One of the things that Elon Musk just warned about at former President Donald Trump’s rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, was the danger that the Democrats posed to free speech and how important it was to vote for Trump to preserve our Constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag during an interview with CNN on Saturday, where she spoke about the need to control social media. She said it should be “at the top” of every legislative agenda:
🔥🚨BREAKING: Hillary Clinton went to CNN to announce that they are losing control and that Social Media companies should increase their censorship on Conservative misinformation.
Hillary Clinton: “we lose total control.” pic.twitter.com/k9VEhegFP7
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) October 5, 2024
We should be, in my view, repealing something called section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted. But we now know that that was an overly simple view. Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm.
“We lose total control.” That’s the real problem to them right there, that’s why Democrats are so upset. Yes, that’s the point of the First Amendment — the government is not supposed to be in “control” of the speech of the people. Sounds pretty fascistic to me.
People can now see and hear the truth without having it be filtered through liberal media organs. We can now know when the media is lying to us. We may all have — gasp — freedom of thought and not agree with the liberal media narrative that is being pushed at us constantly. We can now see reality. When we see reality, we can see what the Democrats really are about. And it should frighten all of us.
The current Democratic candidates for president and VP have showed they have the same kinds of thoughts as Hillary Clinton.
Kamala: “If you don’t police your social media platform we will hold you accountable.”
Walz: “There’s no guarantee to free speech.”
Hillary: “Americans should be criminally charged for misinformation.”
This is what’s in store for free speech in America should Kamala win. pic.twitter.com/h0nexB5cDi
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 18, 2024
Tim Walz — a former member of Congress and the governor of a state — revealed he has no idea what the First Amendment is about during the vice presidential debate with Sen. JD Vance (R-OH):
JD Vance forced Tim Walz to admit that he intends to criminalize “hate speech” and “misinformation” because he doesn’t believe the First Amendment protects speech he disagrees with, including criticizing the policies of the Biden-Harris establishment. pic.twitter.com/ikwEYIoloB
— Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) October 2, 2024
He thinks “hate speech” or misinformation is forbidden — wrong on both. He thinks “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Joe Biden keeps saying this too and they’re both wrong.
Here’s what I’ve previously written on that:
This is what the government politicians say, right before they are about to impinge on your rights. The phrase about yelling fire in a crowded theater is often used by people trying to curb speech without really understanding the context in which it was used. It was in non-binding dicta in a case that was then later overturned so it was never a binding thought on anything. So when people use it, it reveals they’re not aware of the law.
From The Atlantic:
As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”
The First Amendment was specifically created to protect incendiary speech, speech people may not have liked or might find wrong. That’s the very purpose of the Amendment.
Here’s George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley talking about how these are dangerous times for free speech with these thoughts.
“THE MOST DANGEROUS ANTI-FREE SPEECH PERIOD IN OUR HISTORY”
Jonathan Turley BLASTS Harris/Walz on their anti-free speech positions — and the alliance of “government, corporations, media, academia — all aligned in favor of censorship.”
🚨 | 🔊
“Governor Walz has been out there… pic.twitter.com/qHGBKIJTcd
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) October 5, 2024
Governor Walz has been out there saying that misinformation and hate speech are not protected under the Constitution. And there’s a crushing irony there. I mean, in calling for the censorship of other citizens accused of disinformation, the governor is spreading disinformation. He’s been told repeatedly by many of us that he’s wrong, that that’s just completely and demonstrably wrong. The Constitution does protect those forms of speech.”
That’s also incredibly ironic for someone like Clinton as well, who was a purveyor of misinformation.
Turley also called out Hillary Clinton for pushing censorship.
But this disturbing CNN comment on Saturday from Hillary Clinton is actually a good sign, on a couple of levels.
She’s revealing where they want to go, so we can fight it. And she’s doing it because it means they know they are losing control. And that’s why we must defeat them:
Can you smell the sulphur from here? 😈 https://t.co/qWEaUTH9iS
— CyberChick (@warriors_mom) October 6, 2024
