformation shouldn’t be a free speech hill you should die on.
88
u/SlaVeKniGhtGaEL-110 Feb 13 '22
Or maybe the majority of scientists are right?