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

[Merrill]

That is your inference.

A dozen Democratic lawmakers make the explicit claim that "Hate Speech" and disinformation are not protected by the First Amendment (as I demonstrated in an article above)

Tim Walz makes the same claims in an interview

and now Democrats here want to twist his meaning in such a way as to say "oh, he didn't really say what he said"

OK man. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest

it was perfectly clear what Walz said. Just stop

 

[RocksInMyHead]

and like I said, Walz was not limiting his assertion to that

he, and other Democrats, have repeatedly made the claim that "Hate Speech" is "not protected", which is 100% false.

Likewise, the First Amendment does not have a provision that says "the speech has to be true" (not misinformation)

What he said is that there is no guarantee that hate speech and misinformation are protected. Some forms of hate speech are protected, others aren't. Some forms of misinformation are protected, others aren't.

 

[Tuur]

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

You are aware the US tried this before, right? It was the John Adams administration, amid fears that there would be a French-style revolution in the US. Under the subsequent laws, it was illegal to criticize government officials or engage in "sedition." Curious thing: Anything said against John Adams and fellow Federalists was prosecuted. Garbage scow captain Luther Baldwin made a drunken joke about John Adams, was arrested and convicted of sedition, and fined and jailed. Similar speech against Jefferson and fellow Democrat-Republicans wasn't prosecuted. Interesting thing that.

There was enough people in the US who agreed with the ideals of the Constitution that those laws had a sunset provision and were rolled back when Jefferson was elected president. Yet when Luther Baldwin made his drunken jest, the tavern owner decried it as sedition and apparently thought it was quite proper to arrest Baldwin on the charge. There were a good many who thought freedom of speech was a bad thing.

Apparently there still are, There seems to be a lot of looking for reasons to destroy free speech in America. Interesting thing, that. There is no reason to think that it would be exercised any differently than when John Adams was president.

 

[Larniavc]

but you seem to think that because contract law exists, that the government can arrest people for posting incorrect things on the Internet, telling other the Earth is flat, or that Obama wasn't born in the US

Not at all. That would be stupid. But if the lies had any kind of consequences like say causing riots in UK towns then off to jail with you.

 

[Aldebaran]

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

Is there anything false in those two sentences?

What "system" are you referring to?

 

[Aldebaran]

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

Sounds like an assumed given since the convention still hasn't happened.

 

[durangodawood]

What "system" are you referring to?

The system outlined in the US Constitution.

In that system, political power ultimately resides in we the people. In that sense we are a democracy. In other senses we are clearly also a republic. These two things are not of necessity opposed.

 

[Aldebaran]

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

All a president has to do is declare an "emergency", declare martial law and PRESTO!, we have a king.

 

[Hans Blaster]

All a president has to do is declare an "emergency", declare martial law and PRESTO!, we have a king.

Hence why I do not trust Trump to be president.

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

It can be disallowed by ways other than imposing laws. It can be done by government collaborating with the private sector (in this case, social media) to fulfil the goals of whatever party happens to be in power. It wouldn't be seen as some "evil plan" of course. They'd just put a big bright smile on it and say that it's a "collaborative approach to partnership relies heavily on the identification of aligned or complementary interests between business, USAID, and other organizations with a stake in promoting broad-based social and economic development. Determining where interests align provides the foundation for the private sector and USAID to explore how to work together to address business challenges and opportunities, while advancing sustainable development impact."

Private Sector Collaboration Pathway | Basic Page | U.S. Agency for International Development

www.usaid.gov

All they have to do is make it sound good using long descriptions with happy-sounding words, and people generally will fall for it.

 

[Truth7t7]

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.

Every race and political affiliation has displayed hate speech and misinformation, you act as if you've uncovered a major discovery, smiles!

 

[Truth7t7]

All a president has to do is declare an "emergency", declare martial law and PRESTO!, we have a king.

You mean like Zelensky has done in Ukraine, shutting down all opposition in the media, and "disregarding" Ukraines recent scheduled presidential election staying in power?

 

[Truth7t7]

The narrative that Joe needed to step down due to age related issues has been going on for years now.

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

The DNC could have replaced Joe Biden 1 year ago on the ticket but they didn't, instead they intentionally silenced the people's voice in democratic voting, it's that simple

 

[Aldebaran]

You mean like Zelensky has done in Ukraine, shutting down all opposition in the media, and "disregarding" Ukraines recent scheduled presidential election staying in power?

That, or maybe even make an emergency declaration that an election was won by someone who the current regime has determined to be a "clear and present danger" to democracy, and that emergency measures must be taken to not let the government "fall" to that person and his followers.
The current regime could come up with any number of ways to word it to make it sound legit. Wordsmithing seems to be their specialty.

 

[Truth7t7]

That, or maybe even make an emergency declaration that an election was won by someone who the current regime has determined to be a "clear and present danger" to democracy, and that emergency measures must be taken to not let the government "fall" to that person and his followers.
The current regime could come up with any number of ways to word it to make it sound legit. Wordsmithing seems to be their specialty.

If that takes place in the US it will be a patriotic civil war immediately IMHO, the 2024 Nov 5th election won't be stolen this go around

The liberals don't control the narrative any longer, Elon Musk's Twitter/X and Trumps TruthSocial has been a God send to the world, and the elites hate Elon, Trump, and the uncensored conservative voices being heard

 

[Bradskii]

Every race and political affiliation has displayed hate speech and misinformation, you act as if you've uncovered a major discovery, smiles!

But I've never heard that someone was complaining that they were being 'shut down' from doing so. It doesn't seem like a great position to make a stand on - 'We will not be prevented from using hate speech or spreading information!'

 

[Bradskii]

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

The DNC could have replaced Joe Biden 1 year ago on the ticket but they didn't, instead they intentionally silenced the people's voice in democratic voting, it's that simple

I know Trump is quite frustrated about it. He wants Joe back, bless him.

 

[Larniavc]

It can be disallowed by ways other than imposing laws. It can be done by government collaborating with the private sector (in this case, social media) to fulfil the goals of whatever party happens to be in power. It wouldn't be seen as some "evil plan" of course. They'd just put a big bright smile on it and say that it's a "collaborative approach to partnership relies heavily on the identification of aligned or complementary interests between business, USAID, and other organizations with a stake in promoting broad-based social and economic development. Determining where interests align provides the foundation for the private sector and USAID to explore how to work together to address business challenges and opportunities, while advancing sustainable development impact."

Private Sector Collaboration Pathway | Basic Page | U.S. Agency for International Development

www.usaid.gov

All they have to do is make it sound good using long descriptions with happy-sounding words, and people generally will fall for it.

Did you just build a straw man to tilt against? Why bother? That nothing at all like laws. That’s some Oligarchy fever dream. Weird.

 

[Larniavc]

Every race and political affiliation has displayed hate speech and misinformation, you act as if you've uncovered a major discovery, smiles!

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?

 

[The Barbarian]

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 Walz's point. The law required Fox News to pay damages for exercising freedom of the press that falsely accused and harmed others.

Congress may make no law restricting speech, but that doesn't mean speech is free from consequences.

Precisely. Hate speech, speech that incites criminal action or harms people, and lying in many cases are criminal offenses. Much of this is has been settled law for a long time.

You can indeed scream "Fire" in a crowded theater. Prior restraint is unconstitutional. But there may be legal consequences.