VP candidate Tim Walz, in his debate with J. D. Vance, claimed that federal controls over speech are justified and legal, since the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can step in when people are doing the equivalent of shouting “fire.” Walz was wrong about the law (that’s not what the Court has ruled about the First Amendment), and his argument in favor of federal censorship is pathetically flawed.

In this Brownstone Institute post, economics professor Daniel Klein explains why.

A slice:

Does the shouter’s action resemble the activity that Walz would censor? Whether it be public health claims or political claims, the resemblance is slight.

First, whether there is a fire in the theater is straightforward. After a bit of investigating, everyone will agree, either that there is a fire or there is not a fire. But the claims Walz would censor are not like that. They are complex matters of social affairs and call for judgment, after considering vying interpretations of things. People will not immediately agree.

The Constitution’s drafters knew that no politicians could be trusted with the power to censor speech, but progressives like Walz (and a great many academics) claim that they can be trusted, that they will merely protect people from “disinformation.” They can’t be trusted. They’ll constantly push the boundaries of censorship until they have silenced all criticism of their agendas. We need to protect the freedom of speech against all those who say they’re just trying to safeguard society.