(LifeSiteNews) — Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested Monday that Americans should be “civilly” or “criminally” charged for so-called pro-Trump “propaganda” akin to what she deemed “election interference” in 2016.
Just as she believes it’s “important to indict the Russians,” as former Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted Russians “who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016,” Clinton believes Americans “who are engaged in this kind of propaganda” should be targeted, she told Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.
“And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States,” Clinton said.
As Reuters has noted, a U.S. Senate intelligence committee report was released in 2020 describing supposed Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S presidential election. The report considered the WikiLeaks website to be part of such Russian “interference,” because it published emails sent to and from Clinton that were seen as damaging to her former presidential campaign.
The implications of this render Clinton’s remarks on MSNBC especially disturbing, because Clinton and her fellow Democrats cannot even claim that these emails constitute “misinformation.” They are well documented, and she and her former campaign have not denied their authenticity.
While Clinton’s suggestion that Americans be criminally charged for election “propaganda” already raises grave concerns about First Amendment violations, regardless of the nature of the content shared, the potential civil or criminal charging of Americans for sharing information that is demonstrably true would certainly embody full-blown government tyranny, the death of democracy, and the death of a free society.
As CatholicVote has noted, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, has echoed Clinton’s diatribe against free speech, raising further concerns that a Harris win could make Clinton’s dream a reality.
“There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy,” Walz said on MSNBC in December 2022.
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
David Inserra and Jennifer Huddleston of the Cato Institute affirm that the idea that free speech restriction under accusations of “misinformation” and “hate speech” is unconstitutional:
“While such a sentiment has become disturbingly popular with some Americans and policymakers like Governor Walz, it is incorrect,” they wrote in a National Review piece earlier this month.
“The First Amendment does guarantee free speech when it comes to both misinformation and hate speech. Individuals and public officials may detest and condemn such speech, and platforms may choose not to carry it, but to insert the government into regulation of such expression would both set a troubling precedent and undermine our current First Amendment principles in ways that should concern Americans across the political spectrum.”