This about freedom of speech, is a very, very complex debate; "you have not the freedom from consequences / you have not the right to be heard" is very dangerous if adopted by a government; they can limitate a comedian because they talk against a politician, they could prohibit books, and escalate.
But the matter of consequences it's not politics, it's life: some parents convinced that vaccines caused authism, have not vaccinated their kid for diphtheria. And the little girl died at 4 years old, for this disease, after decades it didn't happen. So, the consequence didn't come from the State, not from European Union or USA, but from territory, nature, the world, call it as you want to.
Anti-scientific theories should remain on their own niches, not being brought to the mainstream public!
However, here comes the complexiti and as original author talked about USA, I refer to it too: in democrat government, before Twitter acquired by Musk, topics opposite to democrats were almost discouraged. Giorgia Meloni herself, Italian prime minister, said "I've been deleted from Twitter because of my opinions" - she referred when she talked about the so-called "gender theory" ultra-conservative bullshit.
And now? Now that Trump oriented everything (including social media) to far-right wing side? Here it is, the problem starts to touch us. And what's anti-scientific for us, is scientific for them. So? What should be a balanced solution? What could a government do, to grant free speech to everyone but not allowing extremists and anti-science to sit in the decision making side? @LinuxBSD https://mivatter.com/notes/aqawz42buw