I applaud this objectivist stance (I think we all agree facts exist) but speech can be about interpretations of facts.

If you want the fact can be "The New Yorker claims these photos of Hunter Biden smoking crack are real".

Despite that, the article was censored on Big Tech's platforms and the NYT called it unsubstantiated. 9 months later they conveniently removed "unsubstantiated" from their article.

But don't worry, all is good, it obviously wasn't election manipulation /s https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1437453951046127629

It's funny to note how Big Tech's didn't censor posts about Russiagate, which actually ended up being unsubstantiated.