Accept the consequences of your public claims
Norton argues that invoking the First Amendment in response to being called out is a category error. The amendment prohibits Congress from making laws abridging free speech, not from private citizens expressing their own speech rights by pointing out errors. He says, 'I'm not the government. Other evidence-based creators aren't the government.' Therefore, facing pushback is not a constitutional violation—it's someone else exercising their own free speech. He further suggests that if you can't say something you believe because someone might be offended, rational discourse becomes impossible, but that this principle doesn't extend to avoiding consequences for making demonstrably untrue statements. The mature response is to accept that saying 'dumb shit' will have consequences, and that these consequences are not only acceptable but healthy. He models this by sharing his own history of mistakes and the fallout that followed.
The constitutional mechanism: The First Amendment only restrains government action. Private criticism, no matter how harsh, does not constitute censorship within the meaning of the law. Social consequences—loss of credibility, reputational damage, audience pushback—are a feature of free speech, not a bug.
Norton says, 'I've said dumb shit before. I've done dumb shit before. And there were consequences to me saying and doing dumb shit. That is a beautiful thing in life.' He openly admits that he has personally experienced backlash for his own errors and views it as an acceptable, even positive, part of life.
You don't get to invoke the First Amendment because you feel bad because Big Mean Lane and people like him called you out for talking absolute nonsense.