The most consequential issue on the ballot this November is the fate of free speech: your ability to speak your mind.
At former President Donald Trump性视界传媒檚 recent campaign rally, Tesla CEO Elon Musk leaped on the stage and urged the nation to support Trump as the free speech candidate. It性视界传媒檚 性视界传媒渢he bedrock of democracy,性视界传媒 Musk said, warning that 性视界传媒渢he other side wants to take away your freedom of speech.性视界传媒
That性视界传媒檚 true. Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, want government and its proxies to muzzle us, limiting what we can post on social media, and censuring whatever government deems 性视界传媒渕isinformation性视界传媒 or hate.
The Constitution性视界传媒檚 framers understood the dangers of making government the arbiter of what the public should hear or read. The First Amendment bars government from 性视界传媒渁bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.性视界传媒
Since the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court has consistently struck down government attempts to silence speech, even divisive, untrue or hateful speech.
In 1949, Father Arthur Terminiello, a communist, was arrested in Chicago for denouncing racial groups in a hate-filled speech. A city ordinance banned 性视界传媒渟peech that stirs the public to anger.性视界传媒 But the Supreme Court overturned his conviction, ruling that 性视界传媒渢he vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion.性视界传媒 The court added that speech 性视界传媒渕ay indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest ... or even stirs people to anger.性视界传媒
That includes hate speech. In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the justices overturned the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who uttered anti-Semitic and racist comments during an organizational meeting of Klan members. Ohio could not outlaw speech, said the court, unless it threatened imminent lawlessness.
In 2012, the justices made it clear that the First Amendment even protects misinformation and lies from criminal prosecution. The court invalidated a federal law making it a crime to falsely claim being the recipient of military honors. The court concluded that 性视界传媒渇alsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment.性视界传媒 So don性视界传媒檛 worry, Walz. The Supreme Court has your back.
The court has also ruled that political correctness must take a backseat to freedom of speech. In 2017, the court struck a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regulation that blocked Simon Tam and his Asian American band members from calling their group 性视界传媒淭he Slants,性视界传媒 which the USPTO had rejected as 性视界传媒渄isparaging.性视界传媒
Few reading these decisions will like all of them. Freedom of speech doesn性视界传媒檛 benefit one group. It性视界传媒檚 an even-handed principle that keeps democracy alive. The racist KKK member, the communist, and the anti-American flag burner are protected so that all of us can be confident we won性视界传媒檛 be jailed for expressing our views.
Walz and Harris, together with President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Rep. Adam Schiff, oppose free speech, particularly on social media platforms, the 21st-century public square. Walz insists there性视界传媒檚 no First Amendment protection for misinformation or hate speech. Staggering coming from a social studies teacher.
In 2019, Harris called for Twitter to deplatform Trump, arguing that online expression is a 性视界传媒減rivilege性视界传媒 and that censorship is necessary to protect democracy from those who spread misinformation.
In office, she and Biden erected a vast censorship operation in which White House and agency employees met with social media executives and told them what 性视界传媒渕isinformation性视界传媒 and individuals should be silenced. Even scientists questioning masking and vaccines were canceled, and their research was taken down, though some were later proved correct.
Facebook, YouTube and Google were pressured into doing the administration性视界传媒檚 dirty work. It continues now.
Two states and five individuals sued to stop what the federal district court called this 性视界传媒渇ar-reaching and widespread censorship campaign.性视界传媒 But the Supreme Court refused to rule on the censorship issue, citing a technicality 性视界传媒 the litigants lacked standing.
Alito, disgusted with the court性视界传媒檚 punt, warned that the Biden-Harris censorship scheme is 性视界传媒渂latantly unconstitutional性视界传媒 and that the survival of democracy depends on protecting free speech.
Pay close attention to Alito性视界传媒檚 admonition. Those are the stakes in the upcoming election.
