Below is my column in USA Today on the most chilling moment from the Vance-Walz debate when the Democratic nominee showed why he is part of the dream ticket for the anti-free speech movement.
Here is the column:
In the vice presidential debate Tuesday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz pulled the fire alarm.
His opponent, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, cited the massive system of censorship supported by Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate.
Walz proceeded to quote the line from a 1919 case in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said you do not have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.
It is the favorite mantra of the anti-free speech movement. It also is fundamentally wrong.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the justice’s line from his opinion in Schenck v. United States. Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
‘Fire in a theater’ case supported government censorship
As I discuss in the book, the line was largely lifted from a brief in an earlier free speech case. It has since become the rationale for politicians and pundits seeking to curtail free speech in America.
For example, when I testified last year before Congress against a censorship system that has been described by one federal court as “similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., interjected with the fire-in-a-theater question to say such censorship is needed and constitutional. In other words, the internet is now a huge crowded theater and those with opposing views are shouting fire.
Goldman and Walz both cited a case in which socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Their “crime” was to pass out flyers in opposition to the military draft during World War I.
Schenck and Baer called on their fellow citizens not to “submit to intimidation” and to “assert your rights.” They argued, “If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.” They also described the military draft as “involuntary servitude.”
Holmes used his “fire in a theater” line to justify the abusive conviction and incarceration. At the House hearing, when I was trying to explain that the justice later walked away from the line and Schenck was effectively overturned in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio, Goldman cut me off and said, “We don’t need a law class here.”
In the vice presidential debate, Walz showed that he and other Democratic leaders most certainly do need a class in First Amendment law.
As I have said, the Biden-Harris administration has proved to be the most anti-free speech administration in two centuries. You have to go back to John Adams’ administration to find the equal of this administration.
Harris has been an outspoken champion of censorship in an administration that supports targeting disinformation, misinformation and “malinformation.” That last category was defined by the Biden administration as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
In the debate, Walz also returned to his favorite dismissal of censorship objections by saying that it is all just inflammatory rhetoric.
Recently, Walz went on MSNBC to support censoring disinformation and declared, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”
That is entirely untrue and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the right called “indispensable” by the Supreme Court. Even after some of us condemned his claim as ironically dangerous disinformation, Walz continues to repeat it.
Free speech advocates view Harris as a threat
This is why, for the free speech community, the prospect of a Harris-Walz administration is chilling. Where President Joe Biden was viewed as supporting censorship out of political opportunism, Harris and Walz are viewed as true believers.
We are living through the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in American history. We have never before faced the current alliance of government, corporate, academic and media forces aligned against free speech. A Harris-Walz administration with a supportive Congress could make this right entirely dispensable.
Others are laying the groundwork for precisely that moment. University of Michigan Law School professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade has said that free speech “can also be our Achilles’ heel.”
Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, wrote a New York Times op-ed with the headline, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control.” He told readers that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”
Walz said in the debate that Vice President Harris is promoting the “politics of joy.” Indeed, the wrong people are perfectly ecstatic. Harris and Walz are the dream team for the anti-free speech movement.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
My deepest concern in the upcoming election is there are too many “lemmings” that will vote for the wrong candidates because they did not do their homework.
You know what happens to Lemmings 😋
Well , other than Hillary Clinton most of the democrat talking points in presidential elections since 2000 have been fuzzy and downright disinformation. Why, because simply will not reveal their plan, though we all know it now. They could all run their campaigns from the basements
LOL, and you think what Trump says is reliable. Simp.
In the vice presidential debate, Walz showed that he and other Democratic leaders most certainly do need a class in First Amendment law.
I am an academic but permit me to confess that I haven’t the foggiest idea of Walz’s academic “pedigree”. Citing Left wing Wikipedia:
Walz earned a master of science in experiential education from Minnesota State University, Mankato in 2002,[44] writing his master’s thesis on Holocaust education.[45]
An MS Degree is a concentration in the sciences: medicine, physical sciences, engineering or math. So called “experiential education” has nothing to do with medicine, physical sciences, engineering or math. Yet, how he tied Holocaust education to an MS is as fabricated as his claim he was in China during the Tiananmen Square massacre when he was actually at home in Nebraska. For all of the Left crying that Trump lies (as if Bill Clinton had set the high bar of virtuous politician), Walz is a thorough fraud. At least Trump, be it via inherinting his family’s wealth, just like Don Goldman of Levi Straus fame did, or by being a savy real estate buinessman, Trump is the real deal when it comes to his career accomplishments. Like him or hate him, he has more merit in how he achieved his wealth compared to the Clintons who stole furniture from the White House and charged exorbitant speaking fees with the “Clinton Global Initiative” at the expense of Third World countries like Haiti. Then there is Barack Obama’s “accomplishments” which are nill if you don’t include destroying America.
I saw a meme yesterday on twitter/X that provides a likely explanation for why anyone would choose Tim Walz as VP.
Obama needed a VP candidate who was dumber than he, Biden likewise chose Kamala because she is dumber than he, and Kamala picked Walz because he is dumber than dirt. Seems about right.
JD Vance wrote a book that was a huge success, not to mention has an incredible eduational pedigree plus business credentials to claim the right stuff.
Walz is a liar which is why he fits in perfectly with Kamala’s handlers who are also Biden’s handlers who include Barack Obama, the biggest con artist of them all
Take that fact checkers!
Spot On! Bravo, Carajo!
Excellent.. Estovir post what you wrote on Twitter/X
MS in Education is very common. You are absolutely wrong about what a master of science actually is. Your own alma mater offers it.
I don’t like to sniff and point out my educational pedigree but I believe my education through high school in the Atlanta Public Schools had more educational rigors than Mr Walz.
The good ol’ “I’m smarter” argument. A sure sign of your utter incompetence.
Many will throw verbal rocks, but I see this as just another proof that the sixty-sixth book is exactly on time and accurate. Are you on the Wide Road are the Narrow Road? I have learned much from Professor Turley, thank you!
* I’ll come into your house through the doorway and not the windows. I’ll knock first so you can answer the door and invite me in.
Aka the narrow gate
Couldn’t agree more. God is patient so that as many as possible can find their way to a belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior.
I have been patiently waiting for a case brought to SCOTUS on the unconstitutionality of “hate speech” legislation. Now is the time for this egregious law to be overturned.
What hate speech legislation? They have it in Europe, but SCOTUS doesn’t reach that far.
We have “hate crime” enhancements, but those are attached to committing a violent attack.
Please give a citation to the “hate speech law” you’re worried about.
Legislation criminalizing an emotion. Brilliant
pb, I didn’t think you were correct when I read your post, and in fact, you are very wrong. You say, “but those are attached to committing a violent attack.”
That is wholly incorrect. Read this:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws
Note for example, 18 USC 245, or 42 USC 3631, or 18 USC 241, etc.
Obama signed legislation that allows federal hate crime prosecution to attach to MANY underlying crimes, MOST including not only the “use of force,” but the THREAT to use force, etc. So “committing a violent act” is not a predicate element.
Hopefully, you are not a lawyer. If you are, was Gigi a fellow student?
Although I can understand why it would be outlawed, or might be outlawed, I was never able to logically parse out the fire-in-the-theater free-speech analogy or scenario. Because it seemed to me that even that would be protected speech. Yet we saw BLM with their “fry ’em like bacon,” openly calling for the murder of police officers, and nowhere did authorities challenge this.
Yelling fire at a crowded theater could result in a mass rush to exits by the patrons that could lead to trampling death or injury. That is the balance of judgement on which it’s weighed. Perhaps a direct connection to potential harm, a slippery slope.
* fire! Is the same as pulling a fire alarm. Is a fire alarm free speech? Horns honking? Phones ringing? So free speech is anything heard, a noise. Ok
I believe there are criminal penalties for falsely pulling a fire alarm. So falsely yelling fire would fall into the same logical interpretation of law, wouldn’t it? If someone were trampled to death due to your falsely engaging the alarm, the perpetrator would be charged with the death. Similar to these school shooters parents or bartenders serving drunks.
Anyone who would blindly panic and rush for the exit because someone else shouted “fire”, without any corroborating evidence (do I see, hear, or smell anything that would be present if a fire existed?) is an idiot. If someone did yell “fire” without actually believing the claim to be true, certainly he could, and probably should, be held liable in civil proceedings for any damages that were the direct result, but presumptive criminal liability is ridiculous.
You appear to have some serious logic and critical thinking skill flaws. What about children in the theater, what about elderly people? We see it all the time in Europe a rush of the gate at a soccer game, a bunch of groupie kids at a concert. If the perpetrator incited the action then they would and should be held criminally liable for damages to persons and/or property. Inciting a riot is a serious offense, as an example BLM stoking the fires at a unruly crowd in effort to cause violence is not free speech, it’s inciting a riot.
Ummm, not waiting to see the flames. A slow movement toward an exit is appropriate
I have stated before, they are upset we are not listening to what they are saying. We have switched off MSM, their primary propaganda mouthpiece. We reject their advocacy journalism for real, objective journalism. We maintain our ability to do our own research, think for ourselves, make our own decisions that are best for us and reflect our values. We reject their elitism and their condescending attitude that they are our superiors.
Thumbs Up Upstate!
It must also bother you we know the gigantic scope of your idiocy as well.
Waltz is a FOOOOOOOOOOOL? as well as a Left Wing Bernie Sanders Radical. If you look behind Waltz and Harris you will find the Bernie Sanders crowd pulling the strings a long with Obama.
Turley,
You did not provide appropriate context for what Walz said in the MSNBC interview.
Walz is clearly talking about a particular kind of election misinformation: Lies about the where, when, how, and who of voting.
Thirteen states have statutes that prohibit false statements about voting requirements or procedures. Statutes within this category prohibit statements about what is required to vote or register, who can vote, when to vote, or how to vote. California, Maryland, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia prohibit false information about voter registration or qualifications, targeting misrepresentations about a prospective voter’s eligibility to vote in an election. Hawaii, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Virginia prohibit false information regarding the time, place, or manner of an election. Missouri, Montana, and New Mexico prohibit false information about voting instructions or election procedures, while Connecticut and Rhode Island prohibit false or misleading instructions regarding the use of voting machinery that would cause a voter to either lose or incorrectly register his or her vote. Connecticut also prohibits any misrepresentation of the eligibility requirements for voting by absentee ballot itself.
Courts have routinely upheld these statutes, even after Alvarez. These cases suggest that government restrictions on knowing lies concerning certain objectively verifiable matters, such as the time and place of an election, that are made to confuse voters, survive First Amendment scrutiny. Assuming someone is deceived, such falsehoods work a “legally cognizable” or “specific harm,” satisfying the Supreme Court’s concern that statutes criminalize more than simple false speech. See Alvarez, 567 U.S. at 719 (plurality op.); id. at 734 (Breyer, J.).
You could have said all of that in one or two sentences. Instead i had to risk a bedsore to read it. Be like a Spartan, laconic.
GEB, recall our recent conversation about medical science journals. I don’t know if you still read New England Journal of Medicine. I receive it gratis via email weekly because of my affiliation with the university. The following is what NEJM is presently covering which explains why I think they are a disgraceful journal today. On rare occasions they publish results from a medical trial that is worth considering, but otherwise I only consult them when they are cited in other medical journals I study. Their coverage of COVID was truly medical malpractice.
Behold NEJM election interference, taken from today’s email table of contents that I received, which made me think of you
PERSPECTIVE
Celebrating Public Health
E.J. Rubin
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2412061 | September 26, 2024
The U.S. Elections and Health Policy: Health Equity in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election
M. Alsan and R. Yearby
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2410598 | October 2, 2024
The U.S. Elections and Health Policy: Health Coverage, Access, and the 2024 U.S. Elections
S. Glied and B.D. Sommers
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2410671 | October 2, 2024
The U.S. Elections and Health Policy: Affordability of Health Care in the United States — Old Problems Awaiting a New Administration
J.M. McWilliams and S.B. Dusetzina
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2410638 | October 2, 2024
The U.S. Elections and Health Policy: Health Care Reform and the 2024 U.S. Elections — Low Visibility, High Stakes
J. Oberlander
N Engl J Med 2024;391:1169-1171 | Published Online September 28, 2024
Avoiding Financial Toxicity for Patients from Clinicians’ Use of AI
S.S. Jain, M.M. Mello, and N.H. Shah
N Engl J Med 2024;391:1171-1173 | Published Online September 28, 2024
The Supreme Court’s Shadowy Treatment of Public Health
S.H. Engels and Others
N Engl J Med 2024;391:1173-1175 | Published Online September 4, 2024
SPECIAL REPORT
Implications of the 2024 Election Outcome for U.S. Health Policy
R.J. Blendon, J.M. Benson, and N.B. Le
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr2411712 | October 2, 2024
Caring for Our Communities
S. Sankaran
N Engl J Med 2024;391:1175-1177 | Published Online September 28, 2024
Gosh Estovir
It’s almost like a planned pandemic unleashed by the Chicoms and their DNC pals to assure an economic impact and chaos immediately before an election. What a coinkydink…
Estovir-I ceased reading NEJM 30 + years ago. Arnold Relman, the Editor at the time, started a talk at a Boston meeting by saying to us physicians “trust our government because they know what they are doing and they will take care of us”. The gasps of incredulity and surprise from the audience was such to confirm that NEJM had lost contact with their readers. I concentrated on The Green Journal, Chest, ARRD and specialty journals. While Relman was off in never never land the clinical in-person education and CME at Harvard remained superb and I was there nearly every year. Got to know Jane Wilson well (internal medicine). I was a rarity there, trained in the south but practicing in the midwest and rarely saw anyone from the south or midwest at the meetings. Loved Boston
I am sorry that reading is so hard for you? Why then do you frequent this blog if not to… Read?
Another anon (tpp cowardly to put a name to a comment, telling us Turley is slanting his opinion….”did not provide appropriate context.” So what? His website, his opinions. And you think the nonsense you posted enligtens us?
What did I say that was nonsense? Be specific.
I am not sure but didn’t Obama put in place an executive order that would allow politicians and MSM to lie with immunity in regard to this?
In regard to the 1966 FOIA, Denver Post Article.
Walz was talking about censoring disagreement with government Covid19 policies regarding masks, vaccinations, employment, social distancing mandates, etc., all of which proved to be wrong.
Misleading someone about the election date is fraud. Policy disagreements are not fraud.
This was the full quote:
“Years ago, it was the little things, telling people to vote the day after the election. And we kind of brushed them off. Now we know it’s intimidation at the ballot box. It’s undermining the idea that mail-in ballots aren’t legal. I think we need to push back on this. There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy. Tell the truth, where the voting places are, who can vote, who’s able to be there….”
So, Walz was indeed talking about “misleading someone about the election date.” Turley intentionally removed this important context, distorting the quote’s meaning. Do you agree?
You intentionally misrepresented the “context” of Walz’ statement. Really funny for someone who likes to talk about context.
HERE IS THE ACTUAL TEXT of that exchange:
JDV: Tim, I’m focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?
TW: That is a damning. That is a damning non answer.
JDV: It’s a damning non answer for you to not talk about censorship. Obviously, Donald Trump and I think that there were problems in 2020. We’ve talked about it. I’m happy to talk about it further. But you guys attack us for not believing in democracy. The most sacred right under the United States democracy is the First Amendment. You yourself have said there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to use the power of government and big tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this present political moment. I would like Democrats and Republicans to both reject censorship. Let’s persuade one another. Let’s argue about ideas, and then let’s come together afterwards.
TW: You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme court test.
JDV: Tim. Fire in a crowded theater. You guys wanted to kick people off of Facebook for saying that toddlers should not wear masks.
NO: Senator, the governor does have the floor.
TW: Sorry.
JDV: That’s not fire in a crowded theater. That is criticizing the policies of the government, which is the right of every American.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-vp-debate-transcript-walz-vance-2024/
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“[YOU] [Anonymous at 11:34] intentionally removed this important context, distorting the quote’s meaning. Do you agree?”
Harris Walz seem to be long marching right through their manifesto. Maybe this is why the Harris platform has been so hazy. Criminalize/control speech. even strong-arming the private sector to do it for you, disarm the public (or use mandatory “buy backs” to achieve it, in other words, use tax-payer dollars to take away your rights), control education at all levels, govt price controls on food, open borders, lavish benefits on illegal aliens, pursue blatantly political prosecutions and selective law enforcement, use the IRS/tax policy to harass and intimidate your opponents, normalize unusual psychiatric problems like transgenderism, openly mock Christianity and Judaism so they appear to be the enemy. We don’t have to worry about China wanting to take us over when they have these two working for them.
As all normal (non-progressive) Americans know, ‘disinformation, misinformation and “malinformation’ on social media is simply information that is in fact true, but hurts the democratic party….that’s the information that they want censored.
Professor Turley,
There is no way that this administration is more anti-free speech than Woodrow Wilson’s.
Indeed, the very administration that jailed Shenck and Baer in the first place. I have no idea why Turley consistently avoids the boatload of blame for Wilson (Woodrow and Edith) ruining politics. The irony of their oppression is that our staying out of WWI might have led to a better peace. The main antagonists were just about exhausted and a better peace avoiding the influence of Wilson and the French might have avoided a lot of unpleasantness to follow. Maybe the Germans might not have sent Lenin to Moscow.
Throughout history the people who have favored censorship have never been the good guys.
DeSantis favors censorship. Is he a good guy?
Prove it.
Here are just two examples:
https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-gov-ron-desantis-must-veto-social-media-censorship-bill
https://www.thefire.org/news/thought-stop-woke-act-was-bad-new-florida-bill-worse
Liar
Dan Goldman is a putz
Do you suppose these elitist douche bags causing this will remain in country once the carnage and violence begins or run to a compound somewhere in another country?
Traveler,
They will run.
They, Walz and Harris and msm, have been told that the stupidest voting cohort in American history will believe it if they say it. It’s proving to be true.
Parents, Grandparents, and Caregivers, Please remove your children from public (Government) schools, Every alternative is superior.
USA 🇺🇸
The government should “hold people accountable for what they say.”
Some of us grasp the meaning of government holding dissenters “accountable:”
Gulags, midnight raids, disappearing, the banning and seizure of books, movies, and music, firing squads and purges, propaganda ministers, holding family and friends as hostages, dungeons and torture, a lifetime of house arrest, hemlock, recruiting citizens and children as spies.
Once government criminalizes settling disputes via debate, discussion, reason — it leaves people with only one means to settle those disputes: mad, open violence.
What exactly have you grasped Sam?
Those people win the race for spreading “disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation ” . The line about hate speech is a perfect example.
Walz, Harris, John Kerry and others vehemently hate free speech because their own ideas, and political proposals,
can’t stand the test in the “marketplace of ideas” (a phrase that many left-wing academic deplore, as being racist,
because they think there is no “equity” in such a “marketplace”). Anti-free speech advocates demand the suppression,
and censoring of any ideas that run contrary to their own. Censorship is the ONLY way they feel their ideas for governance
may prevail.
Of course, censorship rarely, if ever, works. It backfires with both individuals and communities and makes them think about
the to–be-censored thoughts even MORE than if there were no censorship at all. You tell people not to say some idea or phrase- that only makes them speak it more often! Scientific studies demonstrate this in several ways (something Prof. Turley does not get into with his marvelous new book).
Thanks to Prof. Turley for correcting the historical record about falsely “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and noting
how the present group of Democrats are among the worst in American history for their denial of what the
1st Amendment really says and means.
“Thanks to Prof. Turley for correcting the historical record about falsely “shouting fire in a crowded theater””
That record has been prominently corrected, and the contention refuted, on many, many previous occasions, by Professor Turley, and a host of others. The problem is that the wannabe authoritarians among us choose to ignore that refutation, since the meme is convenient to the censorship and repression they wish to install. Oliver Wendell Holmes should have stuck to his knitting as a writer of long narrative poems (e.g., “The Wonderful One-Hoss Shay”), as a SCOTUS Justice, he was an unmitigated disaster.
Let us also remember that Chief Justice Holmes penned “taxes are the price we pay for a free society” to justify the 16th Amendment and “three generations of imbeciles are enough” to justify forced sterilization. He and Chief Justice Roger Taney did considerable harm to our nation.
Does the 3 generations of imbeciles apply to the Bidens, because what are they going to do about all the grandchildren. Asking for a friend
Correct. Rather than represent the citizens, they want to use government to CHANGE the citizens. Don’t accept my word for it, take it from the late Rob Stein, who founded the Democracy Alliance, the group of far left millionaires and billionaires who each pledge to spend a minimum of $100,000 per year to fund far left activist groups to be part of his exclusive club of rich left wingers. The quote is from the book, “The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado”.
“The reason it is so important to control government is because government is the source of enormous power,” Stein continued. “One president in this country, when he or she takes office, appoints…5,000 people to run a bureaucracy, nonmilitary nonpostal service of 2 million people, who hire 10 million outside outsource contractors–a workforce of 12 million people–that spends $3 trillion a year. That number is larger than the gross domestic product of all but four countries on the face of the earth.” {The quote is from over a decade ago. Today the federal government confiscates and spends $4 TRILLION each year.}
“So the reason we’re doing what we’re doing…and the way we get progressive change, is to control government,” Stein said. “That’s what this is about.” – Rob Stein
============
It’s a two pronged strategy: the first prong began as attempts to delegitimize speech they don’t like, with constant criticism of Rush Limbaugh, including President Bill Clinton suggesting with no evidence that Timothy McVeigh blowing up Oklahoma City was influenced by radio talkers who everyone understood to mean Rush. Then they tried to harass Rush and Fox News sponsors to force them off the air. It all failed. So now they are literally attempting to censor speech they don’t like.
The second prong to the strategy is to dilute the votes of American taxpayers by massively importing tens of millions of legal and illegal immigrants. Chuck Schumer is on record saying he plans to turn every single illegal immigrant into a voter.
The purpose, of course, is to dilute the votes of American taxpaying citizens.
https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1794177559061840105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1794177559061840105%7Ctwgr%5E1c371b54dab5b70341a30e3ed4be9a49d7b89da7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fjazz-shaw%2F2024%2F05%2F28%2Fschumer-yes-we-want-to-make-all-illegal-migrants-into-voters-n3789160
Elitism and censorship are Siamese twins.
Eventually the 2nd Amendment kicks in.