Question on punishment

From the outset, I would like to say I appreciate the nuance that Shiffrin provides in addressing a problem that (as we discussed in our seminar on Speech Matters) is not black and white. She demonstrates its clearly not a simple as banning all the actors who spew out speech that isn't congruent with the First Amendment, as that would set a precedent that could render speech that, for example, questions authority, or is simply a mistake, as unlawful. This, of course, would undoubtedly have remedial effects on our society's ability to cultivate effective approaches to epistemic production and, in short, stifle progress. 

As regarding most of our society's problems, my interest lies in the rectification process, and the case of free speech is no different! In general, I think Shiffrin's suggestion of setting different standards for speech made by experts and government officials is a great step in the right direction. Experts and government officials clearly have a distinct role in dictating public thought. Their positionality gives them massive influence to the way lay citizens "ought" to use their autonomy. This makes it so the relationship between those specific actors and lay citizens is asymmetrical, so it follows that experts/gov officials would be held to a standard that differs to the average person. This dynamic within expert speech raises some questions for me: 

It seems as though sincerity would be a key component in addressing a transgression of speech done by an expert. After all, the expert is tasked with the production of knowledge that is precise and in that pursuit will surely make mistakes and potentially platform ideas that are, initially, misleading. What of the speech of an expert that is misleading but sincere? How could we possibly measure that sincerity? And what would be the appropriate punishment for the expert in a case like this?