A short video clip has emerged of Kamala Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz, giving his understanding of the First Amendment. The correct response to what he says should be a shudder of horror that this man might be part of a winning presidential ticket, for he displays the classic communist understanding of how free speech works—it’s a one-way ticket for the despotic government’s benefit.

As always, let’s start with the text:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

That’s it. It’s very clean and simple.

So, what does it mean? It means what it says: The government cannot determine what speech is acceptable and what is not. Government censorship is a bad thing.

Image: X screen grab.

This notion of speech free from government censorship began to be the norm in England, starting with the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Parliament created the Bill of Rights following a revolution to oust King James II, who, like his father Charles I before him, had been imprisoning parliamentarians for speech with which he disagreed. The Bill of Rights stated that the “freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

Although the English Bill of Rights technically applied only to members of parliament, by the 1760s, English citizens, whether in England or the American colonies, believed that it was their right as Englishmen to express their political opinions without fear.

One of the things that led to the American Revolution was that Parliament essentially invalidated the Bill of Rights, saying that it applied only to the monarch and not to Parliament itself. (That’s why, today, UK PM Keir Starmer is comfortable embracing the Sharia definition of free speech.) Parliament reserved for itself the right to punish any speech out of the colonies with which it disagreed.

When the Founders ratified the Bill of Rights, they didn’t make the same mistake twice. Free speech regarding matters of public policy, they said, is an inherent right, not just the right of elected officials.

Of course, there are very narrow exceptions to what constitutes “free speech.” Threatening to kill someone is a criminal activity as is using speech to incite imminent unlawful action (e.g., “Come on, everyone. Let’s burn down the Jewish guy’s house.”). Child pornography is criminal speech because of the unique position children occupy in society. In the civil arena, copyrighted speech is not free (e.g., you can’t republish the Harry Potter books under your own name), and knowingly spreading false information about someone can render you liable to a civil action.

The most important thing, though, is that the First Amendment prevents government action against viewpoints, especially disfavored viewpoints. It exists not to protect people who spout the party line but to protect those who don’t.

Notably, some of the most important advances in free speech law in America came from the ACLU, an essentially socialist organization (every founder was a socialist). In the first half of the 20th century, Americans recognized that communism was a threat to the American system and often sought to stifle it. Meanwhile, Woodrow Wilson, a progressive (i.e., a socialist), once he attained power, also sought to stifle speech, using the excuse of WWI to implement some of the most draconian speech restrictions in American history.

The ACLU fought back against all these restraints. Its members understood that socialism didn’t stand a chance in America if speech was restricted. But socialists are like Recep Erdogan, the president of Turkey, who said, “Democracy is like a tram. You ride it until you arrive at your destination; then you step off.”  For the totalitarian mind, free speech is something you fight for only when it advances your policies. Then, it stops.

And with that, here’s Tim Walz explaining in very few words that the First Amendment does not apply to speech he dislikes.

HOLY SH!T

Governor Tim Walz: NO RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH if the government decides it is misinformation or hateful

This man is a dangerous commie pic.twitter.com/hE8xGcRx87

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 7, 2024

I think we should push back on this. There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.

In fact, free speech is most essential “around our democracy.” The antidote to speech one dislikes isn’t censorship but counter-speech, something the left is currently stifling using social media cut-outs. (I’ve argued for a long time that the tech tyrants should be treated as public accommodations under the Civil Rights Act so that they cannot censor speech with which they disagree.)

As we learned during COVID, “misinformation” doesn’t mean inaccurate information (although even that should not be stifled unless it’s defamatory); it means anything with which the Democrat party disagrees. Likewise, “hate speech” doesn’t mean saying, “I hate you, and I’m going to kill you.” It means anything that offends non-whites. If you’re white, of course, nothing said against you can be hateful because, frankly, you deserve it...

I’ll end with Queen Elizabeth I of England. Before her reign, England had experienced decades of oppression as her country see-sawed between Henry VIII’s and Edward VI’s brutal imposition of Protestantism in place of England’s traditional Catholicism, which was followed by Mary I’s even more brutal efforts to reinstate Catholicism. Elizabeth wanted none of it, famously saying, “I have no desire to make windows into men’s souls.”

Tim Walz is no Elizabeth. He desires to make windows into men’s souls and then to use the power of the government to punish them for their thoughts.