[luminadiffusion]

This article missed the entire point.

Here’s the problem: Free speech rights are intended to protect speech. They are not intended to protect propaganda. Nor would we want them to. Propaganda is relatively easy to identify and is not speech.

Take Trump, for example. He does not lie in an attempt to convince you of the truth of his perspective. He lies to show you who has power in the situation. He knows that you know that his excuses are shallow and dumb - that’s the whole point.

He is asserting that he can create his own reality and say whatever he wants and you cannot stop him. The majority of his supporters do the same thing. When they repeat his lies, they are not attempting to convince you of their truth. They are showing you their allegiance.

This is similar with QAnon and a myriad of other right wing groups. After repeating their lies over and over, their supporters begin to get confused about what is actually real. They originally bought in to the scheme to be part of the group, but the scheme took and and they lost their grasp on any truth. There is no truth once this takes over.

This is not speech. This is a caustic type of control that uses honest people to spread by confusing their sensibilities. They protect the exercise of these lies, in their quest for morality and justice, and allow its venom to spread. Soon, it kills both host and victim. Leaving all powerless to the purveyor of the propaganda.

This is easily identifiable. We must not protect this. It is not speech.

Getting pulled into a quasi-logical debate where this is confused with speech is exactly what the purveyors want. They want us to confuse this with speech so it can be protected while it erodes the minds of its consumers.