Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unveiled an alarming new plan to punish companies that knowingly disseminate “disinformation” online. The Massachusetts senator’s proposal would hold firms like Facebook and Twitter criminally and civilly responsible for platforming users who spread lies intended to undermine voter turnout. She also hinted at expanding her efforts to other areas of speech.

It’s an odd position for Warren, whose own claims about her past and identity have caused her endless trouble. But it is a good example of progressives’ increasingly authoritarian and anti-free speech instincts.

Her plan, which mainly focuses on Election Day disinformation, would almost surely be unconstitutional. And if it did survive constitutional review, who would be charged with determining what counts as “disinformation” in the future? Will there be an army of government fact-checkers sifting through Twitter accounts, or will Warren farm out the task of monitoring billions of daily interactions to our trusted media?

Plus, if the state can criminalize disinformation about elections, what is to stop it from criminalizing “disinformation” about candidates or science or public policy — or anything that supposedly undermines the common good?

If, say, a person prone to hyperbole publicly accuses Warren of being a proto-fascist scoundrel, is he “misleading” voters? What if an elected official claimed to be Native American but really wasn’t? Would she be banned?

How about social-media users who assert once widely accepted scientific statements that have fallen into disfavor — statements such as “life begins at conception” or “there are only two genders”? What about the rhetoric of “climate-change deniers”? One wonders if Warren realizes that her plan is a precedent that authorizes the next Donald Trump to dictate the parameters of acceptable speech online.

Now, perhaps Warren envisions a completely independent government bureaucracy — with maybe an Orwellian name like the Free Speech Protection Bureau — to be charged with meting out daily reminders about acceptable thoughts and words.

However Warren’s plan is implemented, though, her purpose is to bully social-media companies into regulating discourse in a manner she and media gatekeepers find acceptable. What tech company is going to host an open forum if it’s held liable for every allegedly misleading statement posted by its billions of users around the world?

Warren’s effort, like attempts to overturn the First Amendment protections of the Supreme Court decision Citizens United, is based on the view that Americans are too weak-minded to be able to scrutinize information on their own.

“The stakes of this election are too high,” Warren said. “We need to fight the spread of false information that disempowers voters and undermines democracy. I’ll do my part — and I’m calling on my fellow candidates and big tech companies to do their part, too.”

The stakes are no higher in 2020 than they were in 2016 or 1916 or 1816. Physical threats may undermine voting rights, but speech does nothing to limit Americans’ movements or actions. Nor can it dictate their beliefs. Those who claim otherwise are the ones selling dangerous disinformation.

Unless the Russians were in possession of a secret brainwashing ray in 2016, they didn’t control a single vote in 2016, and Warren has no evidence the Kremlin persuaded a single voter to change his mind.

And even if the Russians did change a few minds, thousands of dishonest foreign Twitter bots are still preferable to a single bureaucrat limiting an American’s right to free expression.

In truth, if you aren’t prepared to handle participating in the boisterous, churning, ugly and sometimes dishonest squabbles of a free nation, you probably shouldn’t be voting anyway. If a random Twitter account can convince you that Election Day is in July rather than in November, maybe you’re not prepared for the sacred duty of voting.

Because contra Warren, there is no expectation in our “democracy” that voters will be shielded from disinformation. It’s the citizen’s job, not Congress’, to find reliable sources of information. It’s the citizen’s job, not the Justice Department’s, to offer arguments that debunk the others’ lies.

Nor is there any First Amendment exception regarding “elections.” I’ve written numerous columns arguing that voting is often a giant waste of time and that Americans should avoid it whenever possible. In fact, I wrote an entire book making the case that democracy is overrated. The ability to express yourself, on the other hand, shall not be infringed.

Twitter: @DavidHarsanyi