close
close

Tim Walz’s very bad response to social media censorship

Posted on by darion

At the end of Tuesday’s vice presidential debate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (not) argued with Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) over former President Donald Trump’s efforts to stay in power after his 2020 election loss. Trump’s behavior was indefensible, which is why Vance didn’t do a great job defending him. Rather, he tried to turn the tables on Walz, accusing the Democratic candidacy of disrespecting the most important democratic norm of all: free speech.

“You are attacking us for not believing in democracy,” Vance said. “The most sacred right in the democracy of the United States is the First Amendment.”

Vance then accused Walz of wanting to criminalize misinformation, citing the governor’s previous, inaccurate comments about exceptions to the First Amendment. At this point, Walz actually interrupted Vance and stated that the First Amendment does not protect misinformation or “threatening or hateful speech.”

In other words, according to Walz, disinformation, threats and hate speech are unprotected categories of speech.

But the governor is mostly very wrong. He is correct to note that genuine threats of violence do not qualify for First Amendment protection if they are specific enough. However, misinformation and hate speech are fully protected by the First Amendment. And although the first category is a relatively new category of speech that clearly calls for censorship, the second category – hate speech – was exhaustively considered before the Supreme Court.

Walz defended his position, glibly stating that shouting “fire in a crowded theater” is constitutionally unacceptable. This is an oft-expressed sentiment – ​​and a completely false one at that. It comes from a vile Supreme Court opinion in a 1919 case Schenk v. United Statesin which most believed the government could stop people from distributing leaflets opposing World War I. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes likened such activism to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater; in other words, he believed that raising doubts about the advisability of United States participation in such a global catastrophe was dangerous and could be prohibited.

Today we recognize that the right to criticize U.S. military policy and oppose foreign wars is an essential element of the First Amendment. And the Supreme Court agrees: Schenk was gradually invalidated by subsequent decisions. The right to speak out that the government may deem reckless, dangerous or hateful was clearly affirmed in a 2017 case. Matal v. Tamin which Justice Samuel Alito noted that “the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘a thought we hate’.” It couldn’t be simpler: hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.

This shouldn’t be surprising; after all, if hate speech were constituted helpless speech, it would cause all sorts of problems. What is considered hate speech is purely subjective. For example, religious people may consider blasphemy to be an expression of hatred, but it is clear enough that the federal government cannot criminalize criticism of religion. Similarly, political activists may claim that their opponents running ads against them constitute an example of hateful messages. If censorship were allowed on this basis, there would be no end in sight.

It is extremely common to hear otherwise informed people try to distinguish between hate speech and free speech, but they are misled: from a First Amendment perspective, there is no discernible difference. Hate speech Is freedom of speech.

Disinformation is no different. The Supreme Court has not specifically addressed this issue, but it should be obvious enough that people can disagree about what is true and what is false. The Enlightenment principle that underlies the First Amendment and democracy itself is that the best way to counter bad news is to give everyone a chance to speak up. Giving some central government authority the power to determine what is true can backfire because the government often gets it wrong. Indeed, the Covid-19 pandemic provides a telling illustration of why criminalizing disinformation is a fraught endeavor: time and time again, the expert consensus among government bureaucrats has been shown to be flawed, incomplete, or completely wrong. People need the right to disagree with each other and their government. Fortunately, Americans enjoy this protection under the First Amendment. There is no exception for disinformation.

It is true that many progressive elites wish that they have the power to censor disinformation. Take, for example, former Secretary of State John Kerry, who recently lamented that the First Amendment was a “major obstacle” to solving this problem. The tone of Kerry’s remarks suggests he’s not entirely thrilled about it. But, as he reluctantly admits, the United States is different from every country in the world in that its laws significantly limit the federal government’s speech policies.

Walz, however, does not seem to notice this fact. This is very disturbing. After all, the Biden administration has gone to great lengths to test the limits of the First Amendment and pressure social media companies to engage in suppressing unfavorable speech. That was the gist of Vance’s criticism: He accused Democrats of anti-democracy for clearly supporting social media censorship.

Walz could have neutralized this line of attack by affirming that the federal government cannot and should not act to forcibly remove misinformation and hate speech from online platforms. He refused to do so. Worse still, he clearly considers disinformation to be a form of expression that falls outside the scope of First Amendment protection.

We’re taking a two-week break, but Free Media will return later this month. I’m happy to announce that we have expansive ambitions and will be working with a new producer to deliver even more content.

In the meantime it was here Growingreaction to the Veep debate.

Now I’m busy with everything The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power. Initially, I gave it a very mixed review, but the second season got me hooked.

This is mainly due to a single performance: Charles Edwards as the elven blacksmith Celebrimbor, who falls under the influence of the dark lord Sauron (Charlie Vickers). In the latest and penultimate episode Rings of PowerSauron traps Celebrimbor in a sort of time-traveled prison in his workshop and gasses him to finish working on the rings while the orcs lay siege to the surrounding city. It’s an inspiring plot point.

Too many Rings of Power the characters are one-dimensional and uninteresting – Durin the dwarf, Arondir the elf, basically everyone in Númenor – or bucket loads of imitations of their more beloved movie versions (Galadriel, Elrond). But Celebrimbor is believable and tragic: Sauron’s manipulations of him are subtle and believable. I’m reminded of another of my favorite minor characters from a popular fantasy work: Qyburn, the twisted former maester in Game of Thrones. Neither Celebrimbor nor Qyburn are bad; they are just inquisitive, and therefore susceptible to corruption. They can’t help but wonder when they see a shiny object and wonder what they can do with it.