Free speech must be for all, not just those whose words we approve of. Those who are thoughtful, analytical, and informed must speak out against the quacks and charlatans, but that does not mean silencing their voices. Children must be taught the discipline of literary analysis to help them distinguish between BS and facts. Freedom of speech must be defended, not decried.
I have to disagree with you there, albeit in a qualified manner. While I subscribe to the basic principle of free speech, I can see quite a few instances where exceptions would be preferable, or even necessary. In this context a critical situation is one in which free speech leads to violence or even the abolishing of free speech itself, because for whatever reason the relevant majority is not able or willing to distinguish between BS and facts, or doesn’t care as long as it has its way. History as well as current developments show that this is not just theory.
That said, this issue is likely to center on the location from where one might exercise free speech. We can and do limit that on occasion here in the forums, and other (private) platforms increasingly curtail speech to fight (or promote) things like mis/disinformation, propaganda, conspiracy theories and outright lies, usually in a political setting.
