@cstross As a uni professor I can't get behind that distinction. The huge issue is: Who decides what's true or valid in nonfiction?

That's folded into the battle right now, actually. The people wanting book bans in K-12 schools object most strenuously to the availability of books with (IMO) factual information about sex and gender. They've decided this is not factual; I disagree.

This will come back to basic values, no matter what. I mean by that, it will come back to critical thinking and epistemology.

@cstross I 100% agree (and I'm seeing your note that you and I have different national norms and laws around "free speech"). I fully believe there is truly dangerous information out there. I live in a world, however, where there are people who will classify vaccination guidelines and safer sex pamphlets as "clearly dangerous." They'll use faulty logic, awful data, etc. (because that's what they do), and they'll label things I consider helpful or even critical as "dangerous". They'll also insist that information about how to acquire and use firearms, for example, cannot possibly be dangerous.

I know it sounds like I'm being contrary, but this is something I've been thinking about for a long time (not that I can't change my mind): who decides? Rationality will not automatically win, so making rules like "we'll just ban the dangerous books" doesn't keep things reasonable if unreasonable people get into positions of power; they will use those rules for bad (IMO) ends.