It is in no way a violation of freedom of speech to put information out there to clarify a certain point of view but it's the essence of freedom of speech.
In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."
Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.
"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."
Banning people from "conspiracy theorizing" sounds a heck of a lot more serious than "put information out there to clarify", it sounds like they consider banning "conspiracy theorizing." Which is a ludicrous policy. Almost any definition of "conspiracy theory" would mandate them to take action against almost all criticism of the government, the state or any of its institutions or representatives. Will it be illegal to levy claims of criminal activities against an elected representatives since it will be a "conspiracy theory"? I can imagine a fairly wide range of ways such a policy could be mis-used; if you even consider the original use legitimate.
Banning people from saying that the government is corrupt, or committing acts they disagree with, is a great injustice. It can only lead to a greater credence to their claims, and with policies such as argued for by Sunstein one starts to feel an increasing drag towards becoming one of these radical voices critical of what the government wants people to accept as justified.