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

[Aldebaran]

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.

A falsehood shouldn't be more important than "all this other stuff".
The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government, and the word "democracy" never once appears in the Constitution.

 

[durangodawood]

The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government, and the word "democracy" never once appears in the Constitution.

The system outlined gives ultimate power to we the people. Thats democracy.

Is there anything false in those two sentences?

 

[childeye 2]

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

She will be selected by Democratic party delegates to run for the office of President.

 

[Merrill]

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.

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

and why are you ignoring the rest of Walz's statement, which involved "hate speech"

he is clearly not limiting this idea of First Amendment protections to issue surrounding voting

 

[Merrill]

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.

again, like I have to point this out 2-3 times in the same thread

if you listen to the interview

1. Walz is not limiting his statement to voting issue --he says "hate speech". Did you listen to the interview?
2. Dozens of Democrats have made direct claims that misinformation and hate speech are not protected by the First Amendment, which is 100% false

you conveniently ignore all of that to continue pushing this false narrative that Walz was only talking about physical intimidation of voters, when it is totally clear that wasn't what he was doing

 

[childeye 2]

and why are you ignoring the rest of Walz's statement, which involved "hate speech"

he is clearly not limiting this idea of First Amendment protections to issue surrounding voting

I gave two examples of hate speech where Trump and Guiliani were found guilty of defamation. I'm not ignoring hate speech.

Walz said, "There’s no guarantee of free speech on misinformation or or hate speech, and especially around our democracy". Those are examples.

 

[Merrill]

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.

You are muddying the waters and basically creating false scenarios to justify infringements on the First Amendment

none of this has anything to do with

1. Direct threats and "fighting words" (not once did Walz talk about that, or any of the other Democrats I quoted)
2. Civil suits involving defamation, slander, etc.

the statement by Tim Walz was that "There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,"

which states two things:

The First Amendment does not protect people from speaking untruthfully
The First Amendment does not protect speech that is "hateful"

both of those assertions are 100% false, and if you think differently, I'd like to see what your legal reasoning is

 

[Merrill]

I gave two examples of hate speech where Trump and Guiliani were found guilty of defamation. I'm not ignoring hate speech.

Walz said, "There’s no guarantee of free speech on misinformation or or hate speech, and especially around our democracy".

Defamation is not "hate speech", and even defamation suits routinely fail against public figures and government officials

Joe Biden can't suddenly declare that any criticism of him is defamation, and therefore illegal.

Defamation of Character or Free Speech?

The First Amendment protects free speech, but when an untrue statement causes real harm, defamation laws and constitutional protections can collide.

www.alllaw.com

and here is an article outlining the legal precedents as to why "hate speech" is not recognized by the courts, and no such exception exists in regards to the First Amendment

No, there's no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment

I keep hearing about a supposed "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, "This isn't free…

reason.com

 

[durangodawood]

You are muddying the waters and basically creating false scenarios to justify infringements on the First Amendment

none of this has anything to do with

1. Direct threats and "fighting words" (not once did Walz talk about that, or any of the other Democrats I quoted)
2. Civil suits involving defamation, slander, etc.

the statement by Tim Walz was that "There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,"

which states two things:

The First Amendment does not protect people from speaking untruthfully
The First Amendment does not protect speech that is "hateful"

both of those assertions are 100% false, and if you think differently, I'd like to see what your legal reasoning is

Yeah youre right. Hate speech and lies are generically is protected - tho obviously they can cross certain thresholds into unprotected speech.

 

[Bradskii]

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

I have to keep pointing this out: 'with Walz’s comments specifically being around voter intimidation and getting people accurate information about where you can vote.'

Hate speech per se is covered by the First, but is limited if it presents danger or incites violence. And Walz was specifically talking about that in the voting process. You are deliberately ignoring that and suggesting that he believes that hate speech that doesn't present danger or incites violence should be illegal.

Anyone who has now seen the context in which he spoke realises that. I'm sure that you realise that as well. Here's an article that shows what he says, but it has also been edited just at the point where it is clear that he is talking about voter intimidation. The context was removed so those on the far right have something to shout about. Tim Walz shows that Democrats don't believe in free speech

Here's a simple question for you: Do you think that speech that incites violence should be allowed under the First? If you think it shouldn't then you agree with Walz.

 

[wing2000]

again, like I have to point this out 2-3 times in the same thread

if you listen to the interview

1. Walz is not limiting his statement to voting issue --he says "hate speech". Did you listen to the interview?
2. Dozens of Democrats have made direct claims that misinformation and hate speech are not protected by the First Amendment, which is 100% false

you conveniently ignore all of that to continue pushing this false narrative that Walz was only talking about physical intimidation of voters, when it is totally clear that wasn't what he was doing

Yes, I listened. He mentioned "Hate speech" one time. Big whoop.
The point is, the entire 7 minute + interview is focussed on registering more people to vote. A subsection referenced voter intimidation and the need to counter such behavior.

 

[childeye 2]

Defamation is not "hate speech", and even defamation suits routinely fail against public figures and government officials

Hate speech is defamatory when it's misinformation that causes harm.

Joe Biden can't suddenly declare that any criticism of him is defamation, and therefore illegal.

He can declare anything he wants to because in America we have free speech. It doesn't guarantee he can get away with saying bad things about others if it causes harm.

Defamation of Character or Free Speech?

The First Amendment protects free speech, but when an untrue statement causes real harm, defamation laws and constitutional protections can collide.

www.alllaw.com

and here is an article outlining the legal precedents as to why "hate speech" is not recognized by the courts, and no such exception exists in regards to the First Amendment

This article validated my point --->The First Amendment protects free speech, but when an untrue statement causes real harm, defamation laws and constitutional protections can collide.

No, there's no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment

I keep hearing about a supposed "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, "This isn't free…

reason.com

This article doesn't qualify what hate speech even means. To be clear "hate speech" is ambiguous terminology, whereas defamation isn't.

 

[Tuur]

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.

A civil suit differs from a criminal case. Fox wasn't fined; the amount was an award. Civil awards are usually decided by a jury. Defamation is a legal term.

Example: OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. His ex-wife's family then filed a civil suit, and won. Under US law, bringing SImpson to trial twice on the same criminal charge would not have been allowed, as it would have constituted double jeopardy. But since a civil suit isn't a criminal trial, his ex-wife's family could sue.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

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

 

[Postvieww]

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

Of course he does believe that. He needs to keep is real record hidden.

 

[Postvieww]

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

Authoritarianism seems to be the goal by many on the left. Shutting down speech that sheds light on unconstitutional behavior is ironically called unconstitutional behavior.

 

[Merrill]

I have to keep pointing this out: 'with Walz’s comments specifically being around voter intimidation and getting people accurate information about where you can vote.'

Hate speech per se is covered by the First, but is limited if it presents danger or incites violence. And Walz was specifically talking about that in the voting process. You are deliberately ignoring that and suggesting that he believes that hate speech that doesn't present danger or incites violence should be illegal.

Anyone who has now seen the context in which he spoke realises that. I'm sure that you realise that as well. Here's an article that shows what he says, but it has also been edited just at the point where it is clear that he is talking about voter intimidation. The context was removed so those on the far right have something to shout about. Tim Walz shows that Democrats don't believe in free speech

Here's a simple question for you: Do you think that speech that incites violence should be allowed under the First? If you think it shouldn't then you agree with Walz.

"I have to keep pointing this out: 'with Walz’s comments specifically being around voter intimidation and getting people accurate information about where you can vote.'

and you are totally wrong: go read the statement again: he is talking about not only disinformation in regards to voting, he is also talking about "hate speech" and misinformation generally

here is the statement once again: "I think we need to push back on this. There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy." (italics mine)

grammatically and conceptually this means that unprotected "misinformation" is bad not only in regards to voting (democracy) but also in other instances --that is where the especially comes into play. And hate-speech and disinformation are two different things --this is where the or comes into play.

Stop re-writing what this guy said: it is perfectly clear

"Hate speech per se is covered by the First, but is limited if it presents danger or incites violence. "

Wrong: there is NO concept of "hate speech" anywhere in the US Constitution or Federal laws in regards to free expression. I posted links above that go into detail on this, along with SCOTUS rulings. "Fighting words" or direct threats to violence are NOT "Hate speech" --you are conflating these two things together in some effort to make a point

 

[Bradskii]

"Hate speech per se is covered by the First, but is limited if it presents danger or incites violence. "

Wrong:

It plainly isn't wrong. From here: How federal law draws a line between free speech and hate crimes

'But while the Constitution gives latitude to hate speech and offensive rhetoric, court decisions in the last century have carved out notable — though narrow — exceptions to free speech guarantees and authorized prosecution for language deemed to fall out of bounds.

Comments intended as specific and immediate threats brush up against those protections, regardless of a person’s race or religion. So do personal, face-to-face comments meant to incite imminent lawlessness, such as a riot.'

And here: Know Your Rights: Free Speech, Protests & Demonstrations | ACLU of Northern CA.

'The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it's unpopular. You may criticize the President, Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn't extend to libel, slander, obscenity, "true threats," or speech that incites imminent violence or law- breaking.'

And here: When Can Speech Be Punished? A Primer on Unprotected Incitement to Violence - National Coalition Against Censorship

'Speech which is merely offensive is always protected by the First Amendment. However, some types of speech which are often conflated with “hate speech,” but which go beyond expressions of opinion can, in limited circumstances, be unprotected by the First Amendment.

That couldn't be clearer. Hate speech that incites violence will get you in a lot of trouble. Your only argument seems to be that Walz mentioned hate speech, but hey, the legal definition of hate speech isn't necessarily codified and you think it shouldn't be conflated with speech that incites violence.

Well, you hold onto that, because it's the only argument you've got. If it was worth any more of my time, I might have to keep repeating myself. But it's not, so I won't.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A falsehood shouldn't be more important than "all this other stuff".
The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government, and the word "democracy" never once appears in the Constitution.

And we still don't have a king. Mission accomplished.

 

[Merrill]

It plainly isn't wrong. From here: How federal law draws a line between free speech and hate crimes

'But while the Constitution gives latitude to hate speech and offensive rhetoric, court decisions in the last century have carved out notable — though narrow — exceptions to free speech guarantees and authorized prosecution for language deemed to fall out of bounds.

Comments intended as specific and immediate threats brush up against those protections, regardless of a person’s race or religion. So do personal, face-to-face comments meant to incite imminent lawlessness, such as a riot.'

And here: Know Your Rights: Free Speech, Protests & Demonstrations | ACLU of Northern CA.

'The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it's unpopular. You may criticize the President, Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn't extend to libel, slander, obscenity, "true threats," or speech that incites imminent violence or law- breaking.'

And here: When Can Speech Be Punished? A Primer on Unprotected Incitement to Violence - National Coalition Against Censorship

'Speech which is merely offensive is always protected by the First Amendment. However, some types of speech which are often conflated with “hate speech,” but which go beyond expressions of opinion can, in limited circumstances, be unprotected by the First Amendment.

That couldn't be clearer. Hate speech that incites violence will get you in a lot of trouble. Your only argument seems to be that Walz mentioned hate speech, but hey, the legal definition of hate speech isn't necessarily codified and you think it shouldn't be conflated with speech that incites violence.

Well, you hold onto that, because it's the only argument you've got. If it was worth any more of my time, I might have to keep repeating myself. But it's not, so I won't.

You either don't understand the First Amendment, or are being deliberately dishonest

Let me make clear:

1. "Hate speech" laws are NOT the same thing as hate crime laws. The article you post above conflates these two things. Here is a nice summary from wikipedia (hardly a right-wing source) on this:

"Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speechprotected by the Constitution.[1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint"

and:

"Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate." United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)"

2. "Hate speech" is NOT "fighting words" or direct threats --no one has ever suggested that save for people who don't understand the law

you say "Hate speech that incites violence will get you in a lot of trouble."

and again I say, as in the above, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "HATE SPEECH" IN THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL LAW --that is not a concept, a thing, etc. in jurisprudence. It is a left-wing term with no basis in legal reality

3. There is NO exception for "disinformation" or "misinformation" in the First Amendment. Telling someone the election is Tuesday and not Wednesday is not illegal. Posting on the Internet that the Earth is flat, or vaccines are dangerous is protected speech

Your claim, and Walz's assertion, that speech involving elections can be controlled is 100% FALSE. Federal election interference laws state "Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote" --misinforming people is NOT intimidation, and no judge would support that interpretation

your ignorant and nonsensical take seems to be "some exceptions exist to freedom of speech, therefore all exceptions are justifiable, and we can start arresting people for expressing things I don't like" --that is literally what you are saying

when I was a kid, we had Civics and Constitution classes: we all understood what the Bill of Rights says. Now people get their legal opinions from MSNBC and idiots like Tim Walz