You're confusing a prohibiton on speech with behavior you can get in trouble for.
Let's say you put out a fraudulant ad selling a bridge. You can be sued, the FTC can sue you, and there could (unlikely) be jail time for you.
What the Government can't do is say you're prohibited to take out an ad until they approve it - which is exactly what happened with covid. The Whitehouse abused it's power to prohibit speech being made - it didn't sue someone for eg selling a false cure.
Part of the problem is the process. When I sue you for fraud, we go in front of a judge. I have to prove you're engaged in fraud - the burden is on me. If we prevent any unapproved ad from being posted by Government power, there is no due process and the burden of proof shifts to you that you aren't breaking the law. That's not how our justice system works.
Really? What was the mechanism by which this was enforced that was fundamentally different from, say, the police coming to someone's house and arresting them for the possession of child pornography?
The ability to go in front of a judge and that the burden of proof is on your accuser, for one.
Second, there are defenses to CSAM - it's not whatever the government feels is CSAM. The material has to actually be exploitative of children and for obscene purposes, it can't be a medical photo or a Nirvana album cover.
Do you really not see a difference between a probibition on any speech not preapproved by the Whitehouse versus charging people for CSAM posession?
This wasn't the Whitehouse post-hoc suing someone for hawking false covid cures. This was the Whitehouse saying unapproved messages could not be even discussed by private citizens on platforms.
Let's say you put out a fraudulant ad selling a bridge. You can be sued, the FTC can sue you, and there could (unlikely) be jail time for you.
What the Government can't do is say you're prohibited to take out an ad until they approve it - which is exactly what happened with covid. The Whitehouse abused it's power to prohibit speech being made - it didn't sue someone for eg selling a false cure.
Part of the problem is the process. When I sue you for fraud, we go in front of a judge. I have to prove you're engaged in fraud - the burden is on me. If we prevent any unapproved ad from being posted by Government power, there is no due process and the burden of proof shifts to you that you aren't breaking the law. That's not how our justice system works.