I suppose you have two kinds of truth when using that word:
* That which can be rationally defended with evidence. The whole definition of a fact being a justified, true belief etc.
* That which is believed to be true on faith.
Regulating on the former with the proviso that encountering new evidence should inform our understanding of the truth seems prudent. For example the "scientific method". So for example not only can we show that anti-vax beliefs are wrong we can also show that disseminating them is actively harmful. So there is certainly a case to be made that regulating the propagation of these harmful beliefs under an evidence based regime is the prudent thing to do.
Regulating on the latter is a terrible idea and that's what you'd get if anti-vax believers were trying to prevent evidence of the efficacy of vaccination from spreading.
* That which can be rationally defended with evidence. The whole definition of a fact being a justified, true belief etc.
* That which is believed to be true on faith.
Regulating on the former with the proviso that encountering new evidence should inform our understanding of the truth seems prudent. For example the "scientific method". So for example not only can we show that anti-vax beliefs are wrong we can also show that disseminating them is actively harmful. So there is certainly a case to be made that regulating the propagation of these harmful beliefs under an evidence based regime is the prudent thing to do.
Regulating on the latter is a terrible idea and that's what you'd get if anti-vax believers were trying to prevent evidence of the efficacy of vaccination from spreading.