The point isn't about people disagreeing, but promoting that disagreement with the intent to misinform others.

People are free to disagree as long as they don't put others and their children at risk - if that's the case it should be considered illegal.

I'm all for people who promote misinformation to be allowed to present their peer-reviewed research in a special court.

How would this special court work? Can anyone including amateur scientists access it freely? Are the arguments public?

What's nice about free speech is it's a simple rule, "any citizen can speak about and promote any opinion they have." The fact that it's clear makes it difficult for the government to shut down opposition political speech.

I also think scientific inquiry should be an open process.

Similar to how you regulate any mass media channels (TV, Radio, etc). You have a regulator in place, for example, anyone with +10.000 followers, or who gets +10.000 views should be considered a person of influence and be liable for their claims.

I agree with you, I think everything should be made public, including influencers' income statements.

> What's nice about free speech is it's a simple rule, "any citizen can speak about and promote any opinion they have."

Thankfully there are laws in place, and the point is more laws should be in place to make people liable for disinformation.