My colleagues at PJ Media have covered extensively Tim Walz’s abysmal track record, including everything from sanctioning child trannyism to COVID totalitarianism to stolen valor to… the list goes on.
But, far and away, in my view, his onerous views on freedom of speech and the role of the state in limiting speech are the most egregious of them all because, in a Tim Walz administration, we wouldn’t have the ability to point any of the above out in public fora. This is why the freedom of speech (and assembly) was placed strategically in the First Amendment; all other rights depend on it.
Related: Rachel Maddow: Shut Up About Censorship While We Censor You
Via Reason (emphasis added):
[MSNBC host Maria Teresa] KUMAR: … and what you will do to ensure that there are penalties for that?
WALZ: Yes.
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's able to be there…
Let’s assume Walz is ignorant, for the sake of this exercise, and not a hypocritical treasonous sack of human filth (although those aren’t mutually exclusive) and that he doesn’t understand how the Constitution works.
There is no such thing legally as “hate speech” in that it has no definition; it just means whatever AOC or whatever censorious “nonprofit” says it means at any given moment in time, subject to change on a whim.
“Misinformation” is likewise an ambiguous term that, even if it were defined, would also be legal per the Constitution.
The text of the First Amendment is unambiguous:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Most liberals, of course, agree with Walz that speech should be unconstitutionally suppressed for the sake of Democracy™ (irony much?) or protecting the rights of doctors to castrate children for Equity™ or whatever — they just aren’t so explicit about it. So kudos to him for saying the quiet part. out loud. Somebody get that man another doughnut; he’s parched.
Also, when can we expect the ACLU to jump into this discussion and defend Americans’ speech rights like it purported to do for decades before switching its mission statement to enabling child trannyism in all 50 states?
Via Middle Tennessee State University Free Speech Center (emphasis added):
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) states as its mission the protection and preservation of First Amendment rights, equal protection under the law, due process, and the right to privacy…
Some of the ACLU’s more controversial stances involve its support of unpopular people or organizations in holding to its position that all citizens and residents of the United States be allowed to exercise their free speech rights.
For example, the ACLU defended the free speech rights for the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups although these groups’ stances on other issues conflict with those of the ACLU. In another instance concerning the protection of free speech, the ACLU fought proposed anti-“spam” legislation in 2000 that it argued infringed free speech through the forced labeling of all e-mail.
Independent dissident media outlets like PJ Media are already under unprecedented assault by the Democrat Party and its Big Tech allies; if Kamala and Walz get into office, we might just be gone forever.
Related: Google Is Completely Out of Control
If you’re reading this as a VIP member, you are the resistance that makes our work possible, so the sincerest thanks for that.
