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

[Truth7t7]

That’s why we need laws to stop it.

I disagree, the world needs less laws and government control, good thing America has its constitution to protect free speech and expression including hate and misinformation

 

[Larniavc]

I disagree, the world needs less laws and government control, good thing America has its constitution to protect free speech and expression including hate and misinformation

Whelp, I guess you get to live in a place where lying and hate speech are valued, then.

Well done?

 

[Palmfever]

I'm not sure that all speech is protected.
Yell fire in a crowded movie.
Tell the flight attendant you have a bomb when your next flight gets in the air.
What happens when our speech incites or causes injury as a result of fear or panic.

 

[Bradskii]

Whelp, I guess you get to live in a place where lying and hate speech are valued, then.

Well done?

It used to be '...but I will fight to protect your right to say it'. Now it's '...and I will fight to protect my right to say it'.

 

[rjs330]

That already happens in contract law. Are you against people being beholden to their behaviour?

I thought that was a conservative corner stone?

That didn't answer my question. And I don't believe we were talking about contract kaw where we?

 

[rjs330]

Good to know that you support hate speech...

But what if the hate speech takes the form of threats?

There gave been black people who have spewed hate speech at white people. I wonder if some here would want them in hail fir that.

Direct threats are something else. I'm not sure how many times we have to point that out.

 

[rjs330]

You claimed that hate speech and lies being disallowed was the left’s way of silencing the right. Do you see what you are saying about the actions of the right? You’re saying that the right uses hate speech and lies.

Well done.

Nonsense. He's brought up MSN more than once, a leftist media source, which us protected by the 1st Ammendment. Leftists spew gate speech and leftists provide misinformation al tgd time. They are protected.

Instead of being tossed in jail like the poor people in your country.

 

[rjs330]

Contract law. A clear and obvious example of where lying IS outlawed. Which part of that is not exactly what you said in you previous post say we may as well outlaw lying.

The only reason anyone would want the right to be hateful and tell lies (which my reading of Proverbs 6:16-19 would appear to contradict). Why do you want to be able to do so?

If you jump into a conversation it is incumbent on you to know what the subject is.

So you do support tossing anyone in jail who tells a lie?

 

[rjs330]

Remind us again - which groups tried to boycott Budweiser, Nike and Target because those groups didn't like one of their ads?

Tell me who went to jail again? Which Nike, Budweiser or Nike manager or executive went to jail for it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, and the DNC waited until "After" the primaries to install Kamala, it was a pre-planned event taking away the people's voice

I continue to be amused by posts telling Democrats what their opinions should be coming from sources which would never vote for any Democratic candidate in the first place.

 

[KCfromNC]

Tell me who went to jail again? Which Nike, Budweiser or Nike manager or executive went to jail for it.

Have fun dragging those goalposts around.

 

[Truth7t7]

I continue to be amused by posts telling Democrats what their opinions should be coming from sources which would never vote for any Democratic candidate int he first place.

Fact is the world well knew Joe Biden was an invalid 2 years ago and wasn't fit to be president

Once again the DNC waited until "After" the primary to install Kamala as the presidential choice, the people didn't vote for Kamala "Fact"!

 

[KCfromNC]

Fact is the world well knew Joe Biden was an invalid 2 years ago and wasn't fit to be president

Once again the DNC waited until "After" the primary to install Kamala as the presidential choice, the people didn't vote for Kamala "Fact"!

I'm sure she's very very sad she lost your vote over this.

Doesn't look like many people share your worry, though, if polling is to be believed.

 

[Merrill]

That’s why we need laws to stop it. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

If you don’t want to address what I said instead of what you want to address why even bother replying?

Saying ‘smiles’ is weird. Why do you keep doing it?

are you seriously calling for "laws to stop" hate speech and misinformation?

wow, ok --that's authoritarian and unconstitutional

but here is some misinformation from the Harris campaign itself: modifying news articles and creating fake news headlines and embedding them into legitimate sites to spread her message

That news article on Google? Its headline may have been written by a political campaign

Kamala Harris' campaign has been pushing out Google ads with altered news article headlines, something Google called "fairly common."

www.usatoday.com

so the same people who are complaining about misinformation are the ones spreading it

 

[Larniavc]

Everyone has to tell the truth about everything and if you lie, off to jail you go. Is that what you are after?

If one's lies cause harm yes. Just like any purposeful behaviour.

 

[Larniavc]

good thing America has its constitution to protect free speech and expression including hate and misinformation

And a huge relative murder rate so I guess it's swings and round abouts.

 

[Larniavc]

I wonder if some here would want them in hail fir that.

I would. Consistency has every been my most well regarded trait.

 

[Larniavc]

Leftists spew gate speech and leftists provide misinformation al tgd time.

Can you give me an example where left wing hate speech has been protected but 1A?

 

[Larniavc]

are you seriously calling for "laws to stop" hate speech and misinformation?

What benefit do hate speech and lies bring to a society?

 

[Hank77]

but here is some misinformation from the Harris campaign itself: modifying news articles and creating fake news headlines and embedding them into legitimate sites to spread her message

A statement from Google said it’s “fairly common” for advertisers to link out or cite external websites in ads. To differentiate these ads from results, the search engine labels the ads as sponsored and includes a “paid for by” disclosure.

But even with a sponsored tag, the ads present a “significant ethical concern,” according to Colin Campbell, associate professor of marketing at the University of San Diego.

He said this is especially true when consumers fail to differentiate online ads.

“Many consumers might form opinions based solely on the altered headlines, without ever reading the actual articles,” Campbell said. “Even those who click through and read the articles may feel misled when they notice the discrepancy between the headline and the content, further eroding trust in the media.”
...
But it’s not unusual for advertisements to cite to publishers, according to Pinar Yildirim, an associate professor of marketing and economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Movie trailers, for instance, often include snippets of critics’ reviews.

Yildirim said that as long as an ad doesn't misrepresent the contents of a news
article, act as clickbait or try to earn undeserved credit by using the publisher's name, then linking back to a news outlet "should not be objectionable."

That news article on Google? Its headline may have been written by a political campaign

Kamala Harris' campaign has been pushing out Google ads with altered news article headlines, something Google called "fairly common."

www.usatoday.com

So, the article previously posted here and published by USA Today states both sides of the issue from two marketing professors from well-known and respected universities. Thank you for posting the article. Now I have a much clearer understanding of what this practice entails. I don't see anything about "modifying news articles", thank goodness. It's closer to being like when someone posts a thread here with a heading that doesn't clearly represent the headline and/or content of the article posted in the OP.
Personally, I don't like the practice and agree that it can be harmful if one doesn't read the content of an article. However, it doesn't surprise me, after all, we're talking about advertising/marketing practices whose whole first objective is to get the attention of a target audience.