During Tuesday’s vice presidential debate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz set off the fire alarm.
Opponent Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) cited the massive censorship system supported by Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mates.
Mr. Waltz went on to quote a passage from a 1919 case in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said there was no right to shout fire in a crowded theater.
This is the favorite mantra of the movement against free speech. That is also fundamentally wrong.
In my book, Essential Rights: Free Speech in an Age of Anger, I discuss the judge’s opinion in Schenck v. United States. Holmes writes: They shouted fire inside the theater, causing panic. ”
The ‘fire in the theater’ incident confirmed government censorship
As I discuss in the book, this line was largely removed from the briefs of previous free speech cases. Since then, it has become the rationale for politicians and pundits seeking to restrict free speech in America.
For example, when I testified in Congress last year in a federal court against a censorship system that was described as “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth,” New York Congressman Dan Goldman spoke out. Sandwiched. Questions within the theater argue that such censorship is necessary and constitutional. In other words, the internet is now a giant crowded theater where people with opposing views are screaming.
Both Mr. Goldman and Mr. Walz cited the cases in which socialists Charles Schenk and Elizabeth Bear were arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Their “crime” was distributing leaflets against conscription during World War I.
Schenck and Baer called on their fellow citizens not to “give in to intimidation” and to “assert your rights.” They said, “If you do not assert and uphold your rights, you are complicit in denying or disrespecting rights that are solemn obligations held by all citizens and residents of the United States.” “It will be,” he insisted. They also described conscription as “involuntary servitude.”
Holmes used the line “arson in a theater” to justify his abusive conviction and imprisonment. At a House hearing, when I tried to explain that the justices later removed themselves from the bench and effectively overturned Schenck in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, Goldman interrupted me and said, “Here’s I don’t need a law class.” ”
During the vice presidential debate, Walz indicated that he and other Democratic leaders definitely need a First Amendment lesson.
Opinion: Biden administration is a threat to free speech
As noted above, the Biden-Harris administration has proven to be the most anti-free speech administration in two centuries. To find an equivalent to this regime, we have to go back to the John Adams regime.
Harris has been an outspoken defender of censorship in an administration that supports targeting disinformation, disinformation and “malicious information.” The last category was defined by the Biden administration as information that is “based on fact but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
During the debate, Walz also returned to his favorite dismissal of anti-censorship, saying that all opposition to censorship is just inflammatory rhetoric.
Walz recently advocated censorship of disinformation on MSNBC, declaring, “There are no guarantees of free speech when it comes to disinformation and hate speech, especially when it comes to democracy.”
This is completely untrue and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the rights the Supreme Court has called “essential.” Even after some of us have ironically denounced his claims as dangerous disinformation, Waltz continues to repeat them.
Free speech advocates see Harris as a threat
This is why, for the free speech community, the prospects for a Harris-Waltz administration are horrifying. While President Joe Biden was seen as supporting censorship out of political opportunism, Harris and Walz are seen as true believers.
We are living through the most dangerous free speech protests in American history. Never before have we faced the current alliance of government, business, academia, and media forces working together against free speech. A Harris-Waltz government with a supportive Congress could make this right completely redundant.
OPINION: In the vice presidential debate, Vance did what Trump couldn’t do – linking Biden’s failure to Harris.
Some are laying the groundwork for that very moment. Barbara McQuaid, a University of Michigan Law School professor and MSNBC legal analyst, said free speech “can be an Achilles heel.”
Tim Wu, a former Biden aide and Columbia law professor, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times headlined “The First Amendment is out of control.” He told readers that free speech “currently primarily protects corporate interests” and threatens “the nation’s important work, such as national security and protecting the safety and privacy of its citizens.” Ta.
Walz said in the debate that Vice President Harris promotes “politics of joy,” but in reality, Harris and Walz are a dream team in the anti-free speech movement.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.