The Vance/Walz debate over free speech

[Votto]

Opinion: Vance is right. Harris and Walz are a threat to Americans' free speech.

In the vice presidential debate, Tim Walz showed that he and other Democratic leaders need a class in First Amendment law.

www.yahoo.com

Vance correctly called out the Harris administration for being the most anti-free speech since the Adams administration when they created the Alien and Sedition laws that made it illegal to speak out against the government.

The Walz defense was that you cannot yell fire in a theatre, but is that an accurate comparison?

Is censoring a grieving family who lost their loved one from a Covid vaccine, as they share the details with the world, comparable? Or what about someone sharing their severe side effects from the vaccine? Or what about talking about Hunter's laptop before the last election as it was called Russian disinformation and censored when it later turned out to be true?

Is the DNC the biggest threat to First amendment rights?

 

[pknopp]

Both sides have argued to curtail speech they didn't like. There is no good choice with either side.

 

[22lcidw]

Both sides have argued to curtail speech they didn't like. There is no good choice with either side.

One day these Progressive media types will be held to task. A quick death is to compassionate for these hags. Enslavement overseas or indentured servitude domestically for a long period of time is deserved. None of them would stand in front of a line and die for their cause. They have caused death and misery in this nation and others. Vance destroyed Walz in spite of it being three to one. And we saw the real weird.

 

[pknopp]

One day these Progressive media types will be held to task. A quick death is to compassionate for these hags. Enslavement overseas or indentured servitude domestically for a long period of time is deserved. None of them would stand in front of a line and die for their cause. They have caused death and misery in this nation and others. Vance destroyed Walz in spite of it being three to one. And we saw the real weird.

There you go. At least you get props for honesty.

 

[1srelluc]

Both sides have argued to curtail speech they didn't like. There is no good choice with either side.

When the .gov told Twitter and other social media platforms to kill stories damaging to the dems that was not free speech. That was coerced speech.

Any .gov official involved with that should have been fired long ago.

 

[buckeye]

Both sides have argued to curtail speech they didn't like. There is no good choice with either side.

Please show, with links, how the right has argued to curtail speech it didn't like.

 

[AntonToo]

When the .gov told Twitter and other social media platforms to kill stories damaging to the dems that was not free speech. That was coerced speech.

Any .gov official involved with that should have been fired long ago.

Gov ASKED and recieved co-operation from PRIVATE companies to curb misinformation.

Don't like their PRIVATE platform moderating content and telling people that your posts are full of shit? Go post or scream on some other forum, your free speech in fully intact.

 

[Votto]

Both sides have argued to curtail speech they didn't like. There is no good choice with either side.

How have Republicans argued to curtail free speech?

We have limitless examples of democrats doing it.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Gov ASKED and recieved co-operation from PRIVATE companies.

Don't like their PRIVATE platform moderating content and telling people that your posts are full of shit? Go post or scream on some other forum, your free speech in fully intact.

No, they coerced them under duress (THREAT).

 

[AntonToo]

Is censoring a grieving family who lost their loved one from a Covid vaccine, as they share the details with the world, comparable?

Horseshit, how the hell would a family know that it was specifically Covid vaccine that killed their loved one?

They wouldn't. All they would know is that their loved one had died while having had recent vaccination - which is a correlation, not a medically established causation.

People die, they die more frequently during a pandemic and these fully expected deaths don't stop just because people had a vaccine shot a week ago, but you can bet your sweet cheeks some of them are going to post on facebook about how it was definetly the covid shot that killed their relative. If un-checked this sort of misinformation can scare others away from getting vaccinated and ends up killing some of them.

 

[Votto]

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4820490-harris-walz-administration-free-speech/

The selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as the running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris has led to intense debates over crime policy, war claims, gender identity policies and other issues.

Some attacks have, in my view, been inaccurate or overwrought. However, the greatest danger from this ticket is neither speculative nor sensational. A Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free speech.

For over three years, the Biden-Harris administration has sustained an unrelenting attack on the freedom of speech, from supporting a massive censorship system (described by a federal court as an “Orwellian Ministry of Truth“) to funding blacklisting operations targeting groups and individuals with opposing views.

President Biden made censorship a central part of his legacy, even accusing social media companies of “killing people” for failing to increase levels of censorship. Democrats in Congress pushed that agenda by demanding censorship on subjects ranging from climate change to gender identity — even to banking policy — in the name of combatting “disinformation.”

The administration also created offices like the Disinformation Governance Board before it was shut down after public outcry. But it quickly shifted this censorship work to other offices and groups.

As vice president, Harris has long supported these anti-free speech policies. The addition of Walz completes a perfect nightmare for free speech advocates. Walz has shown not only a shocking disregard for free speech values but an equally shocking lack of understanding of the First Amendment.

Walz went on MSNBC to support censoring disinformation and declared, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

Ironically, this false claim, repeated by many Democrats, constitutes one of the most dangerous forms of disinformation. It is being used to convince a free people to give up some of their freedom with a “nothing to see here” pitch.

In prior testimony before Congress on the censorship system under the Biden administration, I was taken aback when the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), declared, “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.

That false claim has been echoed by others such as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer. “If you espouse hate,” he said, “…you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”

The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the claim of Gov. Walz. For example, in the 2016 Matal v. Tam decision, the court stressed that this precise position “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. 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.'”

As the new Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Walz is running alongside one of the most enthusiastic supporters of censorship and blacklisting systems.

In her failed 2020 presidential bid, Harris ran on censorship and pledged that her administration “will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy.”

In October 2019, Harris dramatically spoke directly to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, insisting “This is not a matter of free speech….This is a matter of holding corporate America and these Big Tech companies responsible and accountable for what they are facilitating.” She asked voters to join her in the effort.

They didn’t, but Harris ultimately succeeded in the Biden-Harris administration to an unprecedented degree with a comprehensive federal effort to target and silence individuals and groups on social media.

In my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I detailed how President Biden is the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. Unlike Adams, I have never viewed Biden as the driving force behind the massive censorship and blacklisting operations supported by his subordinates, including Harris. That is not to say that Biden does not share the shame in these measures. He was willing to sacrifice not only free speech but also institutions like the Supreme Court in a desperate effort to rescue his failing nomination.

The substitution of Harris for Biden makes this the second election in which free speech is the key issue for voters. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated Adams, in large part based on his pledge to reverse the anti-free speech policies of the prior administration, including the use of the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his opponents.

With the addition of Walz, Democrats now have arguably the most anti-free speech ticket of a major party in more than two centuries. Both candidates are committed to using disinformation, misinformation and malinformation as justifications for speech controls. The third category has been emphasized by the Biden-Harris administration, which explained that it is information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

Walz has the advantage in joining this anti-free speech ticket without the burden of knowledge of what is protected under the First Amendment.

With the Harris-Walz ticket, we have come full circle to the very debate at the start of this republic. The warnings of the Founders to reject the siren’s call of censorship remain tragically relevant today. Free speech was and remains our “indispensable right.”

As Benjamin Franklin warned, “In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech….Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man.”

With her selection of Walz, Harris has decided to put free speech on the ballot in this election. It is a debate that our nation should welcome, as it did in 1800.

The Biden-Harris administration has notably toned down its anti-free speech efforts as the election approaches. Leading censorship advocates have also gone mostly silent.

If successful, a Harris-Walz administration is expected to bring back those policies and personalities with a vengeance. That could be radically enhanced if the Democrats take both houses of Congress and once again block investigations into their censorship programs.

The media has worked very hard to present Harris and Walz as the “happy warriors.” Indeed, they may be that and much more. The question is what they are happy about in their war against free speech.

 

[Votto]

Horseshit, how the fuck would a family know that it was specifically Covid vaccine that killed their loved one?

They wouldn't. All they would know is that their loved one had died while having had recent vaccination - which is a correlation, not a medically established causation.

People die, they die a die a bit more frequently during a pandemic and these fully expected deaths don't stop just because they had a vaccine shot a week ago, but you can bet your sweet cheeks some of them are going to post on facebook about how it was definetly the covid shot that killed their relative.

Europe, for example, banned the use of the Covid Vaccine in young males due to the increased risks of endocarditis, which killed some

If you had put this up on Twitter at that time, they would have taken it down.

Why the medical system in the US is so fascistic and cult like for Big Pharma is concerning.

Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna COVID-19 vaccine

Finland on Thursday paused the use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine for younger males due to reports of a rare cardiovascular side effect, joining Sweden and Denmark in limiting its use.

www.reuters.com

In Europe they care what science teaches them, but in the US Fauci and his goons ignored it.

 

[AntonToo]

Europe, for example, banned the use of the Covid Vaccine in young males due to the increased risks of endocarditis, which killed some

Bullshit there was a pause for evaluation and then resumption of Moderna in 2021. Major follow up medical studies found no causation

AstraZenica, a non-mRNA vaccine, was the only one removed. It was never aproved in US, was found to be problematic and not very effective.

 

[Blaster]

Europe, for example, banned the use of the Covid Vaccine in young males due to the increased risks of endocarditis, which killed some

If you had put this up on Twitter at that time, they would have taken it down.

Why the medical system in the US is so fascistic and cult like for Big Pharma is concerning.

Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna COVID-19 vaccine

Finland on Thursday paused the use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine for younger males due to reports of a rare cardiovascular side effect, joining Sweden and Denmark in limiting its use.

www.reuters.com

In Europe they care what science teaches them, but in the US Fauci and his goons ignored it.

Fauci is a grifter.

 

[Votto]

Bullshit there was a pause for evaluation and then resumption of Moderna in 2021.

AstraZenica, a non-mRNA vaccine, was the only one removed. It was never aproved in US, was found to be problematic and not very effective.

Show where they resumed it

Just the fact that they paused it, and Fauci and the US was oblivious to it, should concern you

I personally know people who have had the vaccine and suffered from it. One such woman got horrible headaches right after taking the vaccine, so bad, she had to miss work for about 3 months. When she asked medical people if it could be the result of taking the vaccine, she just remember the look of fear in their face when confronted with the question. Naturally, they did not know and were afraid to admit it might be because they feared being labeled Anti science and an impediment to getting people vaccinated.

Other people have died from the vaccine. Imagine having a loved one told they must take the vaccine or lose their job or not be able to attend school, and they die from it, and they try to post on social media your experience, only to be censored and taken off social media forever, while having no legal recourse.

You people are sick.

 

[AntonToo]

Why the medical system in the US is so fascistic and cult like for Big Pharma is concerning.

That is again bullshit. NOT getting vaccinated, when all evidence shows good efficacy, leads to unnecessary hospitalizations and deaths.

This is a serious, well justified national interest for our government to try to limit spread of blatant misinformation as they can, while respecting constitutional rights.

 

[pknopp]

When the .gov told Twitter and other social media platforms to kill stories damaging to the dems that was not free speech. That was coerced speech.

Any .gov official involved with that should have been fired.

A private entity has the right to allow or disallow anything they want. That is free speech also.

 

[AntonToo]

Show where they resumed it

They paused it, which had expiration term.

But the bottom line is that these precautions were not borne out by big medical studies and were proven conclusively wrong by 2023.

 

[pknopp]

Please show, with links, how the right has argued to curtail speech it didn't like.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4905529-trump-slams-fox-news-harris-border/

 

[1srelluc]

A private entity has the right to allow or disallow anything they want. That is free speech also.

I figured you would "feel" that way.....Heavan forbid you would put any thought towards it.