The Radical Left seems to be rallying around Tim Walz as Harris’ VP pick. But the American people are not buying it.
And Tim Walz had made a horrific anti-First Amendment claim, and Americans are terrified.
If anyone needed more proof that the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz ticket would not only continue but also intensify Joe Biden’s leftward lurch, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has delivered it.
In a 2022 interview on MSNBC’s The ReidOut, Walz made a chilling statement that has sparked concern among conservatives and constitutionalists alike.
Walz claimed, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, especially around our democracy.”
This declaration, alarming in its vagueness and potential implications, raises fundamental questions about what Walz considers to be “misinformation” and “hate speech.”
His refusal to define these terms during the interview leaves open the possibility for broad and subjective interpretations—an approach that could easily lead to the suppression of legitimate political discourse under the guise of protecting democracy.
Walz’s comments have been interpreted by many as an attack on the First Amendment, the cornerstone of American democracy. The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to free speech, a right that has historically been viewed as essential to the functioning of a free and open society.
The idea that any government official could suggest limiting this right based on subjective criteria such as “misinformation” is a direct challenge to the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Moreover, Walz’s statements seem to align with a broader trend within the Democratic Party, where there has been increasing rhetoric around the idea that certain forms of speech—particularly those labeled as “misinformation” or “hate speech”—should not be protected.
This is reminiscent of President Biden’s infamous remark that “no right is absolute,” which he made in the context of gun control and the Second Amendment. Walz’s attempt to apply this reasoning to the First Amendment is deeply concerning.
Walz’s lack of specificity in defining “misinformation” is particularly troubling. During the interview, he vaguely mentioned that misinformation has been “prevalent regarding elections, J6, and COVID.”
However, the term “misinformation” has often been used by left-leaning politicians and media outlets to discredit and censor viewpoints that diverge from their own. This raises the question: who gets to decide what constitutes misinformation?
A recent and controversial example of this slippery slope is the prosecution of Douglass Mackey, a meme creator who was convicted for posting a satirical meme during the 2016 election suggesting that Hillary Clinton supporters could vote via text.
Despite the Department of Justice being unable to find a single person who believed the meme or attempted to vote by text, Mackey was sentenced to prison. This contrasts sharply with the treatment of Kristina Wong, who posted a video in 2016 instructing Trump supporters to vote on the wrong day.
Wong faced no legal consequences, presumably because her joke was seen as harmless. The double standard is evident and raises serious concerns about the selective enforcement of laws based on political ideology.
The implications of Walz’s comments extend far beyond the immediate political arena. By suggesting that the First Amendment should not protect certain types of speech, Walz is setting a dangerous precedent.
The freedom to express dissenting opinions, even those that are controversial or unpopular, is a fundamental right in the United States. Once the government begins to limit this right based on subjective definitions of misinformation or hate speech, the door is opened to further erosions of civil liberties.
What’s more, Walz’s track record as governor of Minnesota shows a consistent pattern of radicalism. He has prioritized making Minnesota a “trans refuge” for minors seeking s*x changes, a policy that has been criticized as extreme and harmful by many conservatives.
Furthermore, Walz has gone as far as to condemn himself for his “white male privilege” while simultaneously making himself the chair of a board on diversity, equity, and inclusion—another move that has raised eyebrows for its performative nature.
At its core, Walz’s rhetoric reflects a growing disdain within certain segments of the Democratic Party for the foundational principles of the United States Constitution.
By attacking the very rights that allow for open and free debate, Walz and his allies are not only stifling political opposition but also undermining the democratic process itself.
The Harris-Walz ticket appears poised to carry forward and even accelerate the Biden administration’s most radical initiatives.
For those who value constitutional freedoms, this is a deeply troubling prospect.
The First Amendment, upon which all other rights rely, must be defended against any attempts to curtail it, whether those attempts come from misguided politicians or the unelected bureaucrats who may seek to enforce their dictates.
Stay tuned to the Conservative Column for more of the TRUTH in the news.
