Note here that he doesn’t mention “harmful” speech, which is often included in these discussions. That indicates to me that this was indeed at least partially about COVID misinformation. They’re trying to argue that Trump telling people to eat aquarium cleaner (hydroxychloroquine) is protected free speech, even though it killed people and sent others to the hospital8.
“Although clinical trials have not verified either antimalarial drug’s effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19, in his press conference on Monday, President Donald Trump said, “It could be a game changer” for COVID-19.” The couple might have turned to the fish product because they couldn’t get the drugs indicated for human consumption.
“The woman told NBC News she had seen a televised briefing in which Mr Trump discussed the potential benefits of chloroquine as a treatment Covid-19.” [Source]9
Speech that physically harms others is typically couched under incitement of violence, and it is NOT protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. Anti-vax rhetoric actually harmed people. Anti-government rhetoric actually harmed people on January 6. None of these should be protected.
Full contextual analysis of Section 5.2: Federal Communications Commission here.