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

[Merrill]

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

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

I think he is just looking ahead to give us a glimpse of the future he wants to provide for us.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's scary when the politicians who claim to be the arbiters of truth attempt to censor the speech of those who disagree with them, and even penalize them.
"Agree with me or face the consequences" is not what we should want from our leaders.

 

[BCP1928]

Here you go, very interesting reading, indeed.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12180#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20said,without%20violating%20the%20First%20Amendment.

 

[Hank77]

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

Didn't FoxNews just pay out $780m for publicly stating misinformation about Dominion Voting equipment. The First Amendment didn't protect that speech.

 

[eleos1954]

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

There is some law in place in regard to hate speech

Misinformation is another thing.

Here is a interesting article about it.

Fake news: What laws are designed to protect

We don't want laws made beyond this IMO .... as that will put the government as the arbiter of truth ... and that is a very dangerous scenario. No offense but the government is most certainly not above lying and/or putting out propaganda
.

 

[Merrill]

Didn't FoxNews just pay out $780m for publicly stating misinformation about Dominion Voting equipment. The First Amendment didn't protect that speech.

Do you understand the difference between things like slander, libel and tortious interference

and

the government literally arresting you for criticizing politicians and policies? Or telling others about the actions of the government?

this is why we need to bring back Civics courses in American schools

 

[Merrill]

There is some law in place in regard to hate speech

Misinformation is another thing.

Here is a interesting article about it.

Fake news: What laws are designed to protect

We don't want laws made beyond this IMO .... as that will put the government as the arbiter of truth ... and that is a very dangerous scenario. No offense but the government is most certainly not above lying and/or putting out propaganda
.

"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."

 

[Bradskii]

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

If you only read right wing outlets then you won't get all the information you need: Out-of-Context Edited Tim Walz Interview Clip Goes Viral in Conservative Media | Video

'A 2022 interview with Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz that resurfaced on conservative blogs was heavily edited to present a misleading portrayal of Minnesota’s governor. While in conversation with Maria Teresa Kumar on MSNBC, Walz said at the time, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy” — a line that right-wing pundits have seized upon.

However, the full discussion between Kumar and Walz reveals there was more to the conversation that that (as Mediaite noted), with Walz’s comments specifically being around voter intimidation and getting people accurate information about where you can vote.'

It took me 20 seconds to find that. Now perhaps you can address his comments in the light of what he was actually talking about.

 

[Bradskii]

this is why we need to bring back Civics courses in American schools

And teach kids how to accurately obtain in-context information so they don't extrapolate wildly on heavily edited content.

 

[Merrill]

And teach kids how to accurately obtain in-context information so they don't extrapolate wildly on heavily edited content.

nothing I posted was deceitful or misrepresented Walz

I quoted him exactly --there is no "context here". What was said was very clear, and the article posted goes into depth on it

but your defense of his truly awful statement and ignorance regarding the Constitution is duly noted.

the kids you teach will end up with this attitude:

 

[Bradskii]

nothing I posted was deceitful or misrepresented Walz

I quoted him exactly --there is no "context here".

I explained that the video from which the quote came from was edited to cut out the reason why he was discussing it. It cut out the context. Now all the things that you were concerned about are indeed reasonable concerns. But had nothing to do with what Walz was specifically talking about in that interview.

I'm sure you didn't realise it before but you do now. So now maybe you'd like to discuss the specific points he made in the context in which he made them.

 

[Merrill]

And this isn't the first time Democrats have made false claims about the First Amendment, and declared that we need to prosecute and jail people for speech offenses. In regards to "hate speech":

"That false claim has been echoed by others such as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer. “If you espouse hate,” he said, “…you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”"

this isn't just people being stupid in regards to the Constitution: it is lawmakers saying they don't recognize or respect fundamental civil rights of citizens.

and this is why we have people on this site who don't have a basic understanding of the Bill of Rights --because they watch MSNBC and listen to lawmakers like Cardin and Dean spout out dangerous falsehoods regarding our rights

 

[Merrill]

I explained that the video from which the quote came from was edited to cut out the reason why he was discussing it. It cut out the context. Now all the things that you were concerned about are indeed reasonable concerns. But had nothing to do with what Walz was specifically talking about in that interview.

I'm sure you didn't realise it before but you do now. So now maybe you'd like to discuss the specific points he made in the context in which he made them.

baloney

you are engaging in deliberate distortion and Sophistry

Walz didn't simply say that speech involving elections should be limited, he said that

1. Disinformation
2. Hate Speech

were not protected under the First Amendment and could be limited or curtailed using the force of law:

"“There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” (note the 'especially' --which indicates that misinformation and hate speech are not protected even in the situation where elections or 'democracy are not involved)'"

that is 100% WRONG. As I said above, there is no concept of "hate speech" in the Constitution, and "disinformation" simply isn't a thing. Voter intimidation is NOT the same thing as limiting speech (physically preventing people from entering a polling place, for instance). This slime ball Walz is conflating different ideas and concepts in some effort to justify trampling on the rights of Americans

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4820490-harris-walz-administration-free-speech/

 

[Bradskii]

"“There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” (note the 'especially' --which indicates that misinformation and hate speech are not protected even in the situation where elections or 'democracy are not involved)'"

The full quote:

“Yeah. Years ago it was the little things, telling people to vote the day after the election. And, you know, we kind of brushed them off,” Walz replied. “Now we know it’s intimidation at the ballot box. It’s undermining the idea that mail-in ballots aren’t legal.”

“I think we need to push back on this,” Walz added. “There’s no guarantee of free speech on misinformation or or hate speech, and especially around our democracy. Tell the truth where the voting places are, who can vote, who’s able to be there? And I, you know, watching some states continue to weaken the protections around the ballot, I think, is what’s inspiring us to to lean into this.”

As I said above, there is no concept of "hate speech" in the Constitution, and "disinformation" simply isn't a thing.

Neither is there mention of drinking and driving in the constitution. Try using the same excuse if you are booked for DUI.

Voter intimidation is NOT the same thing as limiting speech (physically preventing people from entering a polling place, for instance).

If you think that voter intimidation is OK or purposely giving people the wrong information about who can vote, where they can vote and when to vote is fine then I'll simply make note that.

 

[Tuur]

Didn't FoxNews just pay out $780m for publicly stating misinformation about Dominion Voting equipment. The First Amendment didn't protect that speech.

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.

 

[ozso]

This is so confusing. They keep saying the republicans are the ones who want to throw away the us constitution.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is so confusing. They keep saying the republicans are the ones who want to throw away the us constitution.

You know what they want to do when they accuse the Republicans of doing it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This is so confusing. They keep saying the republicans are the ones who want to throw away the us constitution.

Don't believe everything you hear.

The relevant thing is that those in power, irrespective of party, don't want to give you too many rights that you might use against them staying in power. Don't trust Democrats. Don't trust Republicans. Don't trust any of them.

 

[wing2000]

“Yeah. Years ago it was the little things, telling people to vote the day after the election. And, you know, we kind of brushed them off,” Walz replied. “Now we know it’s intimidation at the ballot box. It’s undermining the idea that mail-in ballots aren’t legal.”

“I think we need to push back on this,” Walz added. “There’s no guarantee of free speech on misinformation or or hate speech, and especially around our democracy. Tell the truth where the voting places are, who can vote, who’s able to be there? And I, you know, watching some states continue to weaken the protections around the ballot, I think, is what’s inspiring us to to lean into this.”

....context certainly matters.

Who here thinks people should be free to verbally or physically intimidate election workers or voters at the ballot box?