The notion that a scenario like this one is too far-fetched belies the fact that similar disinformation – intentional false information — has already occurred. The argument that state or federal legislation would somehow be censoring or in violation of free speech rights is debatable. The First Amendment is often brought up to prevent action to stem disinformation, but as Monning notes, the First Amendment is not absolute and has limits. The other means to battle disinformation, reactive, has more to do with legislation that would, possibly, carry criminal penalties for the people behind the disinformation. It appears that a vast majority of Californians are behind Monning and the rest of the team at CITED.

Source: New York Times January 23, 2024 22:37 UTC