You’re still making the error of acting like there’s a single, simple “it”. For example, what you say is a very weak argument is a fundamental feature of our entire legal system: we have different penalties for not picking up after your dog vs. leaving toxic waste in the same place, stealing a hot dog versus a car, punching someone versus hitting them with a bat, etc.

In this case, it’s even more than the simple question of degree because intention matters, and we have enormous differences around that. Criminal charges are often far heavier if they can show intent, and it factors heavily in things like whether inaccurate business statements were honest errors or intentionally misleading investors. In the case mentioned, it would be especially key whether someone was trying to suppress misinformation in good faith because they honestly thought they were performing a public safety good by preventing dangerous advice from spreading during a crisis — and that shows why Martin’s threats to are at an entirely different level since there’s no emergency and they’re clearly protected speech which has no direct harm or even a path to substantially contribute to harm.