Hillary Clinton’s Propaganda Remarks Raise Free Speech Concerns

1. 86

   Sharlee01posted 6 months ago

   
   Photo from Bing Free to use files.
   
   I hope my opinion piece will spark meaningful discussion and provide food for thought
   
   Hillary Clinton has recently sparked controversy with comments regarding the potential criminal or civil punishment of Americans spreading propaganda, particularly that connected to Russian interference. In a September 2024 interview, she suggested that some U.S. citizens who knowingly or unknowingly participate in disseminating foreign propaganda, particularly from Russia, could face legal consequences. Clinton emphasized the need for stronger deterrence against such actions, referencing prior indictments of Russian agents involved in the 2016 election meddling.
   
   Critics have expressed concern that Clinton's comments infringe on free speech rights. Many argue that her stance is an overreach, potentially criminalizing dissent or speech that conflicts with mainstream narratives.
   
   NOTE ---  Clinton walked - back the statement, and clarified that her focus was on individuals who are effectively amplifying foreign disinformation, rather than simply making controversial or erroneous statements online.
   
   In my view, her statements have raised questions about the balance between maintaining national security and upholding constitutional freedoms, a debate that continues to resonate in U.S. politics. Clinton’s remarks highlight a growing tension between combating disinformation and protecting the First Amendment, with many interpreting her stance as part of a larger push by some Democrats to impose stricter regulations on harmful speech in the digital age.
   
   Hillary Clinton's recent comments about holding people legally accountable for spreading propaganda certainly raise concerns about potential conflicts with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, which protects individuals' rights to express ideas, opinions, and even incorrect or unpopular views without government interference.
   
   Clinton's rhetoric touches on this fundamental principle by suggesting that some forms of speech, particularly related to spreading foreign disinformation, should be met with legal consequences. While there are exceptions to free speech—such as incitement to violence, defamation, or national security threats—any law or government action restricting speech must be narrowly defined to avoid unconstitutional overreach.
   
   I argue that such proposals could set a dangerous precedent by criminalizing speech based on its content, which is a key issue protected under the First Amendment. Any attempts to limit speech, even for purposes like curbing disinformation, must carefully balance national security and democratic freedoms to avoid eroding the fundamental rights that underpin democracy.
   
   Thoughts---

   replyreport
   1. 89

      tsmogposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      A little wandering . . .
      
      As to whether Clinton was haphazard with her statement I think so, thus am in agreement with what you shared pretty much. Today, two issues I follow or ponder about a lot is freedom of speech and the right to privacy. One we hear about all the time the other is somewhat silent. In other words the connectivity of what is said and how it was obtained more so with the private citizen. For example, a person's 'opinion' said privately being spread on social media and etc.
      
      With free speech there is a lot to think about in different areas - legal, philosophical, and sociologically, when pondering disinformation. Just for clarification and to keep it atop of my mind with this response following are some definitions. So, skim past if desired.
      
      Disinformation; "false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media." (Oxford Languages)
      
      A little history; "Where did the term disinformation come from?
      The United States Intelligence Community appropriated use of the term disinformation in the 1950s from the Russian dezinformatsiya, and began to use similar strategies during the Cold War and in conflict with other nations." Yet, we all probably could surmise it is just a fact of life; e.g. rumor mills.
      
      A perspective I take is the connectededness of disinformation with misinformation. In other words, the original deliberate false information would be disinformation while the spread of it has a propensity of being misinformation or innocently passing on the false information. It is a question of intention. How would that be determined? A daunting task? So, and so said it, so it must be true, right? Would there be a lot of false prosecutions?
      
      "The key difference between misinformation and disinformation is that misinformation refers to false or inaccurate information that is unintentionally spread, while disinformation refers to false or misleading information that is intentionally spread with the purpose of deceiving or manipulating others."
      
      So, even if legislation existed to prosecute disinformation, how would it be determined?
      
      From my understanding there are federal laws regarding foreign interference, but not domestic regarding disinformation specific to elections.
      
      Looking about for more I discovered Michigan has introduced legislation to combat disinformation. And, I think passed legislation regarding AI usage with elections.
      
      Bill to outlaw lying about election information introduced in the Michigan Senate by Michigan Public/NPR (Feb 7, 2024)
      https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics … gan-senate
      
      "The bill would cover spreading misinformation about details like the time, place, or manner of an election; voter qualifications and restrictions; potential criminal penalties; and someone’s voter registration status.
      
      The bill seeks to cut back on misinformation meant to discourage someone from voting. Bill sponsor Senator Mary Cavanagh (D-Redford) said that's being spread via robocalls and other methods."
      
      Legislative Analysis / Regulate use of Artificial Intelligence for political campaigns
      https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/20 … 54E9B1.pdf
      
      According to Movement Advancement Project 12 states have a law explicitly protecting against election disinformation. Go to link and see map.
      https://www.lgbtmap.org/democracy-maps/ … nformation
      
      Going off on a tangent, perhaps, not only is free speech at question, yet maybe free press? Is a post on social media not free press in action. Isn't it a form of media? The poster is acting as a publishing agent. Or, is that fulfilled by the social media site and the poster is just a reporter? I will ponder.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

         First I so commend you for considering the subject.
         
         It seems we are living in a world where disinformation has found a forum, with that forum being the media. In the past, media outlets were highly respected and trusted to share the truth or, at the very least, present reports within a context of skepticism, acknowledging when facts were uncertain. Essentially, they would tell you if a report may not be true as they sought the facts. However, we have now reached a point where the media has been granted so much power that they can say whatever they please with little to no consequences—an example of true propaganda. The platform from which they speak is vast, and many people accept their words as absolute truth without question. Even in today’s world of fact-checking, many are still influenced by disinformation and go on to spread it like wildfire, sometimes even fully aware that it is false. How can one be punished for sharing what they feel are facts they obtained from media reports?   Not realizing the information is disinformation meant to be propaganda.
         
         The issue of disinformation raises significant questions about free speech, particularly when it comes to holding the media accountable and addressing the spread of false information. To start, making the media responsible for disinformation is a complex task because of the protections provided by free speech under the First Amendment. While free speech is a fundamental right, there are legal boundaries, such as libel and defamation laws, that hold media outlets accountable for knowingly spreading false information that harms individuals. Expanding these limits to penalize broader forms of disinformation might seem reasonable, but it risks encroaching on free speech rights.  In the case of the interview between Maddow and Clinton... Many mistruths were shared, mistruths that had been fact-checked to be mistruths.  It would strike me that many Americans would certainly take her comments to be factual. Yes, and run with them. Maddow speaks mistruths nightly to millions. What I walked away with from that interview was a clear message: "Hey Americans, you'd better be very careful about what you share, because, at some point, you could be punished by law if certain laws are passed." It felt like they were saying we have freedom of speech only as long as they deem that speech appropriate. I mean, Hillary even suggested that we may need to penalize Americans for spreading misinformation.
         
         As for penalizing individuals who spread media-driven disinformation, this raises even more concerns. While people can be held accountable for knowingly spreading harmful lies, implementing legal penalties on a large scale for sharing false information would likely lead to debates over government overreach and censorship. Such measures could set a dangerous precedent where the government decides what information is true or false, which could be abused to suppress dissent or unpopular opinions.
         
         The U.S. Constitution, especially the First Amendment, is designed to protect free expression, even when that expression includes falsehoods or controversial ideas. While combating disinformation is important, creating laws that penalize either media outlets or individuals for spreading disinformation could pose a threat to these protections. Balancing accountability with free speech is essential, but any legal approach must carefully consider the potential for unintended consequences, such as stifling open debate and infringing on individual freedoms.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            tsmogposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            A little hear, hear, and a little what do we expect 'today in 2024?' We fact check everything today from the highest office in the land to the nitty-gritty man in the street or at least, 'may', question it with supposed factual knowledge one has acquired somehow or someway. I emphasize 'supposed'.
            
            One thing is when a media source specifically indicates 'Opinion' articles delineated between their supposed fact checked articles to maintain integrity. I read the Daily Caller, the Daily Wire, and others that are not mainstream. They don't declare if it is an opinion article, though it is obvious in many cases. I ask, should news programs like Maddow's or Hannity's have a warning sharing opinions may be expressed before it airs?
            
            I found it interesting 12 states had disinformation laws on the books.
            
            Before replying here I searched, 'oldest disinformation law - states' and the first item in the serp was A short guide to the history of
            ’fake news’ and disinformation by the International Center for Journalists (unsure of date published)
            https://www.icfj.org/sites/default/file … 0Final.pdf
            
            With the introduction synopsis it states;
            
            "Synopsis"
            
            "Information fabrication is not new. As Guardian columnist Natalie Nougayrède has observed: “The use of propaganda is ancient, but never before has there been the technology to so effectively disseminate it” [disinformation]. So, it is important to understand the historical context when examining and reporting on contemporary manifestations of what has been termed a 21st-century ‘information disorder’.
            
            Misinformation, disinformation and propaganda have been features of human communication since at least the Roman times when Antony met Cleopatra. Octavian waged a propaganda campaign against Antony that was designed to smear his reputation. This took the form of “short, sharp slogans written upon coins in the style of archaic Tweets. These slogans painted Antony as a womaniser and a drunk, implying he had become Cleopatra’s puppet, having been corrupted by his affair with her. Octavian became Augustus, the first Roman Emperor and “fake news had allowed Octavian to hack the republican system once and for all.” The invention of the Gutenberg printing press in 1493 dramatically amplified the dissemination of disinformation and misinformation, and it ultimately delivered the first-large scale news hoax – ‘The Great Moon Hoax’ of 18355. The New York Sun published six articles about the discovery of life on the moon, complete with illustrations of humanoid bat-creatures and bearded blue unicorns. Conflicts, regime change, and catastrophes then became markers for the dissemination of disinformation."
            
            It is a timeline of notable disinformation in history. I skimmed along it spanning 15 pages of information before going into how to use it and acknowledgements. It ends with an entry for 2018. I think most will agree a label of epidemic may be used with disinformation today, 2024 especially considering social media that studies indicate 80% of people get their news from that.
            
            Another interesting article I read is Factbox: 'Fake News' laws around the world by Reuters (April 2, 2019, so a little dated now)
            https://www.reuters.com/article/world/f … KCN1RE0XH/
            
            One excerpt is/was the laws for Russia . . .
            
            "RUSSIA
            Last month, President Vladimir Putin signed into law tough new fines for Russians who spread what the authorities regard as fake news or who show "blatant disrespect" for the state online.
            
            Critics have warned the law could aid state censorship, but lawmakers say it is needed to combat false news and abusive online comment.
            
            Authorities may block websites that do not meet requests to remove inaccurate information. Individuals can be fined up to 400,000 rouble ($6,109.44) for circulating false information online that leads to a "mass violation of public order"."
            
            An important point is to consider today 80% of the populace gets its news from social media, which some say is the wild, wild west. Which causes more damage - Maddow or Hannity vs social media?

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months agoin reply to this

               What would make "social media" the "wild, wild west?" You throw that assessment out by "some"(?) so casually. You need to explain before we compare it to MSM.
               
               I would say  Sean Hannity is more wild, wild west, by the way. Where do these guys fit in?
               
               Mark Levin
               Steve Bannon
               Greg Gutfeld
               John Solomon
               Grant Stinchfeild
               Laura Ingraham
               
               https://www.foxnews.com/media/gutfeld-d … appearance

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  tsmogposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  "You need to explain before we compare it to MSM."
                  
                  No I don't.
                  
                  "I would say Hannity is more Wild West, by the way."
                  
                  I wouldn't know I only get basic cable and don't stream. The basic cable I have news is local only plus the networks - NBC, ABC & CBS Sunday morning political round table shows like Meet the Press.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                     Oh My Goodness Sakes! What are you saying?
                     for instance:
                     In October 2017, Laura Ingraham became the host of a new Fox News Channel program, The Ingraham Angle.
                     
                     Just youTube her!
                     
                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        tsmogposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                        "Just youTube her!"
                        
                        I have no particular interest in her nor anyone live on Fox News or CNN cable networks. I have better things to do. Thanks anyway for the recommendation.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                           There is no way, you have never watched Laura Ingraham.
                           But Gandhi said to believe a man (or AI), so we will go with what you indicate.

                           replyreport
            2. 86

               Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

               You’ve touched on a lot of interesting points! It’s true that today’s media landscape is a big old mixed bag. With so many sources out there, fact-checking has become essential, whether it's the highest office or the guy next door. The distinction between opinion and fact is crucial, especially when reading articles from platforms like the Daily Caller or the Daily Wire, which sometimes blur those lines. Your suggestion about having clear warnings for opinion segments, like those on Maddow’s or Hannity’s shows, could certainly enhance transparency.
               
               It’s fascinating to see how disinformation laws have evolved, and your historical perspective really highlights that this isn’t a new issue; it’s been part of communication for centuries, from Roman propaganda to the Great Moon Hoax! And with 80% of people getting their news from social media today, the potential for misinformation is massive. The question of whether traditional media figures like Maddow or Hannity cause more damage than social media is certainly a complex one. Both have their influence, but perhaps it comes down to how critical we are as consumers of information. It’s a wild world out there!

               replyreport
2. 60

   Willowarborposted 6 months ago

   Hillary Clinton's statement:
   
   
   "But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. 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."
   
   Is she talking about the everyday schlock on X  posted and reposted unwittingly by citizens?   I mean X is a dumpster fire of Russian propaganda. 
   
   Or is she speaking more toward the firm in Tennessee that allegedly took 10 million from Russia to sprinkle their garbage over our social media? If these folks are found guilty, absolutely there should be consequences.   
   
   I personally do not see the government going after individuals who schill  for Russia on a small scale.  I think we have no resources for such an effort.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I recommend listening to the entire interview to grasp the full context. She clearly expresses her concerns about Republicans in Congress and Americans, suggesting they may be spreading propaganda. It's difficult to interpret her words as simply referring to the Tennessee firm that allegedly received $10 million from Russia. The discussion about her worries that some Americans and Republican lawmakers might need to face civil or criminal consequences begins around the 4:50 mark. I found the context clear.
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxrngjBER3E&t=197s
      
      "CLINTON:  I think there's a far distance to go.
      
      I applaud the actions taken by the Justice Department and the State Department. I think that they're very important. But, truly, we are just at the beginning of uncovering everything that Russia, but not just Russia, other countries, have done and are doing to influence our election.
      
      If you focus on Russia -- and I commend you, Rachel, for your new movie -- because we are only at the beginning of understanding the whole iceberg here. What the Russians started doing in 2015 and 2016, what they continued doing, they have gotten more sophisticated. They aren't even pretending anymore.
      
      Their international news operation, Russia Today, R.T., is an arm of the Russian government, an arm of its intelligence operation. It's basically an extension of their spying efforts. They are using Americans, both those who are witting and willing and those who are unwitting and are just so surprised they're getting $400,000 a week or $100,000 a podcast to parrot Kremlin propaganda.
      
      We know from what even Republicans have said, the chairs of the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee and other Republicans who are currently in office have said that Republicans go to the floor of the Congress and they parrot Russian talking points.
      
      So, I think it's important to indict the Russians, just as Mueller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda.
      
      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. They're not going to be going to a country where they can be extradited or even returning to the United States, unless they are very foolish.
      
      So I think we need to uncover all of the connections and make it very clear that you could vote however you want, but we are not going to let adversaries, whether it is Russia, China, Iran, or anybody else, basically try to influence Americans as to how we should vote in picking our leaders."

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 6 months agoin reply to this

         When we find large-scale operations involving American citizens that are taking huge sums of money from Russia to spread lies, I really think something needs to be done about that.    If the people involved with the Tennessee operation ultimately face some sort of consequence after they go through our legal system, that will serve as a deterrent for others.  I don't see that anyone wants to go after individuals who make statements containing Russian propaganda.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

            I’m significantly more worried about misleading information coming from Democrats and some of their supporters. I believe this is far more dangerous than any actions from Russia. Our own American representatives, including the current president and vice president, have been known to spread harmful untrue misinformation.
            
            I suppose we can rely on the FBI to address foreign interference in our elections since we have laws in place, and I assume they would report any violations to the DOJ. However, I don't trust the FBI to manage the issues created by the Democrats. It seems to me that they have weaponized their role in several matters over the past few years.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 6 months agoin reply to this

               What's the misleading information?

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  "... FBI to manage the issues created by the Democrats."
                  what issues?

                  replyreport
               2. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  I felt the recent interview between Hillary Clinton and Rachel Maddow,  was full of vitriol and lies from both of them. There were untrue dog whistles that, in my view, are designed to spur hate, which seems to be their intent. We seem to have very different ideas of what fuels hate. To me, it edged on pure propaganda meant to enrage listeners. I am not about to watch it again to supply you with quotes. I found it offensive from start to end. Even the hate that was apparent on Clinton's face, disgusted me.

                  replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

   Freedom of speech should be used for truth and reality.
   
   Should the company that "allegedly took 10 million from Russia to sprinkle their garbage (lies) over our social media" be held accountable?
   
   What sort of "legal consequences" would be appropriate in holding "U.S. citizens accountable for disseminating foreign propaganda"(lies)?
   
   What a terrible world we live in.

   replyreport