“There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” —Tim Walz
Tim Walz confirmed last night that he is an enemy of American’s free speech rights. Walz had said this before last night (The Liar Who Wants the Government To Censor You). Vance got Walz to admit before tens of millions of Americans that he still believes that the free speech right does not include protection for utterances and writings the government deems “disinformation” or “hate speech.” But it does. Indeed, that’s the point of the free speech right: to say and write things that contradict government pronouncements and actions. Walz told Vance that the Supreme Court test for suppressing speech is “yelling fire in a crowded theater.” Walz is wrong. That’s not the test for government suppression of speech.
Walz is making a reference to Schenck v United States, a 1919 case in which the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the conviction of two socialists who had distributed anti-draft leaflets during World War I. The case arose when Charles Schenck, a member of the Socialist Party of Philadelphia, distributed leaflets (in Yiddish) urging men to resist the draft, arguing that it violated the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude. The government charged Schenck with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to interfere with military recruitment or operations during wartime.
Schenck argued that his conviction violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., upheld Schenck’s conviction. Holmes argued that in times of war, certain expressions that pose a “clear and present danger” to the nation’s security could be restricted. This gave rise to the famous analogy of falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater as an example of speech that could incite panic and harm. Holmes, known for other authoritarian decisions (e.g., upholding forced sterilization of persons deemed unfit to reproduce by the state by expanding the power of government to force citizens to take vaccines), said, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
But the two socialists in the Schenck case weren’t yelling fire in a crowded theater. They were yelling fire because there was literally a fire burning across Europe—a conflagration called WWI. They were telling men to resist fighting in a war thousands of miles overseas that had nothing to do with national security (if you disagree, the First Amendment protects your right to do so). To repurpose the analogy, what these socialists were actually doing was yelling “fire” in a burning theater.
Over time, the standard for limiting speech evolved, with the “imminent lawless action” test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) replacing the “clear and present danger” test. Walz, a dyed in the wool progressive of the most extreme sort, is referencing a ghost to justify the instinct that inspires his decades-long fascination with the totalitarian regime of the Chinese Communist Party.
This is the spirit of today’s Democratic Party (Harris-Walz and the Corporate State). Progressives want to restrict—and have restricted—the First Amendment to prevent opponents of lockdowns, mandatory vaccination, forced mask wearing, and social distancing from criticizing government action (Walz lies about this last night). They also want the police American’s free speech right around matters go gender, race, and religion. As I wrote two days ago in my essay The Fate of Free Speech is In Our Hands, lovers of liberty have to vote against this ticket. The nation is in real trouble of Harris-Walz get their hands fully on Executive Branch power.
freedom and reason 