"Free speech...is, an unmitigated disaster...we need really aggressive government regulation"

Is there no limit?

No limit to how much yall libs lie, lie, LIE????????????????

video - https://x.com/i/status/1850950058419601470

If you know ANYTHING about Kamabla, Walz, Gretchen Whitmer, Newscum, Hillary, OBlabla & Big Mike: you know they want to control ie. neutralize 2A.

Also - if you know history - Gun Control was created by KKK first in late 1800s to control Blacks.............make KKK assaults easier.

Yes: Pro-gun / pro-2A, is PRO-BLACK.

& I am both. & always been.......

Also - Trump was Jesse Jackson "money man" (key backer) in Jesse Jackson presidential runs. So much for "racism"

Please, please, somebody prove Kamabla clip is AI fake.

Otherwise, yall libs are worse liars than I - even I !! - imagined.

video - https://x.com/i/status/1849971962644426875

https://x.com/i/status/1846975529649389993

We can take it piece by piece.

1. Tim Walz "There's no guarantee to Free Speech on misinformation" - WRONG.

OH YES THERE IS.

All new information starts as some bureaucrat's idea of "misinformation".

USA First Amendment is there so people can contradict Tampon Walz.

2. Hillary "If they don't [censor], WE lose total control."

Exactly, Hillary you evil witch.

It was called "THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION".

for YOU to "lose total control", was its point.

3. John Kerry, "Our first amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just hammer [uncomfortable speech] out of existence".

Ummmmmm..... Remember Kerry, how YOU began as 1971 Vietnam protestor?

You forgot, didn't you? As you married Billionaire heiress wealth.

4. Kamabla "They are directly speaking to millions of people without any oversight or regulation and that has to stop."

Libs - You want people to vote for "stopping it" ?

Seriously, libs?

Really?

FUCK YOU.

https://rumble.com/v5hboga-harris-and-walz-ignorantly-call-for-dangerous-speech-crackdowns.html

tldr;

USA exceptions to Free Speech are 1. very few, 2. to be applied narrowly & rarely, not pre-emptively.

And they are

• defamation (famously tough to prove in USA, especially its "intent" aspects such as malice, or whether someone merely expressed opinion, emotion & hyperbole)

• incitement to -imminent- lawless action. (picture Antifa, "Burn that building! Laser that cop's eyes!")

• true threats

• (not mentioned by Glenn) intentionally false commercial ads; child porn; time & place restrictions on adult porn

What is NOT restricted - in other words, what SHOULD be fine.

• to "shout Fire in a crowded theater" is, in fact, fine. (Walz wrong)

• same with so-called "hate speech" - other than direct-personal-actual incitement or threat, people should be free to speak their minds

• to say covid came from Wuhan lab leak

• to say Hunter Biden laptop is real & proves Biden Crime Family

• to say covid vaxx kill..... don't take them

• to say Ukraine cancels elections, Azov Brigade literally worships Bandera & Hitler

• to say war is bad

• to say Draft should be ended, or not obeyed

• to say Tren de Aragua takes over apartments, terrorizes innocents, must be stopped

• Build a Wall

• to say DEI is racism, must be abolished

• to say someone's birth name & pronouns

• satire

Yet libs, in last several years, censor all those. FBI & CIA infiltrate media companies, to help it along. DOJ prosecutes "offenders".

Corrupt!

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/resurfaced-clip-kamala-harris-fantasizes-about-weaponizing-doj-against-social-media

Speaking [in 2019] at the annual NAACP 'Fight for Freedom Fund' dinner in Detroit, Harris threatened: "We will put the Department of Justice of the United States back in the business of justice. We will double the civil rights division, and direct Law Enforcement to counter this extremism.

"We will hold Social Media Platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms - because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our Democracy. And if you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare. If you don't police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable as a community."

And what happened next? [DOJ, FBI]....

• ...showered millions on 'misinformation' czars (some of whom were later disbanded).

• ...prosecuted a guy who made a meme about Hillary Clinton suggesting that people could vote by text, while taking no action against a Democrat who did the exact same thing.

• ...infiltrated Twitter to censor COVID 'misinformation' and the Hunter Biden laptop...

• ...Biden-Harris...demanded that social media platforms censor 'misinformation' during the pandemic....[and censor] over "gender-affirming care" for minors [which is permanent child mutilation]...

So, we know what Kamabla is like.

Typical retarded, hate-filled lib

In particular,

the government's power to restrict freedom of speech [should be] restricted to banning advocacy which is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action

Thank you!!

Which brings me to Kamabla...........

SCOTUS established idea in 1919 case....... -then overturned it- in 1969 case.

Wow, you are dumb and ignorant.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater was used, in dicta (i.e., not part of the holding of the case) by Justice Holmes in Schenck v, US (1919) as a hyperbolic example of the kinds of speech that the government could punish someone for because it represented incitement to immediate danger/harm.

It wasn't "overturned" (since the concept of 'overturning dicta' is nonsensical) by Brandenburg v. OH. In fact, the Brandenburg court pretty much agreed with that example, since the holding of Brandenburg was that the government's power to restrict freedom of speech was restricted to banning advocacy which is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The quintessential example of such speech that the government can prohibit is still regarded to be shouting fire in a crowded theater. That's even what you're taught in law school. it is the classic example.

And you should be aware that the government still punishes people for such things. Wasn't it just last year that they punished a Democrat representative for misdemeanor for pulling the fire alarm in Congress to delay a vote?

https://x.com/i/status/1841599392501137437

SCOTUS established idea in 1919 case....... -then overturned it- in 1969 case.

Yup. School Shooter Walz himself spread misinformation.

Want to ban him now, libs?

https://x.com/PirateWires/status/1841594251983126830

JD Vance argued...“[We do] have a threat to democracy […] It’s big technology companies silencing their fellow citizens, and it’s Kamala Harris saying that rather than debate and persuade her fellow Americans, she'd like to censor people who engage in misinformation.” Vance said.

“You guys attack us for not believing in democracy,” he continued, referring to January 6. “But the most sacred right to the United States democracy is the First Amendment. You yourself have said, ‘There’s no First Amendment right to misinformation’—”

“Or threatening. Or hate speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater… That’s the Supreme Court test.” Walz interjected.

See how School Shooter concedes?

In 2023, School Shooter indeed said, "There's no First Amendment right to misinformation".

& didn't correct it, when JD brought it in debate.

But yes there is 1A right to misinformation. Because it's often true, what needs to be said, except government & other powerful people don't want it said.