Not widely reported at all.
Other than the link in the OP, I haven’t seen the US press report on this, so I don’t know that I’d agree they’ll report on it in a misleading fashion. The first amendment does prevent severe restrictions on misinformation. That doesn’t mean the first amendment is bad, but it does mean we need to look for solutions that comply with the constitution. I’m okay with Kerry saying that.
HEADLINE:
“Yet another politician from the sole remaining sane political party is – once again – held to an egregious double-standard.”
There. Fixed.
For what it’s worth, this is the best that Hannity’s got. They really are in their own world.
John Kerry, huh? Now let’s check in on Newt Gingrich as long as were covering relevant people 
If anything is sacred in this secular republic, it’s the First Amendment. Kerry is wrong to imply otherwise.
Thank you for the assumption. And thank you for the video, which I didn’t find (I was looking for news stories, not a tape of the event). Note in my OP that I said I couldn’t find any reputable news sources on this story (including anyone giving a counter narrative), and does this mean it didn’t happen? The answer, then, was yes.
I am curious, how long did it take you to a) find the video, and b) find the relevant part of the hour-long video?
Yes, the first Ad is an impediment to “Good” Government censorship. That is a fact.
Right, Kerry stated a fact, he didnt say we have to get rid of the Bill of Rights.
If Kerry said “the Second Amendment is an impediment to Gun control” would the OP think he said something crazy?
Right.
Maybe 20 minutes total. Probably a bit less.
I could tell from the OP link that it was at the WEF, and doing a quick search showed there was only one event last week, the SDIM conference. Clicking that link here: https://www.weforum.org/events/ had a link to videos of all of the talks, of which John Kerry only attended one. So that was 5 minutes.
Then it was just doing quick 5 minute jumps to the points where he was talking until I found part that matched what I had already seen in the OP link. So maybe 10 minutes there, but I think I actually got lucky and found it pretty quickly.
And the left is not reporting on this because it is nothing really except possibly some unclear syntax. I would be surprised to see a publication that would publish a “that’s not what he said” sort of article.
That’s how I found the story, was looking in the Blindspot section on Ground dot news. I am going to have to either avoid this section entirely, or dig deeper before I post about any story, because they seem to have no idea what is the difference between an actual news story and an opinion. One of the “stories” reported only by right-wing media was that a CNN commentator said bad stuff about Walz. Seems a waste to spend any time there. I think they have a real problem with lack of human oversight with their AI-aggregated news.
And thanks to @Aspenglow for the addition to the thread title, which is second best to burying the thread entirely. Cornfield! Cornfield! (Yes, I know, they don’t do that.)
I’m not seeing the argument that, somehow, censorship is evil but tying a person to a chair in a college lecture, with a government decided curriculum, and fines for failed test results is somehow less invasive of our privacy and personal freedom.
If we must have one of the two, is the censorship the lesser?
(Note: I’m not advocating for censorship. I’m pointing out that people don’t critically examine stuff on their own, minus forcible intervention. I’d recommend against both.)
I think what that was about was that the Biden admin REQUESTED some social media sites take down fake news about covid, and some court said that was illegal, but I think they were overruled by another court.