Tim Walz falsely claims misinformation and hate speech are not protected by the First Amendment

[eleos1954]

"There is some law in place in regard to hate speech"

show me where the term "Hate Speech" appears in the US Constitution, or even in federal law.

and show me where the term "misinformation" appears in the US Constitution, or a law that prohibits private citizens from expressing something that is "untruthful"

it is absolutely insane that we even have to have this conversation, and I have to point out to a US citizen that the First Amendment protects hateful and untruthful speech --everyone understood this when I was younger, and it is precedent based on 200+ years of legal proceedings

you cannot be prosecuted and jailed for

1. Saying the Earth is flat
2. Saying the 2020 or the 2000 election was "stolen"
3. Saying bigoted things online or in print
4. Criticizing the government
5. Flying an ISIS flag or even a Swastika

"There is no constitutional exception for so-called hate speech. The First Amendment fully protects speech that some may find offensive, unpopular, or even racist. The First Amendment allows you to wear a jacket that says “Fuc* the Draft” in a public building (see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15), yell “We’ll take the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing street later!” during a protest (see Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105), burn the American flag in protest (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 and United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310), and even give a racially charged speech to a restless crowd (see Terminello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1). You can even, consistent with the First Amendment, call for the overthrow of the United States government (see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444). This is not a recent development in constitutional law—these cases date back to 1949."

The First Amendment makes no general exception for offensive, repugnant, or hateful expression.

The Court generally identifies these categories as obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography.

The First Amendment’s protection is not absolute. The Supreme Court has identified narrow exceptions to the First Amendment, including but not limited to speech that constitutes unlawful incitement, true threats, intimidation, or discriminatory harassment.

I hear what you are saying ... however ... "the bar" on free speech keeps moving or is rather blurry ... like it or not that is where we are at.

As the saying goes .... the devil is always in the details. ;o)

 

[Merrill]

The First Amendment makes no general exception for offensive, repugnant, or hateful expression.

The Court generally identifies these categories as obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography.

The First Amendment’s protection is not absolute. The Supreme Court has identified narrow exceptions to the First Amendment, including but not limited to speech that constitutes unlawful incitement, true threats, intimidation, or discriminatory harassment.

I hear what you are saying ... however ... "the bar" on free speech keeps moving or is rather blurry ... like it or not that is where we are at.

As the saying goes .... the devil is always in the details. ;o)

No, the devil is not in the details

the types of speech Walz and myself are talking about are not "obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography.:"

we are talking about speech which is "hateful, offensive, repugnant expression"

I hope you realize there is a difference here

unless you think someone can be arrested and thrown in jail for writing up an insulting email and sending it to their governor

as I pointed out above, there is no provision for "hate speech" in our laws, and you are trying to conflate Constitutionally-protected speech with things like direct threats and child-pornography--when there is no comparison or analogy to be made.

 

[Hank77]

That was an award in a civil suit, not a fine imposed by the government. Congress may make no law restricting speech, but that doesn't mean speech is free from consequences. There is no US law that says you can't go up to a biker gang and make fun of their mothers, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Just read about this today. This man is going to jail for hate speech which in this instance is a crime. The government brought the charges.
...
"Today, former Cornell University student Patrick Dai was sentenced to serve 21 months in prison for posting anonymous threats to kill Jewish students," U.S. Attorney Carla B. Freedman for the Northern District of New York said. "Before imposing a sentence, the court found that this was a hate crime under the federal Sentencing Guidelines because Dai targeted Jewish students and substantially disrupted the university’s core function of educating its students."

"The defendant’s threats terrorized the Cornell campus community for days and shattered the community’s sense of safety," she added.

MSN

 

[Tuur]

Just read about this today. This man is going to jail for hate speech which in this instance is a crime. The government brought the charges.
...
"Today, former Cornell University student Patrick Dai was sentenced to serve 21 months in prison for posting anonymous threats to kill Jewish students," U.S. Attorney Carla B. Freedman for the Northern District of New York said. "Before imposing a sentence, the court found that this was a hate crime under the federal Sentencing Guidelines because Dai targeted Jewish students and substantially disrupted the university’s core function of educating its students."

"The defendant’s threats terrorized the Cornell campus community for days and shattered the community’s sense of safety," she added.

MSN

So, you are on the record as supporting curtailing freedom of speech?

 

[Hank77]

So, you are on the record as supporting curtailing freedom of speech?

Well, I don't condone yelling Fire in a theater so I guess I am.

 

[Bradskii]

So, you are on the record as supporting curtailing freedom of speech?

Whut? Why do so many people have problems with this?

If I send you an email saying that I am going to kill you, your wife and all your kids in the next few days, in what alternative universe would anyone argue that I have a right to do that under the first? If I call the White House and say that I am going to shoot the VP at her next rally in what fantasy existence could someone say 'Hey, free speech! He can say that if he wants to.'

Oh, I know. It's a world where a Democrat points out that there are limits to what you can and cannot say.

 

[christian-surfer]

so let's unpack that in order to show you that it isn't what you are describing

1. Tim Walz was talking about mail-in-ballots, not in-person voting (see the full quote above)
2. Walz made a statement that wasn't simply about misinformation in regards to voting: he specifically said "hate speech" is also not protected under the First Amendment

in other words, the misinformation Walz was talking about was not a situation where people are physically blocking you from voting at the polling place (which would be illegal). What he is talking about is people spreading misinformation online in order to sway elections: and that is protected speech

unless you are under some impression that political speech is not protected, in which case I suggest you go take a civics course

likewise, there is no "hate speech" exemption in the First Amendment

and before you say that his words can be interpreted differently, I would point to the dozens of other examples fro Democrats who claim that hate speech and disinformation are not protected under our Constitution:

Ben Cardin (D): "If you espouse hate ...you are not protected under the First Amendment"
Howard Deen tweeted: "Hate Speech is not protected by the First Amendment"
Stacy Placket (D): "“I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example."

and Kamala Harris said: “We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy,” Harris, a 2020 presidential contender, said during the Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner at the Detroit NAACP.

and Kamala said to Mark Zukerberg “This is not a matter of free speech….This is a matter of holding corporate America and these Big Tech companies responsible and accountable for what they are facilitating.”

so Democrats have openly spread the false and legally incorrect theory that hate speech and "misinformation" are not protected under the Constitution. Likewise, Harris and others have stated they intend to go after social media companies, journalists, and newspapers if they don't like what these outlets are printing.

it is very clear to everyone that Walz was repeating these prior claims made by Democrats, and no amount of "context" or deliberate misreading and misrepresentation will convince people otherwise

There is no hate speech exemption?
How can you define hate speech anyway? One person could claim something is hate speech but when it’s directed against Christians or your favorite group to hate on then it’s not really hate because you believe that those people deserve it. Perhaps kind of like there’s no such thing as being racist against white people.

It’s another law that would be selectively enforced which happens when endless laws are added

But the 10th amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

9th amendment says:

rights that are not specifically written in the Constitution may be retained by the people,

That means if it’s not spelled out in the constitution then the federal government is not supposed to have anything to do with it. So if the constitution says nothing about hate speech then there never needed to be an exemption because it doesn’t apply.

Generally if a person did a bunch of bad stuff then there’s something else you could charge then with anyway such as vandalism, assault, etc.

Misinformation is far too wide a category and the government and media has been guilty of a great deal of that.

There have been examples of hate speech and hatred expressed against Jews over the Palestinian issue but many of these are democrats so they don’t want to do anything about it

If speech can be criminalized then all you need is some hearsay false evidence or fake witnesses to charge someone with a crime as in many cases it leaves absolutely no other evidence. With AI technology it can be faked also

 

[Bradskii]

One person could claim something is hate speech but when it’s directed against Christians or your favorite group to hate on then it’s not really hate because you believe that those people deserve it.

'Your honour, what my client said to those people cannnot be defined as hate speech because...well, because he really doesn't like them'.

Perhaps kind of like there’s no such thing as being racist against white people.

Just...what?

 

[Truth7t7]

A bit more than 81 million voted for her to be a representative of the democrats in 2020.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with 2024

Kamala wasn't elected to be on the ticket on Nov 5th 2024, that's not democracy, the electors in the political process voted for Joe Biden

IMHO It was the DNC plan all along to wait for "After" the primary voting to install Kamala against the will of the people

Amazing how immediately after the primaries were complete, the narrative to get rid of Ole Joe started to circle

 

[Truth7t7]

There is no hate speech exemption?
How can you define hate speech anyway? One person could claim something is hate speech but when it’s directed against Christians or your favorite group to hate

I Agree 100%

The liberals will try to control the definition book on what hate speech is

The liberal Biden Admin is a prime example on dual standards regarding law enforcement

Trump is indicted and charged for government records at his home, while Biden is guilty of the espionage act having classified documents in his garage that were taken as a VP, no prosecution from Biden's DOJ based upon he's a elderly man and can't stand trial

 

[Bradskii]

Amazing how immediately after the primaries were complete, the narrative to get rid of Ole Joe started to circle

And how quickly Trump realised that wasn't actually what he wanted: Desperate Trump Pines for Biden to Return As Democratic Opponent

Especially as the poll figures are now significantly better for the Dems: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-leads-trump-by-5-points-ipsos-poll-2024-08-08/

 

[rjs330]

Tim Walz has made the claim more than once that "misinformation" and "hate speech" are not protected by the First Amendment, and that laws can be passed limiting such speech--essentially prosecuting people for expression

"There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy." -Walz

This shows a shocking ignorance of the First Amendment and federal laws surrounding free expression. There is absolutely NO concept of "misinformation" OR "hate speech" in the Constitution or federal law. SCOTUS has routinely shot down any attempt to curtail political and ideological expression under the guise of "misinformation" or "hate speech"

likewise, in regards to the quote above, we do not live in a Democracy--this is a republic

Walz's knowledge of the Bill of Rights seems on par with his understanding of the economy and stock markets: he has never owned a security or bond, and simply spent all his salary over the years, before selling his house and moving into the governor's mansion. So we could have someone within a heartbeat of the Presidency who thinks the government can jail people for criticizing it, and doesn't understand what a stock is. Terrifying

Tim Walz was dead wrong about misinformation and free speech

Now that Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz has become Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate, it is ostensibly time for the media to scrutinize his

reason.com

And people are saying that rhere us no socialism involved in this. This is a pure tactic of a socialist authoritarian.

 

[rjs330]

.context certainly matters.

Funny how context never matters when it comes to the things Trump says.

 

[rjs330]

Just read about this today. This man is going to jail for hate speech which in this instance is a crime. The government brought the charges.
...
"Today, former Cornell University student Patrick Dai was sentenced to serve 21 months in prison for posting anonymous threats to kill Jewish students," U.S. Attorney Carla B. Freedman for the Northern District of New York said. "Before imposing a sentence, the court found that this was a hate crime under the federal Sentencing Guidelines because Dai targeted Jewish students and substantially disrupted the university’s core function of educating its students."

"The defendant’s threats terrorized the Cornell campus community for days and shattered the community’s sense of safety," she added.

MSN

Hank this is NOT what we are talking about. This was a direct threat to someone based upon their ethnicity.

It wasn't hate speech. He committed a crime and rhe government has passed laws that says crimes r
that are committed Against someone based upon their status is a hate crime. We are not talking about this kind of thing.

We are talking about hate speech. Such as white people are a bunch or racists who want to put blacks back in chains. Or homosexuals are a bunch of child molesters.

Those would be considered hate speech. And that is protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[rjs330]

Well, I don't condone yelling Fire in a theater so I guess I am.

Yeah you probably are as I think we all
are. If I were to call your family up.and tell your spouse that I coming over to rape them and slit their throat, rhat would not be covered as free speech.

But if I posted on the internet that we are tired of immigrants coming over and raping girls that would and should be covered free speech. It may be considered hare speech, but it is and should be protected. And that's what Walz would.want to criminalize.

 

[wing2000]

But if I posted on the internet that we are tired of immigrants coming over and raping girls that would and should be covered free speech. It may be considered hare speech, but it is and should be protected. And that's what Walz would.want to criminalize.

Again, the entire interview addressed election issues. But I guess you'll project on to Walz whatever you believe to be true.

 

[Truth7t7]

And how quickly Trump realised that wasn't actually what he wanted: Desperate Trump Pines for Biden to Return As Democratic Opponent

From the leftist New York columnist Jonathan Chait

Especially as the poll figures are now significantly better for the Dems: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-leads-trump-by-5-points-ipsos-poll-2024-08-08/

3 weeks and Harris hasn't given a press interview, the honeymoon is over

Kamala had worse polling than Biden, she's a few weeks away from being right back to square 1

 

[Larniavc]

it is absolutely insane that we even have to have this conversation,

I don’t understand. Why do you want a society where it’s okay to lie and to say awful things to people?

What does the Bible say about telling lies and hating other people?

 

[Bradskii]

From the leftist New York columnist Jonathan Chait

This is from Trump's own social media platform:

"What are the chances that Crooked Joe Biden...CRASHES the Democrat National Convention and tries to take back the Nomination, beginning with challenging me to another DEBATE."

Bless him. He really misses Joe.

Kamala had worse polling than Biden, she's a few weeks away from being right back to square 1

Since she was announced as Trump's opponent (and will be formally announced at the convention in a couple of days) Trump's polling has only moved in one direction. You must be purposely avoiding all forms of media not to know that. Within the margin of error, Harris is now in front. Whereas Trump was well in front of Biden not so long ago. No wonder he wants him back.

And prepare yourself for another surge in the polls after the convention. You're not going to like it. The honeymoon will be three months long. Followed by Three Weddings (Biden, Harris and Walz) and A Funeral (you can work that one out yourself).

 

[rjs330]

Again, the entire interview addressed election issues. But I guess you'll project on to Walz whatever you believe to be true.

Yup, because he brought up hare speech. And nothing he said about elections is covered by hate speech. That's a separate issue all together. Some goes for the democracy comment. We have to pay attention when stuff like that is said. He tossed it in there for a reason. And it had nothing to do with giving people the wrong information.