Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Free Speech, Lawyering, Media, Politics

Big League Censorship? Michigan Attorney General Threatens Criminal Prosecution Over Posting Of Video Alleging Voter Fraud

I have been commenting on the ongoing challenges to the presidential election. While I have not seen evidence of systemic voter fraud, there are hundreds of affidavits alleging localized fraud, including cases of deceased persons voting. The challenges should be heard and the evidence should be examined. However, the most worrisome response came out of Michigan this week where Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s Office of Public Information threatened a website, Big League Politics, with criminal prosecution if it did not take down a video of alleged voting fraud. The video may indeed be misleading or false. However, the threat of criminal prosecution by the Michigan Attorney General’s office is a chilling escalation of the crackdown on free speech in this country and the calls for censorship on the Internet.

We have been discussing the calls from top Democrats for increased private censorship on social media and the Internet.  President-elect Joe Biden has himself called for such censorship, including blocking President Donald Trump’s criticism of mail-in voting. Recently, Bill Russo, a deputy communications director on Biden’s campaign press team, tweeted that Facebook “is shredding the fabric of our democracy” by allowing such views to be shared freely.

The calls mirror the trend in Europe where countries like France, Germany, and England have criminalized speech with ever expanding examples of prohibited expressions and views.

The Cease and Desist letter instructs the site to remove all posts, links, and anything similar immediately which correspond with #LeakDetroit.” Assistant Attorney General Danielle Hagaman-Clark states that “failure to comply will result in criminal prosecution.” There is no citation for the penal code provision that makes such an allegation or posting a crime, a standard element in such notice letters.

The letter refers to  false information about how poll workers counted challenged votes prior to 2020 and whether challenged ballots could be taken out of the official count. Again, the claims could well be misleading or false, but I fail to see the ability of Nessel to criminalize such assertions. Political campaigns are often replete with exaggerated claims on both sides.

As have previously discussed how the Supreme Court in cases like United States v. Alvarez has repeatedly found such criminalization of alleged speech to be unconstitutional. The position reminds me of the English view that speaking ill of the government must be prohibited. As the Court held in Alvarez:

The theory of our Constitution is “that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The First Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.

Justice Breyer noted in his concurrence in Alvarez that our constitutional protections comport with “the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee.” Likewise, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court noted that “[the] erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate.”.

Lord Chief Justice John Holt, in a 1704 sedition trial, said it was absurd that speakers and writers “should not be called to account for possessing the people with an ill-opinion of the government, no government can subsist.  For it is very necessary for all governments that the people should have a good opinion of it.”

The calls for censorship and criminalization of speech have become a rallying cry for liberals in the United States. Even academics now embrace speech codes and censorship. The erosion of free speech on social media and the Internet includes calls from leading Democratic leaders for years to implement private censorship of political speech, a view supported by academics who have declared that “China was right” about censorship.  The concerns over Nessel’s threat are magnified by the fact that the allegation challenges the results of the elections favoring her own party and political allies. If such a posting is a crime, what would stop Nessel from prosecuting the New York Times or Fox News for such videos or alleged whistleblower evidence?

The threat of criminal prosecution should be immediately withdrawn by Nessel and her office.

 

298 thoughts on “Big League Censorship? Michigan Attorney General Threatens Criminal Prosecution Over Posting Of Video Alleging Voter Fraud”

  1. it is instructive that Fauci does not address poor compliance amongst Americans in getting vaccines. He must believe just having a box of the Pfizer COVID vaccine sitting on a pharmacy shelf will protect thousands of square miles of residents like a force field. If only MMR, Flu, Hepatitis, Tetanus, Meningococcal, etc vaccines worked that way. If only RNA viruses did not mutate….like COVID-19

    If only Fauci werent a fraud

    Fauci: COVID-19 won’t be pandemic ‘for a lot longer’ thanks to vaccines
    https://nypost.com/2020/11/12/fauci-covid-19-wont-be-pandemic-much-longer-due-to-vaccines/

    1. Young, this is from your article:

      “Still, the nation’s top infectious disease expert warned that the novel coronavirus is likely here to stay.

      “I doubt we’re going to eradicate this,” he said. “I think we need to plan that this is something we may need to maintain control over chronically. It may be something that becomes endemic that we have to just be careful about.”

      1. Not Young.

        Maybe the COVID vaccine vials in Pfizer’s lab in West Hollywood are obstructing your telepathic, clairvoyant powers today?

  2. All the braindead comments. They want to prevent Libel and Slander. They worked hard to secure the election, and to say otherwise is an insult, and it unjustly tarnishes the name of the patriots to worked there. Posting videos, all of which were debunked afterward, mislead the public. If you have actual evidence, present it before a court, an officer or a lawyer. There is no reason to post it online.

      1. Aren’t some of the people coming out with videos? So they aren’t held accountable when it’s discovered the videos were fake, and spreading it is tantamount to inciting a riot?

    2. Voter fraud allegations has to be investigated. They are a part of our free speech. What has been abused by the media is biased information and fake news. Their slander of the President and disrespectful interview is what needs to stop and deserve criminal prosecution. Where are our ethics? This is when what’s true is labeled as lies and the truth is censored.

      1. Biden lied. He is not President elect. There is a constitutional process before such a designation can be attached. There is a challenge, there is a Supreme Court where Alito has entered the picture and there are electors. Biden is former VP and is trying to crown himself.

  3. The crime the attorney generals should be going after. Is all publications referring to either candidate being called President Elect until the election is certified and blessed by the GSA.
    That is also what is delaying any dissemination of intelligence information. It would not matter if Trump conceded today. The intelligence commitee can not and will not give a briefing until the GSA certifies the election.

    1. Steven, only in the rightwing bubble is Biden ‘not’ referred to as ‘President Elect’.

  6. “While I have not seen evidence of systemic voter fraud,…”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    Professor Turley, please review the work of your academic colleague, Shiva Ayyadurai, PhD, MIT, and the recent material testimony of General Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “President Trump’s margin was reduced by a minimum of 138,000 votes.”

    – Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD.

      1. Ayyadurai’s presentation would have been more convincing had he provided a link for accessing the very simple data he analyzed. I hope he corrects this oversight soon.

      2. So then why arent 70 million of us reposting this video….geesus wtf people wake up….are you going to fight back and defy or just literally type in a comment box and be pansies. Hillary clinton ordered them to resist 4 years ago…..so what are you doing to give back what they have dished out ans started….70 million of us…

        1. Talk2, Hillary called Trump the night of the election to congratulate him and publicly announced that the next day. She lost in a much closer race in the same 3 rust belt states and actually won the national vote. The difference? She had principles and balls. She also showed up at the inauguration to show support for our country and system of government.

          Here you go. This is what a patriot and decent person does:

            1. We read that your clairvoyant powers are off due to a force field in a Pfizer lab obstructing your inside vision

          2. Balls but no principles. She lost despite her lack of principles and every attempt to cheat. Hundreds of thousands of votes and perhaps more are rightfully being questioned. The Democrats created the mess. Now the election may end up in the Supreme court. The amount of cheating that went on in favor of the Democrats was astounding. They broke the law. Pennsylvania did not abide by its own legislature. That is unconstitutional. Only despots call an election for themselves before the results are even tabulated.

    3. Ayyadurai’s analysis is interesting, but note the following: Unlike other anti-fraud presentations (such as allegations of dead voters), he has failed to provide a link to the data he used in his presentation. To a trained statistician like myself, there are numerous interesting avenues for following up on his analyses, and some might well add to our understanding. That’s why, in real science, you have to detail where you got your data.

      1. “That’s why, in real science, you have to detail where you got your data.”

        Of course.

        Have you notified the CDC about its complete lack of detail for its covid19 data?

      2. @Stubborn- That’s exactly right, Dr. Shiva posits some interesting theses that demonstrate the need for further investigation of what could be a very serious systemic fraud. This information needs to be further investigated, not dismissed out of hand by partisan operatives including a media determined to secure the election for Biden. Very interesting that the Dems and the partisan media aren’t calling for an investigation and public release of the underlying data by state election officials. Transparency is a core value except when it isn’t.

      3. Someone needs to explain why these tabulating machines run software that includes a “switch” that when activated changes totals. Ayyadurai’s colleague describes the “switch” as being a legacy piece of software dating back to old Diebold machines. Why would such a thing even been included in a tabulating program?

        1. The software for anything computerized involved in an election MUST be open source, and MUST be reviewed MONTHS before the election.

          Though frankly computers should have nothing to do with elections – count the votes by hand.

          Setup vote counting in the same fashion as jury duty. Draft people to count each election day.

          If each person with Election duty counted 1000 ballots – that would require 150,000 people to count votes.
          That is 350 people per congressional district.

  7. “…MEN…MAY DO…WHAT THEIR POWERS DO NOT AUTHORIZE, [AND] WHAT [THEIR POWERS] FORBID.”
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    The 1st Amendment is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute.

    Congress is given no power to nullify or otherwise diminish the freedom of speech as provided by the 1st Amendment.

    The 1st Amendment is a freedom of the people and a limitation and restriction on Congress and government.

    States are provided no power to nullify the 1st Amendment through legislation, executive order, proclamation or any other means or method.

    The power was given to the people by the Constitution and power, in every case questioning power, defaults “…OR TO THE PEOPLE…” when necessary to preclude and prohibit tyranny by the States.

    Power never devolves or defaults to federal or state government or to rogue federal or state governments.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    _______________________________________________

    10th Amendment

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…may do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    _________________

    “You can’t handle the truth!”

    – Colonel Jessup
    ______________

    You can’t handle; you can’t grasp the scope and breadth of American freedom.

  8. Jonathan: You and Trump just won’t give in or give up. You say “While I have not seen any evidence of systemic voter fraud there are hundreds of affidavits alleging localized fraud,…”. Perhaps you are referring to one case in Philadelphia where a postal worker signed an affidavit in support of the Trump campaign’s lawsuit claiming voter fraud. The worker, Richard Hopkins, claimed in his affidavit that he overheard supervisors discussing stamping ballots with a Nov. 3 postmark, even if they arrived late. Trump was ecstatic and called Hopkins a “patriot”. Senate Republicans, like Lindsey Graham, chimed in and called for an investigation. Postal inspectors did interview Hopkins and he had to admit he made up the story. Hopkins later tried to recant his recantation but the damage to Trump’s futile lawsuit was already apparent. In the end it doesn’t really matter because even if every single one of the 10,000 ballots that arrived late are thrown out Biden still won! Are there any other of the “hundreds of affidavits” you would like to put forward to prove the election was stolen from Trump?

    1. Denny:

      “Perhaps you are referring to one case in Philadelphia where a postal worker signed an affidavit in support of the Trump campaign’s lawsuit claiming voter fraud.”
      *******************************
      No numbnuts that would be one, as in singular as in you’re trying to diminish the problem. We’re talking about the 240 pages of affidavits already submitted to the Trump campaign. Try to keep up. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/the-president-wants-justice-kayleigh-mcenany-says-trump-campaign-has-240-pages-of-sworn-affidavits-proving-voter-fraud

      1. REGARDING ABOVE:

        “It’s the [algorithms], stupid [Dennis McIntyre]!”

        – James Carville

    3. Except I his own words he did not recant a member of the democratic party said he did, he didn’t, so now secondhand speculation is what you are operating on.

    5. I don’t think it is true that he tried to recant. The postal inspectors tried to intimidate him into changing his story (the attempt was recorded) and the WaPo jumped the gun and reported that he did, But he didn’t.

    8. There are actually at least 3 postal workers with affidavits in Pennsylvania now, and growing. No one actually needs to prove it to you at this point. They need to prove it to the courts, and to the State Legislators who will appoint the Electoral College. Every case needs to be investigated, so the system can mold to become more transparent to the American people. On 14 December, we will know who the next president will be after the Electoral College meets.

  9. BREAKING EXCLUSIVE:

    More on Georgia Water Main Break Scam on Election Day – There’s No Evidence to Show It Even Occurred

    By Joe Hoft

  12. ““The Republican Party in the U.S. has retreated from upholding democratic norms in recent years,” said Anna Lührmann, a political scientist at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and a former member of the German parliament. “Its rhetoric is closer to authoritarian parties, such as AKP in Turkey and Fidesz in Hungary.”

    Lührmann is deputy director of the university’s V-Dem Institute, which compiled the data. For the project, researchers recruited more than 600 political scientists around the world to make annual assessments of political parties’ adherence to a number of key small-D democratic values.

    Lührmann notes the project has collected data on nearly 2,000 political parties….

    V-Dem’s data underscores how much of the Republican Party has adopted the authoritarian beliefs and tactics of the president. Many of the GOP leaders going along with Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud will still be in office after he leaves.

    “That leading Republicans are not willing to defend the electoral process shows that Trump is not the only GOP politician who has a problem with key democratic norms,” Lührmann said….”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/12/republican-party-trump-authoritarian-data/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F2cb38ef%2F5fad6db69d2fda0efb658366%2F5b302d08ade4e27939ccef1c%2F14%2F70%2F7786f80285f4ea964dbca0d0924ff4ab

    The study:

    https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/b6/55/b6553f85-5c5d-45ec-be63-a48a2abe3f62/briefing_paper_9.pdf

  15. After reading the speech by Associate Justice Breyer I’m not assured how the Supreme Court would rule on Free Speech today. This particular item is Chilling indeed!
    Harvard University Tanner Lectures / On Human Values 2004-2005 / Stephen Breyer Associate Justice /
    Supreme Court of the United States / “Our Democratic Constitution”—–
    “…The democratic government that the Constitution creates now regulates a host of activities that inevitably take place through the medium of speech. Today’s workers manipulate information, not wood or metal. And the modern, information-based workplace, no less than its more materially-based predecessors, requires the application of community standards seeking to assure, for example, the absence of anti-competitive restraints, the accuracy of information, the absence of discrimination, the protection of health, safety, the environment, the consumer, and so forth…”——
    “…The better approach, however, is to consider the First Amendment’s relation to the Constitution’s basic structural objective, “participatory self-government.” To understand the First Amendment as protecting active liberty is to understand it as protecting more than the individual’s “negative” freedom. It is to understand the Amendment as seeking to facilitate a conversation among ordinary citizens that will encourage their informed participation in the electoral process. It is to suggest a constitutional purpose that goes beyond protecting the individual from government restriction of information about matters that the Constitution commits to individual, not collective, decision-making. It is to understand the First Amendment as seeking primarily to encourage the exchange of information and ideas necessary for citizens themselves to shape that “public opinion which is the final source of government in a democratic state.” In these ways, the Amendment helps to maintain a form of government open to participation (in Constant’s words) “by all citizens without exception”…”

  16. Last line in the article reads, “The threat of criminal prosecution should be immediately withdrawn by Nessel and his office”. It should be her office.

  17. These people are a growing cancer on free speech, ban this ban that ban it all. We must fight for the right to oppose and criticise

  18. REGARDING THIS COLUMN,

    I STOPPED READING HERE:

    “The video may indeed be misleading or false”.
    ……………………………………………………………….
    If no one can ascertain the integrity of these videos, they should be taken down. Public opinion shouldn’t be swayed by misrepresented videos.

    I was under the impression that Turley is man of good character. This leads me to wonder otherwise.

    1. Anonymous — any issues with misrepresented news stories, such as Hunter Biden’s laptop being of Russian origin? Or do you only care about “misrepresented” items that you disagree with?

      1. DV speaking of Hunter Biden’s laptop, I notice you don’t mention that bogus repair shop in Delaware run by the visually impaired geek.

    2. Exactly, “The video may indeed be misleading or false”, but at the same time it may very real and correct. Which then would make this a legit video and evidence of corruption exposing a government body.

    3. Public opinion has already been swayed by misleading and false statements by the Biden campaign, like saying that Trump called White Supremacists fine people.
      Did you want those lies stricken from the airwaves?
      The answer to lies is the truth, to misleading statements, correcting the record.
      Biden lied and Trump didn’t defend against it properly.

      1. Hey Troll, all you replies here are stupid ‘What Abouts?’ Which only shows how stupid Trump’s case is.

    4. One can only cry when a person who was likely educated in this country has learned so little.

  19. This is Socialism. Hang on because it’s only in the beginning stages. The false claim that Biden is President Elect has unveiled the complete loss of freedom we are facing.

  20. In effect, she will prosecute the populist press for the crime of lese majeste, a nice irony for a faux gauchiste.
    (Feel free to correct my French.)

Comments are closed.