It'll be interesting to see what, if any, challenges to the law occur. Of course I don't support such a law as it can only further state capture of medicine. I've little legal knowledge, but I suspect that "misinformation" is a bit vague. The law usually wants more specific definitions. States have much greater power to limit "speech" of a business than of a private citizen. But it's not clear that muzzling doctors is a good use of such power.
Legal challenges take years to play out. Unless an injunction against the law is given for the duration of the trial, by the time of the judgement the law will have become engrained in practice regardless the outcome.
It'll be interesting to see what, if any, challenges to the law occur. Of course I don't support such a law as it can only further state capture of medicine. I've little legal knowledge, but I suspect that "misinformation" is a bit vague. The law usually wants more specific definitions. States have much greater power to limit "speech" of a business than of a private citizen. But it's not clear that muzzling doctors is a good use of such power.
Legal challenges take years to play out. Unless an injunction against the law is given for the duration of the trial, by the time of the judgement the law will have become engrained in practice regardless the outcome.