Walz States He is Anti-Free Speech, Anti-First Amendment

[markfromj]

Posting the 8 second clip without the surrounding context is an example of providing misleading information. Here is the full exchange.

HOSTESS: I want to just, before I ask you another question, I want to talk about what you just mentioned about misinformation because oftentimes before in political chapters, disinformation, telling people where to vote the wrong way, these were considered shenanigans but it’s becoming more ominous. Can you talk about that and what you will do to ensure that there are penalties for that?
WALZ: Yeah, years ago, it was the little things. Telling people to vote the day after the election, and we kind of brushed them off. 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. There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy. Tell the truth. Where the voting places are, who can vote, who is able to be there. And watching some states continue to weaken the protections around the ballot I think is what is inspiring us to lean into this. Again, all we’re asking is to make it easy and simple as possible to exercise their right to vote and participate in our democracy.


He could've made his point better but he is talking about voter intimidation techniques. See the example below. IMO robo calls spreading misinformation to voters with the intention of trying to get them to not vote or to miss their opportunity to vote is not a protected form of speech.

https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2024/06/13/mi-supreme-court-rules-state-correctly-applied-election-law

Interesting. No Dem fan here, and was suspicious of the need for “context”, but when I now read this, I am much more sympathetic to what Walz said. He did indeed poorly phrase the sentence, and set himself up for sound bite abuse, but his point with context is at least defendable.

 

[joelbc1]

How can one swear to uphold the Constitution while being publicly against the very first term of the Bill of Rights*?

*corrected

Seems that Oath may be false.

You might want to ask #45 how that is possible. He swore to uphold the entire document and then tried to subvert it and replace it with his own personal rules.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

You might want to ask #45 how that is possible. He swore to uphold the entire document and then tried to subvert it and replace it with his own personal rules.

Link?

😉

 

[torbee]

Interesting. No Dem fan here, and was suspicious of the need for “context”, but when I now read this, I am much more sympathetic to what Walz said. He did indeed poorly phrase the sentence, and set himself up for sound bite abuse, but his point with context is at least defendable.

His entire point is that the First Amendment does not protect you from being charged with voter intimidation if you do it in a threatening manner around voting places. Which is obviously true and is also something all rational people can agree on.

 

[markfromj]

Interesting. No Dem fan here, and was suspicious of the need for “context”, but when I now read this, I am much more sympathetic to what Walz said. He did indeed poorly phrase the sentence, and set himself up for sound bite abuse, but his point with context is at least defendable.

His entire point is that the First Amendment does not protect you from being charged with voter intimidation if you do it in a threatening manner around voting places. Which is obviously true and is also something all rational people can agree on.

Yup. Like “Fire!” In a theatre.

 

[joelbc1]

Link?

😉

Link what?
Try January 6, 2021 and the days leading up to it. Trumpf is a traitor. He attempted to overthrow what 4 years before, he SWORE to uphold and defend.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Link what?
Try January 6, 2021 and the days leading up to it. Trumpf is a traitor. He attempted to overthrow what 4 years before, he SWORE to uphold and defend.

Outstanding.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

His entire point is that the First Amendment does not protect you from being charged with voter intimidation if you do it in a threatening manner around voting places. Which is obviously true and is also something all rational people can agree on.

I’m shocked that OP and End Wokeness would lie to us.

 

[mnole03]

JD Vance wants to ban porn.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

I haven't even paid attention. Like I said, I'm not a large consumer of nutjob right wing tweets.

Walz’s words are “nutjob right wing tweets”

Gaslighting at its finest.

I predicted this.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Walz’s words are “nutjob right wing tweets”

Gaslighting at its finest.

I predicted this.

There is a headline out right now that says "Trump has never had to compete with someone of Kamala talent" and I thought of that dude who shoved the fuel nozzle up his ass.


At some point you would think the dems would be insulted, but, nope, just keep digging deeper into stupidity.

 

[torbee]

Walz’s words are “nutjob right wing tweets”

Gaslighting at its finest.

I predicted this.

So it's your position that the First Amendment gives me the right to stand outside a polling place and look at people that appear to be MAGA leaning and tell them "I'm going to follow you home and kill your family if you vote"?

Pretty radical!

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Posting the 8 second clip without the surrounding context is an example of providing misleading information. Here is the full exchange.

HOSTESS: I want to just, before I ask you another question, I want to talk about what you just mentioned about misinformation because oftentimes before in political chapters, disinformation, telling people where to vote the wrong way, these were considered shenanigans but it’s becoming more ominous. Can you talk about that and what you will do to ensure that there are penalties for that?
WALZ: Yeah, years ago, it was the little things. Telling people to vote the day after the election, and we kind of brushed them off. 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. There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy. Tell the truth. Where the voting places are, who can vote, who is able to be there. And watching some states continue to weaken the protections around the ballot I think is what is inspiring us to lean into this. Again, all we’re asking is to make it easy and simple as possible to exercise their right to vote and participate in our democracy.


He could've made his point better but he is talking about voter intimidation techniques. See the example below. IMO robo calls spreading misinformation to voters with the intention of trying to get them to not vote or to miss their opportunity to vote is not a protected form of speech.

https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2024/06/13/mi-supreme-court-rules-state-correctly-applied-election-law

One may not use bald faced lie to further a political agenda. It’s wrong.

The bolded part is incontrovertibly false.

it’s wrong when Trump does it, it’s wrong when Walz does too.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

So it's your position that the First Amendment gives me the right to stand outside a polling place and look at people that appear to be MAGA leaning and tell them "I'm going to follow you home and kill your family if you vote"?

Pretty radical!

Which one would that example fall under?

A) “Misinformation”
or
B) “Hate speech”

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

And full of “MidWest common sense”….a man like that should be made Vice President of the US, ASAP. There is no room in this world for protecting those who intentionally lie to gain advantage for themselves.

That would disqualify Walz.

 

[torbee]

One may not use bald faced lie to further a political agenda. It’s wrong.

The bolded part is incontrovertibly false.

it’s wrong when Trump does it, it’s wrong when Walz does too.

Might want to bone up on your understanding of constitutional law, Skippy.

When does hate speech lose First Amendment protections?​

Not all hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, since hateful expression can fall within certain, narrow categories of unprotected speech such as:

1. Incitement to imminent lawless action (incitement);
2. speech that threatens serious bodily harm (true threats); or
3. speech that causes an immediate breach of the peace (fighting words).

If the hateful speech falls within one of these unprotected categories, then it is not protected by the First Amendment. If it falls outside these categories, then the speech will remain protected by the First Amendment in most contexts, with a handful of other narrow exceptions for public employees and institutions. For example, a public employer can discipline a public employee, like a police officer or firefighter, who hurls a racist invective at a citizen while on duty. Likewise, a public grade school official can punish a student for maliciously yelling a racial slur at another student in the hallway. Officials at K-12 institutions may reasonably believe that such speech would cause a material and substantial disruption of school activities and interfere with the rights of others.

Is hate speech protected by the First Amendment?

The First Amendment makes no general exception for offensive, repugnant, or hateful expression.

www.thefire.org

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Might want to bone up on your understanding of constitutional law, Skippy.

When does hate speech lose First Amendment protections?​

Not all hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, since hateful expression can fall within certain, narrow categories of unprotected speech such as:

1. Incitement to imminent lawless action (incitement);
2. speech that threatens serious bodily harm (true threats); or
3. speech that causes an immediate breach of the peace (fighting words).

If the hateful speech falls within one of these unprotected categories, then it is not protected by the First Amendment. If it falls outside these categories, then the speech will remain protected by the First Amendment in most contexts, with a handful of other narrow exceptions for public employees and institutions. For example, a public employer can discipline a public employee, like a police officer or firefighter, who hurls a racist invective at a citizen while on duty. Likewise, a public grade school official can punish a student for maliciously yelling a racial slur at another student in the hallway. Officials at K-12 institutions may reasonably believe that such speech would cause a material and substantial disruption of school activities and interfere with the rights of others.

Is hate speech protected by the First Amendment?

The First Amendment makes no general exception for offensive, repugnant, or hateful expression.

www.thefire.org

Now you are getting somewhere. Good job educating yourself. Proud of you.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Which one would that example fall under?

A) “Misinformation”
or
B) “Hate speech”

C" assault/battery

 

[torbee]

Which one would that example fall under?

A) “Misinformation”
or
B) “Hate speech”

Yes.

When does hate speech lose First Amendment protections?​

Not all hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, since hateful expression can fall within certain, narrow categories of unprotected speech such as:

1. Incitement to imminent lawless action (incitement);
2. speech that threatens serious bodily harm (true threats); or
3. speech that causes an immediate breach of the peace (fighting words).

 

[torbee]

Now you are getting somewhere. Good job educating yourself. Proud of you.

So you admit your OP was stupid?

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

So you admit your OP was stupid?

No, you are conflating issues. That may work on others.

 

[TNHAWK79]

OP spends all day reading tweets from elon and other right wing nuts so that he knows what to thing. It's sad.

Why not debate the topic vs attacking the person that posted the clip from Walz. When you attack someone you’ve lost the debate. All you do is attack people that you don’t agree with. Keep being intolerant and insensitive.

 

[bdcolt45er]

One may not use bald faced lie to further a political agenda. It’s wrong.

The bolded part is incontrovertibly false.

it’s wrong when Trump does it, it’s wrong when Walz does too.

You consistently post out of context clips in an effort to deceive others. You have no leg to stand on telling people what is wrong or right. I provided the context.

Do you think Robo calls that target specific communities with the following message are protected by the 1st amendment?

"Republicans vote today, Democrats vote tomorrow.”
"stay home, stay safe, don’t go vote”

As others have noted there are some limitations to free speech and the freedom of speech does not mean there is absolute cover from the consequences of said speech.