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

[Bradskii]

I believe threats regarding harm are on the books and against the law presently, are you unaware of this?

They're obviously on the books. That's why hate speech which included violence is often not allowed. So we have:

'You people are like vermin' and 'You people are like vermin and vermin should be exterminated'.

They are both examples of hate speech, but the second takes it too far and is likely to get you charged.

 

[Truth7t7]

They're obviously on the books. That's why hate speech which included violence is often not allowed. So we have:

'You people are like vermin' and 'You people are like vermin and vermin should be exterminated'.

They are both examples of hate speech, but the second takes it too far and is likely to get you charged.

I fully agree, but the fact remains the same, hate speech and misinformation are protected by the US constitution 2nd amendment, and I don't see 2/3 of congress changing this fact in the near future

P.S. You can make the threat, but the person must have the means to carry it out

Example: Louis Farrakahan on his "death bed" states all Jews and Whites should be exterminated, he doesn't have the means to carry it out, and wouldn't be charged

On the other hand one of Farrakahan's followers states the same that has a armory full of guns and ammo could be charged

The "Context" of the threat is weighed in many different was, if a burglar is in your house and you state don't move I will kill you as you hold your fire arm this would be lawful, If it's said to a person at the grocery store who isn't known this is a completely different context and unlawful

 

[Larniavc]

nothing more than a liberal political agenda to silence the opposition,

That means that you are saying that ‘the opposition’ is hate speech and lies. You do realise that?

 

[Truth7t7]

That means that you are saying that ‘the opposition’ is hate speech and lies. You do realise that?

You do realize that hate speech and misinformation aren't unlawful in the US, and are protected by the US constitution 2nd amendment "Free Speech And Expression"

 

[Larniavc]

You do realize that hate speech and misinformation aren't unlawful in the US, and are protected by the US constitution 2nd amendment "Free Speech And Expression"

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with 2024

Yes. I guess we'll have to wait for November to find out how many votes she gets.

Kamala wasn't elected to be on the ticket on Nov 5th 2024, that's not democracy, the electors in the political process voted for Joe Biden

I guess all the Democrats who are very very concerned about this can decide to vote for someone else. Or not. Let's see how big a deal the process is to actual Democrats.

IMHO It was the DNC plan all along to wait for "After" the primary voting to install Kamala against the will of the people

Amazing how immediately after the primaries were complete, the narrative to get rid of Ole Joe started to circle

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

 

[KCfromNC]

And people are saying that rhere us no socialism involved in this. This is a pure tactic of a socialist authoritarian.

Socialism? There's nothing in there about collective ownership of the means of production.

 

[KCfromNC]

Leftists lie and say aweful things all rye time about conservatives and we aren't trying to rake away their free speech.

Remind us again - which groups tried to boycott Budweiser, Nike and Target because those groups didn't like one of their ads?

 

[Bradskii]

Example: Louis Farrakahan on his "death bed" states all Jews and Whites should be exterminated...

And if that prompts someone to act, then it's no different to: 'You people are like vermin and vermin should be exterminated'. One doesn't have to make the threat from a personal perspective.

 

[Merrill]

Just read about this today. This man is going to jail for hate speech which in this instance is a crime. The government brought the charges.
...
"Today, former Cornell University student Patrick Dai was sentenced to serve 21 months in prison for posting anonymous threats to kill Jewish students," U.S. Attorney Carla B. Freedman for the Northern District of New York said. "Before imposing a sentence, the court found that this was a hate crime under the federal Sentencing Guidelines because Dai targeted Jewish students and substantially disrupted the university’s core function of educating its students."

"The defendant’s threats terrorized the Cornell campus community for days and shattered the community’s sense of safety," she added.

MSN

www.msn.com

Hate crimes and hate speech are two different things, as I pointed out above

this guy was charged because he was making direct threats to kill Jewish students

that is not what we are talking about here, and not what Tim Walz was talking about in his speech

again, you are conflating unprotected speech (threats in this instance) with protected speech (a guy saying he doesn't like Jews or condemning Israel) in an effort to make it seem like Hate Speech is a thing --it isn't

 

[Merrill]

That already happens in contract law. Are you against people being beholden to their behaviour?

I thought that was a conservative corner stone?

we are not talking about contract law and you know it

just stop

 

[Merrill]

Only the people engaging in legally defined hate speech and lies get silenced.

Why do you want to be able to engage in hate speech and lies? I just don’t get why you stan for hate speech and lies?

there is no "legally defined hate speech"

who told you that there was? Here is a video from a First Amendment lawyer and scholar about so-called "hate speech"

 

[Merrill]

They're obviously on the books. That's why hate speech which included violence is often not allowed. So we have:

'You people are like vermin' and 'You people are like vermin and vermin should be exterminated'.

They are both examples of hate speech, but the second takes it too far and is likely to get you charged.

"That's why hate speech which included violence"

what part of "there is no concept of "hate speech" in American law, and the there is no exception for "hate speech" in the First Amendment" don't you understand? There are NO "hate speech laws" "on the books" --and if there are some, they are totally unconstitutional and will get struck down by SCOTUS (which has happened more than once)

why do you keep repeating this falsehood over and over? Look at the video I posted about this

again, I am just shocked at the lack of legal literacy among people on the political left. This is how we really do lose our Republic, when people are ignorant of the laws and protections within their own country, and will go along with authoritarianism because they think it is OK

 

[Larniavc]

we are not talking about contract law and you know it

just stop

Contract law. A clear and obvious example of where lying IS outlawed. Which part of that is not exactly what you said in you previous post say we may as well outlaw lying.

The only reason anyone would want the right to be hateful and tell lies (which my reading of Proverbs 6:16-19 would appear to contradict). Why do you want to be able to do so?

If you jump into a conversation it is incumbent on you to know what the subject is.

 

[Larniavc]

there is no "legally defined hate speech"

who told you that there was? Here is a video from a First Amendment lawyer and scholar about so-called "hate speech"

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

In the United Kingdom, hate speech is defined as communication that is threatening, abusive, or hateful, and targets a person based on their:

• Disability
• Ethnic or national origin
• Nationality, including citizenship
• Race
• Religion
• Sexual orientation
• Skin color

If it can be defined in the UK it would not be impossible to define it in America.

Yet for some inexplicable reason you seem to want to be able engage in lying and hate speech. Quite why is beyond me.

 

[Merrill]

Contract law. A clear and obvious example of where lying IS outlawed. Which part of that is not exactly what you said in you previous post say we may as well outlaw lying.

The only reason anyone would want the right to be hateful and tell lies (which my reading of Proverbs 6:16-19 would appear to contradict). Why do you want to be able to do so?

If you jump into a conversation it is incumbent on you to know what the subject is.

again, we are not talking about contract law --that has nothing to do with this

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

and you would be really, really wrong

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Speaking directly as it relates to Walz's point, there are absolutely things that you can't do/say in relation to elections. We have laws that cover things like electioneering, election interference, and voter intimidation. Spreading certain forms of misinformation - like incorrect polling locations, incorrect dates/times, or suggesting that certain groups of eligible voters can't vote (or that ineligible voters can) - could be construed as illegal election interference.

 

[Merrill]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

In the United Kingdom, hate speech is defined as communication that is threatening, abusive, or hateful, and targets a person based on their:

• Disability
• Ethnic or national origin
• Nationality, including citizenship
• Race
• Religion
• Sexual orientation
• Skin color

If it can be defined in the UK it would not be impossible to define it in America.

Yet for some inexplicable reason you seem to want to be able engage in lying and hate speech. Quite why is beyond me.

This isn't the UK --this is the US, where we have a First Amendment

"If it can be defined in the UK it would not be impossible to define it in America."

ugh, because we have a First Amendment ....

please watch that video I posted above about Hate Speech and our laws.

having a new generation of Democrats who believe it is legal to arrest people for political and ideological speech, or that is should be legal to do so, is a really problem, and an indictment of our education system

the galactically stupid ideas I've seen in this thread in regards to the First Amendment, such as

1. Hate speech isn't protected by the First Amendment (Walz and others here repeated this): 100% FALSE
2. Misinformation isn't protected: 100% FALSE (unless you are dealing with commercial speech which is regulated--not what we are discussing here)
3. Hate speech Laws are the same as Hate Crime laws: 100% FALSE --they are not the same
4. Contract law governs political, ideological, and social speech: 100% FALSE and total nonsense. It doesn't
5. Hate speech is a legal category and concept in our laws: 100% FALSE --it isn't. It is a left-wing talking point
6. Those who defend the First Amendment "want to be able engage in lying and hate speech": --do I need to even comment on how stupid and authoritarian this sounds?

if you are completely ignorant of your Constitutional rights, someone will coma along and take them away. You seriously need to get educated on this stuff, along with a couple others here

 

[Merrill]

Speaking directly as it relates to Walz's point, there are absolutely things that you can't do/say in relation to elections. We have laws that cover things like electioneering, election interference, and voter intimidation. Spreading certain forms of misinformation - like incorrect polling locations, incorrect dates/times, or suggesting that certain groups of eligible voters can't vote (or that ineligible voters can) - could be construed as illegal election interference.

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)

election interference laws vary by state, but interference typically means things like preventing people from entering polling places, destroying ballots, threatening your neighbors in an effort to prevent them from voting, etc. --they do not involve arresting people for printing the wrong date on a flyer or online. They certainly do not involve prosecuting people for verbally endorsing candidates.

this idea that "well, we have election interference laws, and those are legal, so we can arrest people for political speech" is total nonsense

 

[wing2000]

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

That is your inference.