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

[Postvieww]

Oh, I know. It's a world where a Democrat points out that there are limits to what you can and cannot say.

We all know this is about silencing conservative thought and expression no matter how one tries to propagandize it.

 

[Truth7t7]

What benefit do hate speech and lies bring to a society?

You don't get it, hate and misinformation speech is protected by the US constitution 1st amendment, it takes 2/3 of congress to change this constitutional amendment, and your desired change is nothing more than barking at the moon, ain't gonna happen

 

[Larniavc]

You don't get it, hate and misinformation speech is protected by the US constitution 1st amendment, it takes 2/3 of congress to change this constitutional amendment, and your desired change is nothing more than barking at the moon, ain't gonna happen

I understand that. I'm asking YOU what benefit those two things being protected by 1A brings to a society?

 

[Truth7t7]

I understand that. I'm asking YOU what benefit those two things being protected by 1A brings to a society?

Freedom of speech and expression is a good thing, regardless if you like it or not

Examples: I hate drug dealers killing people by their unlawful actions, and I enjoy the freedom to speak and express my feelings

I hate the misinformation being promoted by the liberal MSM daily and I enjoy the freedom to speak and express my feelings

 

[rjs330]

Whelp, I guess you get to live in a place where lying and hate speech are valued, then.

Well done?

Don't be silly, it's not valued, but it is protected. Better to have protected speech than live in a country where the government can toss you in jail for saying something THEY deem as hate speech. Like yours.

Your country is a prime example how hate speech is not unilaterally prosecuted. Only the speech they want to prosecute is.

I think I see why so many on the left support this. They know they can say whatever they want and be fine, but if the other side says anything they deem hateful they can be tossed in prison.

Hillary Clinton calls a swath of Americans deplorables, hate speech, Biden telling blacks that Republicans want to put them back in chains, hate speech. The left has shown rhe only speech they deem as hate speech is anything they deem as hate speech. We don't see anyone on the left calling for the end of hate speech when they attack Christians or white people or conservatives.

“But, you know, the NRA members are the current incarnation of the brownshirts from Germany back in the early ’30s, late ’20s, early ’30s. Now, of course, there came the Night of the Long Knives when the brownshirts were slaughtered and dumped in the nearest ditches when the power structure finally got tired of them. So I look forward to that day.” — Mike Malloy

Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” — The Village Voice’s Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all places

“The rhetoric you hear from the Republican Party is shameful and disgraceful for Latinos. And you know, when you see ‘Latinos for Trump,’ to me it is like seeing ‘Jews for Hitler,’ almost, you know?”

"Adolf Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany. And he went about the business of discrediting institutions to the point that people bought into” it,” Clyburn said in an interview with NBC. “Nobody would have believed it now. But swastikas hung in churches throughout Germany. We had better be very careful.”


“This is the same type of propaganda that we heard in the 1920s and World War I against Jews,” he added.

Police ignoring hate speech against white people - new findings

So apparently the only hate speech the left cares.about and prosecutes is anything they deem.as hate speech from the right, while any hate speech from the left is left alone.

 

[rjs330]

If one's lies cause harm yes. Just like any purposeful behaviour.

Who gets to define harm?

 

[durangodawood]

Who gets to define harm?

The legislatures who represent we the people.

 

[Aldebaran]

Did you just build a straw man to tilt against? Why bother? That nothing at all like laws. That’s some Oligarchy fever dream. Weird.

I simply provided proof that laws aren't needed in order for the government to manipulate private businesses to do their bidding.

 

[Aldebaran]

The legislatures who represent we the people.

Does that mean you want the legislature (controlled by various political parties at various times) determining what is considered "hate" speech at the moment, and then having people arrested for it?

 

[durangodawood]

Does that mean you want the legislature (controlled by various political parties at various times) determining what is considered "hate" speech at the moment, and then having people arrested for it?

Yes. But in the interest of liberty I would want the definition to be very narrow, as it mostly is for the other 1st amendment exceptions that have been deemed reasonable over time.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes. But in the interest of liberty I would want the definition to be very narrow, as it mostly is for the other 1st amendment exceptions that have been deemed reasonable over time.

Aren't they rather narrow now? It's already illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, but some people still like to claim that one politician making a claim (which may or may not be true but could be researched by the audience) is equivalent to that. Even riots have been glossed over in the name of free speech, even though it cost innocent people their lives, and cost society billions of dollars.
There are already laws against slander if a person can claim they've been materially harmed by someone else's lie against them. I'm not sure that it's ever been successfully used against a politician who said something that resulted in the targeted politician not being elected though.

 

[Merrill]

What benefit do hate speech and lies bring to a society?

who decides what "lies" are? The people who rule over us?
or what "hate speech" is?

I'm sure every dictator out there would like to define criticism of him or his government as "lies" and "hate" or order to shut it down and have those who engage in it arrested

this is why we have a First Amendment

 

[durangodawood]

Aren't they rather narrow now? It's already illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, but some people still like to claim that one politician making a claim (which may or may not be true but could be researched by the audience) is equivalent to that. Even riots have been glossed over in the name of free speech, even though it cost innocent people their lives, and cost society billions of dollars.
There are already laws against slander if a person can claim they've been materially harmed by someone else's lie against them. I'm not sure that it's ever been successfully used against a politician who said something that resulted in the targeted politician not being elected though.

I think Im fairly close to you on this issue, and would want to see specifics before judging. Basically Im just not ruling out the concept.

 

[Aldebaran]

who decides what "lies" are? The people who rule over us?
or what "hate speech" is?

I'm sure every dictator out there would like to define criticism of him or his government as "lies" and "hate" or order to shut it down and have those who engage in it arrested

this is why we have a First Amendment

Here's what happens to those who don't:

UK riots: ‘Bigot’ jailed for Facebook racial hatred posts

A judge says Daniel Kingsley holds "deeply offensive and racist views".

www.bbc.com

 

[Merrill]

A statement from Google said it’s “fairly common” for advertisers to link out or cite external websites in ads. To differentiate these ads from results, the search engine labels the ads as sponsored and includes a “paid for by” disclosure.

But even with a sponsored tag, the ads present a “significant ethical concern,” according to Colin Campbell, associate professor of marketing at the University of San Diego.

He said this is especially true when consumers fail to differentiate online ads.

“Many consumers might form opinions based solely on the altered headlines, without ever reading the actual articles,” Campbell said. “Even those who click through and read the articles may feel misled when they notice the discrepancy between the headline and the content, further eroding trust in the media.”
...
But it’s not unusual for advertisements to cite to publishers, according to Pinar Yildirim, an associate professor of marketing and economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Movie trailers, for instance, often include snippets of critics’ reviews.

Yildirim said that as long as an ad doesn't misrepresent the contents of a news
article, act as clickbait or try to earn undeserved credit by using the publisher's name, then linking back to a news outlet "should not be objectionable."

That news article on Google? Its headline may have been written by a political campaign

Kamala Harris' campaign has been pushing out Google ads with altered news article headlines, something Google called "fairly common."

www.usatoday.com

So, the article previously posted here and published by USA Today states both sides of the issue from two marketing professors from well-known and respected universities. Thank you for posting the article. Now I have a much clearer understanding of what this practice entails. I don't see anything about "modifying news articles", thank goodness. It's closer to being like when someone posts a thread here with a heading that doesn't clearly represent the headline and/or content of the article posted in the OP.
Personally, I don't like the practice and agree that it can be harmful if one doesn't read the content of an article. However, it doesn't surprise me, after all, we're talking about advertising/marketing practices whose whole first objective is to get the attention of a target audience.

the campaign ads were misleading and sketchy, and there were ethical issues

and if the Trump campaign had been doing this, Walz and others would be calling for such ads to be removed on grounds that they are "disinformation"

and connected to all of this is the incident from a few days ago where a left-wing Washington Post journalist asked the Whitehouse what it would do to "stop" the Trump interview on X, on the grounds that it could be "misinformation"

which further illustrates the need to educate the political left in this country on what the First Amendment and free expression actually means

 

[Aldebaran]

.....and connected to all of this is the incident from a few days ago where a left-wing Washington Post journalist asked the Whitehouse what it would do to "stop" the Trump interview on X, on the grounds that it could be "misinformation"......

Yet people call us "conspiracy theorists" if this sort of thing is pointed out.
But it shows that even the journalists think that if they disagree with someone, it's ok for the government to silence them. Journalism school clearly didn't teach them what the 1st Amendment is all about, other than it protects the Press.

 

[Larniavc]

Freedom of speech and expression is a good thing, regardless if you like it or not

Examples: I hate drug dealers killing people by their unlawful actions, and I enjoy the freedom to speak and express my feelings

I hate the misinformation being promoted by the liberal MSM daily and I enjoy the freedom to speak and express my feelings

You did not answer my question. I specifically asked about hate speech and lies. Not 1A in general.

Why not remove hate speech and lies from 1A? Hypothetically speaking, would that be a bad thing.

 

[Larniavc]

Don't be silly, it's not valued, but it is protected. Better to have protected speech than live in a country where the government can toss you in jail for saying something THEY deem as hate speech. Like yours.

And what is so wrong with that? Can you not imagine a society where free speech excludes Hate Speech and lies in the same what that you can't yell 'fire' in a cinema? Hate speech and lies are 'bad things'. Don't you agree that society is better off without (very specifically) Hate Speech and lies?

 

[Larniavc]

Only the speech they want to prosecute is.

Please show an example of Hate Speech that went without prosecution.

 

[Larniavc]

Who gets to define harm?

Society. Like who defines all laws. You know this already.