New Zealand has been refusing to team up with the NATO pedo alliance, so I'd be fairly wary of hit pieces. I do find it weird that Jonathan Turley is some how an expert on free speech in 10 other countries, but says nothing about the CIA's control of speech over the world.

Rather than rely on narratives from the author, examine what she actually said:

But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then? This is no longer a hypothetical. The weapons of war have changed, they are upon us and require the same level of action and activity that we put into the weapons of old. We recognized the threats that the old weapons created. We came together as communities to minimize these threats. We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was a preservation of them. The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges.

“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?”

It seems more like to me she wants to prevent CIA infiltration of speech. Multiple countries have noted the CIA and George Soros agents controlling speech and inserting disinformation to the public. When countries start banning CIA-manipulated mediums, their journalists and lackeys start complaining about free speech abuses. Yet they're the biggest manipulators of free speech themselves.

The problem is that liberals can use this exact same excuse to promote their own disinformation to the public.