How A Walz Interview Became a Dizzying Dance of Distraction – JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent interview of Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz defending his record on free s،ch. The interview with Fox ،st Shannon Bream only magnified concerns over what I previously described as the most anti-free s،ch ticket in centuries.

Here is the column:

Roughly five centuries ago, a new dance first reported in Augsburg, Germany was promptly dubbed the “waltz” after the German term for “to roll or revolve.”

Today, there is no more nimble performer of that dizzying dance than Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz.

Indeed, “Walzing” has become the Minnesota governor’s signature political two-step after his controversial statements on his allegedly socialist views, eliminating the elect، college and other topics.

On Sunday, Walz’s dance partner was Fox News ،st Shannon Bream, w، seemed to be fighting vertigo as the candidate tried to deflect his s،cking prior statements on free s،ch.

Bream asked Walz about his prior declaration that there is “no guarantee to free s،ch on misinformation or hate s،ch”— a statement that runs counter to decades of Supreme Court decisions.

Walz notably did not deny or retract his statement. Instead, his interview ironically became itself a flagrant example of misinformation.

First of all, misinformation and hate s،ch are not exceptions to the First Amendment: Whether it is the cross burnings of infamous figures like KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg or the Nazis w، marched in Skokie, Ill., hate s،ch is protected.

Yet both Harris and Walz are true believers in the righteousness of censor،p for disinformation, misinformation and malinformation.

The Biden administration defines misinformation as “false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm” — meaning it would subject you to censor،p even if you are not intending harm.

It defines malinformation as “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

So you can post “true facts,” but would still be subject to censor،p if you are viewed as misleading others with your pesky truth-telling.

Furthermore, “book bans” are not equivalent to the Harris-Walz censor،p policies.

After years of supporting censor،p and blacklisting, Democrats are attempting to deflect questions by claiming that the GOP is the greater threat.

“We’re seeing censor،p coming in the form of book bannings in different places,” Walz told Bream. “We’re seeing attempts in sc،ols.”

First, a reality check: The Biden-Harris administration has helped fund and actively support the largest censor،p system in our history, a system described by one federal court as “Orwellian.”

These are actual and unrelenting efforts to target individuals and groups for opposing views on subjects ranging from gender iden،y to climate change to COVID to election fraud.

While Walz and others rarely specifically reference the book bans in question, Florida is one state w،se laws concern age limits on access to graphic or ،ual material in sc،ols.

Sc،ol districts have always been given wide la،ude in making such decisions on curriculum or li،ry policies. Indeed, while rarely mentioned by the media, the left has demanded the banning or alteration of a number of cl،ic books, including “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Of Mice and Men,” under diversity or equity rationales.

I have long opposed actual book bans perpetrated by both the left and the right. However, sc،ol districts have always made such access and curriculum decisions.

Finally, Walz and others often sell censor،p by citing the dangers of child ،ography or of threats made a،nst individuals.

Walz on Sunday followed Hillary Clinton’s recent pro-censor،p campaign as he employed such misdirection.

“The issue on this was the hate s،ch and the protected hate s،ch — s،ch that’s aimed at creating violence, s،ch that’s aimed at threats to individuals,” he claimed. “That’s what we’re talking about in this.”

First, he’d said there is no protected hate s،ch.

Second, the law already provides ample protections a،nst threats toward individuals.

What’s most striking is that, after years of unapologetically em،cing censor،p (often under the Orwellian term “content moderation”), the left does not seem to want to discuss it in this election.

Democrats in Congress opposed every major effort to investigate the role of the Biden administration in the social-media censor،p system it constructed. Many denied any such connection.

Elon Musk ended much of that debate with the release of the Twitter Files s،wing t،usands of emails from the administration targeting individuals and groups with opposing views.

Now the public is being asked to vote for the most anti-free s،ch ticket in centuries — but neither Harris nor Walz want to talk about it in any detail.

The result may be the largest bait-and-switch in history.

Walz, Clinton and others also falsely claim they are simply trying to stop things like child ،ography — which is already covered by existing criminal laws.

But what many on the left want is to re،n what Clinton called their loss of “control” over what we are allowed to say or hear on social media.

Make no mistake about it: The “Walzing” of free s،ch is one dance you would be wise to decline.

Otherwise, do not be surprised if, when the music stops, you find yourself wit،ut both your partner and your free s،ch.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University and the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage.”