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

[Aldebaran]

....context certainly matters.

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

Intimidate how? Ballots are secretly cast, so how can anyone intimidate the voter? As for election workers, what would a person want to intimidate them into doing or not doing?

As for Walz's statements, it's up to voters to know when election day is. If they believe that they have to vote after election day, then they clearly aren't informed enough to cast an intelligent vote.

 

[wing2000]

Intimidate how? Ballots are secretly cast, so how can anyone intimidate the voter? As for election workers, what would a person want to intimidate them into doing or not doing?

As for Walz's statements, it's up to voters to know when election day is. If they believe that they have to vote after election day, then they clearly aren't informed enough to cast an intelligent vote.

Good to see you concede context matters.

 

[Aldebaran]

Good to see you concede context matters.

I used to assert all the time about context mattering, but was always mocked for it.
Thanks for coming around.

 

[ozso]

Good to see you concede context matters.

The issue is the pretext within the context.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here you go, very interesting reading, indeed.

Loading…

crsreports.congress.gov

I'm sure we're all aware of fraud and defamation.

 

[Merrill]

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.”

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

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.

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

 

[Merrill]

....context certainly matters.

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

as I demonstrate above, that is not what Walz was talking about

you are reading that into his statements and making excuses for him

likewise, the completely absurd claim by Bradski "Neither is there mention of drinking and driving in the constitution. Try using the same excuse if you are booked for DUI" in regards to the First Amendment shows shocking ignorance of the Constitution among those on the political left

if we use that logic, Congress could pass laws banning all online speech, break into your text messages, and shutdown all television stations and ISPs since "that technology didn't exist I 1791

that is not how it works, and I don't need to go through 200+ years of legal rulings in regards to the Bill of Rights to show you guys that you don't have a clue as to how the First Amendment operates

really scary that we have a sizable portion of people in this country who don't understand the First Amendment, and wish it to be abolished or ignored. We are inviting authoritarianism

 

[childeye 2]

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)

Respectfully, I believe you are mistaken ---> "Tell the truth where the voting places are, who can vote, who’s able to be there? " <--- sounds like in-person voting.

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

E. Jean Carrol sued Trump for defamation. Giuliani was sued by Ruby freeman <--- Tim Walz is correct about our laws.

 

[durangodawood]

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

A democracy is a system where we the people ultimately hold the reins. Thats what we have, with we the people choosing our government.

 

[Aldebaran]

A democracy is a system where we the people ultimately hold the reins. Thats what we have, with we the people choosing our government.

How many people voted to choose Kamala to be the representative of the democrats?

 

[durangodawood]

How many people voted to choose Kamala to be the representative of the democrats?

You are highlighting a situation where democratic participation has been lacking, and it sounds like youd prefer more, as I would. Surely you value the opportunity to participate in your preferred party's primaries, right? In this respect you should agree with me that we are a democracy - if Im understanding you right.

(Would you be willing to support something like ranked choice voting, where voters are penalized for supporting additional parties?)

 

[Aldebaran]

You are highlighting a situation where democratic participation has been lacking, and it sounds like youd prefer more, as I would. Surely you value the opportunity to participate in your preferred party's primaries, right? In this respect you should agree with me that we are a democracy - if Im understanding you right.

(Would you be willing to support something like ranked choice voting, where voters are penalized for supporting additional parties?)

Not where it's been lacking, but outright denied by your own party.

 

[Hank77]

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

Yes, I do know the difference that is why I believe that your post isn't accurate.

I think that it's more important for some Christians to go back and read their Bible about how we are to treat others. It's not a good look for a Christian to be rude to another Christian rather than responding in the manner of a CIVIL discussion.

 

[durangodawood]

Not where it's been lacking, but outright denied by your own party.

The parties, thanks to miserable foresight by our country's founders, are not part of our system of govt as outlined in the US Constitution. The parties can conduct themselves as they see fit.

After that we see what sort of system the founders did intend: we the people vote, democratically.

 

[childeye 2]

How many people voted to choose Kamala to be the representative of the democrats?

You mean the candidate, not the representative.

 

[Aldebaran]

The parties, thanks to miserable foresight by our country's founders, are not part of our system of govt as outlined in the US Constitution. The parties can conduct themselves as they see fit.

After that we see what sort of system the founders did intend: we the people vote, democratically.

That already happens on the day of the general election (and now for weeks ahead of time).
As for who the people will be voting for, that's been decided by the party that uses the word "democracy" to fool people into thinking it's what they're about.

 

[Aldebaran]

You mean the candidate, not the representative.

She will be representing the democratic party in the election. People chose to have Biden do that, but the party decided otherwise.

 

[wing2000]

as I demonstrate above, that is not what Walz was talking about

you are reading that into his statements and making excuses for him

The sourced MSNBC interview from December 29, 2022:

Minnesota Gov. Walz asks fellow Democrats to ‘think big’ when it comes to fixing voting issues

Voters stood up for democracy this year, electing Democrats who campaigned heavily on preserving it. Take Minnesota, where Democrats are in charge of both chambers for the first time in eight years. Plus, Governor Tim Walz is asking his fellow Democrats to "think big" when it comes to voting...

www.msnbc.com

The entire 7:43 interview is addressing the topic of elections and enabling people to vote.

I have no idea what you are going on about.
Misinforming voters where to vote should have consequences.
As should voter intimidation.

 

[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.

So you are saying that the First Amendment did not apply to the Fox/Dominion case. It was determined that what Fox said was defamation. No one gets fined for something that they did legally. It is illegal to speed but you get fined rather than criminally charged. The First Amendment doesn't protect someone from yelling fire in a theater. Who would bring charges in that case if not the government?

As a Christian, I am sure you recognize the 10 Commandments as the law given by God. I believe defamation would fall under the 9th.

Exodus 20:16 -
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

 

[durangodawood]

That already happens on the day of the general election (and now for weeks ahead of time).
As for who the people will be voting for, that's been decided by the party that uses the word "democracy" to fool people into thinking it's what they're about.

My claim was that its reasonable to call this country a democracy - based on the system outlined in the constitution.

All this other stuff is beside the point.