Is this article titled “Misinformation”? Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) would certainly say so. But many observers disagree. In a recently unearthed interview, Gov. Walz said, “There is no guarantee of free speech when it comes to misinformation or hate speech.” But defenders here would categorically proclaim, “That's taken out of context!”
That's the problem, right?
Truth is often hard to find, and that's exactly why the First Amendment does not prohibit “hate speech” or misinformation: what is considered “hate speech” today may later be considered constructive criticism.
And today's “misinformation” may become tomorrow's self-evident observation.
No, I'm not being relativistic, I'm just being realistic.
The History of Tim Waltz
Kamala Harris's running mate, Walz, is a fierce controversial figure. He's been called “Tampon Tim” for signing a bill requiring “menstrual hygiene products” in boys' school bathrooms, said “one man's socialism is another man's neighborliness,” demanded that Minnesota teachers embrace left-wing ideology, was accused of “stealing honor” by members of his own military battalion, issued a mandate to make children available for “irreversible sex-reassignment surgery,” and signed a bill allowing “unlimited abortions.” And now, critics might argue, if Walz has his way, he might not even be allowed to use his First Amendment rights to argue that all of the aforementioned accusations are valid.
At issue are comments made by Governor Walz during an appearance on MSNBC's “The Raided Out” in December 2022. With the help of constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, we'll put the governor's comments in context.
Maria Teresa Kumar, MNSBC host: …I want to talk about misinformation, which you mentioned earlier, because in the political world before, disinformation, telling people the wrong way to vote, was often considered a kind of bad joke.
But it's becoming more and more ominous. Can you tell us a bit about that?
Waltz: Oh yeah.
Kumar: …And what are you going to do to ensure that there is penalisation for that?
Waltz: Yes.
A few years ago, it was little things like telling people to vote the day after the election, and we ignored it. Now we know that it's ballot box intimidation. It undermines the idea that voting by mail is illegal.
I think we need to resist this. Misinformation and hate speech, especially in our democracy, freedom of speech is not guaranteed. Let's tell the truth. Where are the polling stations, who can vote, who can be there….
Most Americans would agree that one shouldn't lie about simple facts about time or place (one shouldn't lie about anything), and after a lengthy analysis, Volokh acknowledges that Walz may be right that, based on court decisions, First Amendment protections don't apply to the narrow issues of objective lies about polling place location or voting eligibility.
The problem is that Waltz doesn't say exactly that.
He did not say that people who spread specific misinformation could be prosecuted for election interference (which would be problematic in itself), but instead made the broader statement that “freedom of speech with respect to misinformation and hate speech is not guaranteed.” This raises two concerns.
Is misinformation and “hate speech” protected?
This reinforces the flawed and flawed First Amendment concepts to which many young people have already fallen victim.
Second, this is more likely a reflection of Walz's feelings on the issue than a slip of the tongue. After all, if he cared about free speech, he would surely have been at pains to make clear that prohibiting false election tactics was (in his philosophy) a very narrow First Amendment exception. We tend to emphasize the things we care about.
Waltz also got it wrong in his comments: “The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment (see here for more details),” Volokh noted. This is the exact opposite of what young people are being conditioned to believe in today's woefully inadequate schools.
When it comes to “misinformation,” Volokh emphasizes that while there are exceptions, such as defamation or making false statements to government investigators, “even deliberate lies can be protected by the Constitution.” Isn't that obvious?
If lying were legally actionable, virtually all politicians would have to be prosecuted.
The problem with giving the state the power to “punish lies” should be obvious. If the government were God (as some believe), i.e. inerrant, omniscient, and all good, we could trust it with the Ministry of Truth. (Remember, God is truth.) God would know what is true and what is not, who is telling the truth, and who is spreading falsehoods or actual lies (a lie is a falsehood spread with the knowledge that it is not true). But unfortunately, government, and power in general, more closely reflects another supernatural entity.
Lies the government told me
Consider the “lies the government has told me”: the censorship of accurate Covid prescriptions during the pandemic, the claim that Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation”, the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, Trump’s “fine people” fiction (note that the latter is a situation in which Trump’s words have been presented repeatedly out of context over the years), the lies about the Iran nuclear deal, and the damn lies about our various wars, to name just a handful of examples.
Would you buy a second-hand Ministry of Truth from these people? Would you trust lying politicians to crack down on the lies?
When it comes to hate speech, what do you call it when you continually call people “Nazis,” “racists,” “fascists,” and “a threat to democracy”? Some on the left might call it raising a legitimate alarm (even if it led to an assassination attempt), but isn't that the point?
There may be fascists among us who should be alarmed, but who they are is up for debate, partly because of demagoguery, but also because of honest differences of opinion. Where are the angels among us who would give us police powers and the authority to determine what is true and what is a liar? Do we want to sit before a tribunal of speech and have our words judged by a committee appointed by the worst politicians among us?
Certainly not even Tim Waltz would wish this on himself, and anyone who wishes this on others is simply not fit to be in a position of power.
