Watch: Kamala's VP Choice Says 'There's No Guarantee to Free Speech'
Editor’s Note: Our readers responded strongly to this story when it originally ran; we’re reposting it here in case you missed it.
There’s a moment during Patrick Swayze’s 1989 movie “Road House” — thought by many, including this writer, to be the height of unintentionally funny cinema — where you realize you’re watching one of the most hilariously fatuous things ever put to film.
In it, Swayze’s character, a highly paid, philosophically aware, tai chi-doing bar bouncer (seriously) is injured by some hired thugs in a fight at the dive he’s taken over in a small-town Missouri. Never mind that that sentence already sounds ridiculous: At the hospital, he’s treated by a young female doctor, who is of course comely and of course attracted to Swayze’s character. As she prepares to give him a local anesthetic, he declines, leading her to ask him whether he enjoys pain.
“Pain don’t hurt,” he responds.
Well, definitionally it does; that’s why it’s pain in the first place. If you hadn’t realized at that point, you did then: “Road House” is a farce of itself. Granted, there was already enough writing on the wall at that point (for instance, one is amazed and amused that Swayze’s character could be a famous, well-remunerated bouncer — and into mindfulness, too!), but at that point, the movie slips into self-parody. Just with a few words.
I mention this because, some time ago, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz — the man Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris wants as her wingman in case something happens to her, and potentially to help her govern, as well — had his “Road House” moment some years ago.
We’re just catching up to it now that the governor is vying to be second in command of the most powerful nation on Earth. He’s also given us plenty of writing on the wall, too — including vulgar and off-putting remarks during his unveiling in Philadelphia, questions about his military record, and his record as governor as Minnesota burned during the George Floyd riots of 2020.
But now we have his “pain don’t hurt” moment: A bit on MSNBC in 2022 where he basically said the First Amendment was bunkum.
“I think we need to push back on [disinformation],” Walz said in a December 2022 appearance on the Maddow Network.
He added: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”
Tim Walz: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy” pic.twitter.com/4pNBwb8Su7
— Matt Wolking (@MattWolking) August 7, 2024
“And especially around our democracy,” which has some of the most sweeping free-speech laws in the world enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution. Pain don’t hurt, ladies and gentlemen!
There’s never been any presidential or vice presidential candidate in modern times, and perhaps none since John Adams pushed the Alien and Seditions Act, who viewed the First Amendment’s free speech protections with such blatant disregard. And viewing the whole interview isn’t more exculpatory; Walz, speaking about voting reform measures favored by Democrats, was asked about “disinformation, telling people where to vote the wrong way.”
“These were censored shenanigans, but it’s becoming more ominous,” the host said. “Can you talk about that and what you will do to ensure that there are penalties for that?”
Walz went on to talk about “intimidation at the ballot box” and “undermining the idea that mail-in ballots aren’t legal” as disinformation he would punish.
Instead, he said people should be mandated to “tell the truth, where the voting places are, who can vote, who is able to be there.
“And watching some states continue to weaken the protections around the ballot — I think this is what is inspiring us to lean into this.”
This vague word salad provides one clue to why the vice president picked Walz to be her potential vice president: He almost makes her word salads look good.
But I digress. The key issue is that Walz has a dim view of free speech as it pertains to elections, particularly if it involves speaking ill about mail-in ballots and for other voter security measures. He’s also quite vague, which is an ominous sign when you’re talking about limiting a fundamental right that Americans have to speak freely.
Also, note his language. He uses the word “misinformation” — which sounds like a synonym of disinformation, but to the left, it’s not. Disinformation, as they define it, is deliberate attempts to pump fake news into the narrative ecosystem, usually by bad actors. Misinformation, meanwhile, merely refers to any information The Powers That Be™ deem to be “wrong.” There’s no intent involved.
To interpret the First Amendment as not encompassing misinformation, therefore, is to say someone does not have the right to get the facts wrong, at least in the eyes of those who keep the official narrative. It’s impossible to overstate how dangerous and self-evidently wrong this line of thinking is.
Furthermore, there’s hardly a rash of voter misinformation or disinformation so serious that people are voting on the wrong day. I thought spurious allegations of voter fraud were the bane of Democrats. Guess not, so long as it’s the other side.
Of course, it’s not really actual willful disinformation that Walz seems interested in banning. To paraphrase Elon Musk’s remarks to Don Lemon in the infamous X interview the two had, he wants censorship so bad he can taste it.
Keep in mind that the founders were well aware of disinformation when the First Amendment was written. Media was even more biased in that day, thanks to the fact most of it was strictly partisan — and not just voluntarily but by design. We’ve lived through the age of yellow journalism, hate literature propagandizing for groups like the KKK (which, contrary to Walz’s characterization of “hate speech” as not guaranteed, is guaranteed), the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate crisis and the Chris Cuomo-Don Lemon two-hour block of CNN programming every weekday evening.
Through all those challenges, we’ve managed to weather the storm and keep our democracy. Now, there’s such a vague menace out there that Tim Walz wants to severely crimp our free speech protections.
Knowing this, as Harris’ team assumedly did, they picked this guy to be her running mate.
Pain don’t hurt. There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.
Tim Walz’s vice presidential ambitions would be just as funny as “Road House” if they weren’t so serious.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
