A plain interpretation of the law as you quoted it would suggest "yes". But judges have arbitrary power to interpret the law as they see fit, as long as no higher court overturns them. So if enough judges agree that "medical misinformation" is not covered by the definition of "expression", then suddenly you can't say those things and Big Tech can keep right on censoring.
A plain interpretation of the law as you quoted it would suggest "yes". But judges have arbitrary power to interpret the law as they see fit, as long as no higher court overturns them. So if enough judges agree that "medical misinformation" is not covered by the definition of "expression", then suddenly you can't say those things and Big Tech can keep right on censoring.