Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz failed to live up to expectations during Tuesday's vice presidential debate. He also highlighted Harris' policy positions that, if enacted, would have a fundamental impact on Americans.
It's no secret that Democrats are becoming increasingly totalitarian about what constitutes free speech protections, but Walz told vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance in Tuesday's debate that While trying to set up a “pitfall'', it also solidified the Harris camp's position on the issue.
While going back and forth about the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Walz told Vance: That is the test, that is the test of the Supreme Court. ” Waltz incorrectly portrayed a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court opinion from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Schenck v. United States Not only is this blatantly wrong, it makes the Harris campaign's view of the First Amendment appalling.
Tim Walz emphasized his statement that the First Amendment is not absolute and criminalizes “hate speech,” whatever that means.
— Libby Emmons (@libbyemmons) October 2, 2024
Holmes' opinion was that “even the most stringent protections of free speech cannot protect a man who caused panic by accidentally shouting fire in a theater.” The word “false” is an important context omitted in Mr. Waltz's deranged rant. In fact, if someone truly believes there is a fire in a crowded theater, whether or not it's real, they have the constitutional right to sound the alarm. Intention is essential. (ROOKE:Harris' Campaign The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Arrival)
The problem is that Democrats like Walz and Vice President Kamala Harris have used the phrase “fire in a packed theater” to excuse the suppression of a wide range of speech protected by the First Amendment. That's what I'm using. Anything that Democrats consider “hate speech,” “misinformation,” or “disinformation” is, in their view, grounds for censorship.
Schenck v. United States set a bad precedent, but the Supreme Court has since clarified what level of speech is legally permissible under the First Amendment. Almost as soon as the decision was handed down, the justices, including Holmes, realized that the “clear and present danger” hurdle to protecting free speech was destroying American freedoms. Just eight months after the Schenck decision, Holmes' opinion in a similar case (Abrams vs. United States) “But the principle of the right to free speech is always the same, whether against the peculiar dangers of war or against other dangers. Congress's imposition of limits on the expression of opinions unrelated to private rights is Congress certainly cannot prohibit any effort to change the mind of the nation, unless there is a danger of evil, or an intention to bring about it.
2019. Sen. Kamala Harris says President Trump should not be allowed to use Twitter.
“Perhaps the privilege of using words like that should be taken away from him.”
She then oddly refers to herself as the President. This guy is a freak who craves power. pic.twitter.com/18PQ6D0zCh
— MAZE (@mazemoore) September 6, 2024
The Supreme Court ultimately halted the Schenck test in a 1969 case. Brandenburg vs. OhioThe judges wrote that “a state may not use force or engage in unlawful conduct unless the claim is directed toward inciting or producing an imminent unlawful act and is likely to incite or produce such an act. The court held that “speech that advocates action should not be prohibited.” Again, intent is what matters, and words that people or governments find offensive do not necessarily indicate an intent to incite violence or lawlessness. Americans have the right to badmouth their government, to warn against its policies, and to advocate peacefully interfering with government laws they believe are unjust. (Luke: Democrats' “new masculinity” will continue to alienate key voters)
Still, it is clear that Mr. Walz and Mr. Harris are among the many Democrats who ignore the later explanations and adopt the 1919 Supreme Court opinion. Walz said in a December 2022 interview with The Reid Out. said This meant that “misinformation” and “hate speech” were not protected.
“Years ago, it was little things like asking people to vote the day after an election. And you know, we ignored them. Now it's intimidation at the polls. I think we need to push back on this, especially when it comes to democracy, when it comes to misinformation and hate speech. There is no guarantee of free speech,” Walz said.
Harris said At the 64th Annual Freedom Fund Banquet in 2019, NAACP members said that if she were elected, her administration would use the power of the U.S. Department of Justice to force social media companies to censor Americans' free speech rights. He said he would force them to do so. (Luke: President Trump sends clearest message yet to Catholics with St. Michael Post)
“We will restore the U.S. Department of Justice to the work of justice. We will double down on our civil rights division and lead law enforcement to counter this extremism. We will , we have a responsibility to help fight this threat to our democracy, so we hold social media platforms accountable for the hate that permeates them, and those who profit from it. If you do not police your platform, we will hold you accountable as a community,” Harris promised.
Elon Musk, RFK Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard have expressed concerns about free speech under Kamala Harris.
In 2019, Harris vowed to use the Justice Department and law enforcement to “hold social media platforms accountable” for “misinformation” as part of “the fight against this threat to our democracy.” pic.twitter.com/3XwD8lcoQb
— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) September 5, 2024
As soon as the Biden-Harris administration took office, it began backdoor communications with social media companies to secretly pressure them to censor Americans. We know without a doubt that if Harris and Walz win in November, Americans' right to free speech will be violated not by chance but by policy decision.
