Minnesota Governor Walz Caught Lying About Free Speech Remarks

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) found himself in hot water over the weekend after being confronted about his past remarks on free speech during an interview on Fox News Sunday. Walz was forced to backtrack on previous statements he made about there being "no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech." However, his attempt to revise history was quickly exposed.

During the interview, host Shannon Bream pressed Walz about his 2022 comments, in which he suggested that free speech protections do not extend to what he called "misinformation" or "hate speech." Bream reminded Walz that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous 2017 decision that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, even if it’s offensive or uncomfortable to hear.

Walz attempted to shift the narrative by claiming his comments were in reference to book bans and threats of violence, telling Bream, "The issue on this was hate speech aimed at creating violence, speech that’s aimed at threats to individuals." He further argued that society must decide what kind of speech is acceptable when it comes to endangering lives.

However, Walz's 2022 remarks had nothing to do with book banning or threats of violence. Instead, he was discussing voter misinformation and claims of voter intimidation when he argued that free speech doesn’t cover misinformation or hate speech. Nowhere in that interview did he mention anything about protecting children from online threats, as he falsely implied during the Fox interview.

Walz’s latest comments are a clear attempt to distance himself from his earlier stance, as the idea of censoring speech based on subjective interpretations of "misinformation" raises serious First Amendment concerns.

Bream wasn’t fooled, quickly pushing back: “No. No. No. That’s not misinformation.” She pressed Walz on whether he understood the difference between a threat and what is commonly deemed misinformation. Walz then shifted again, claiming that his real opposition was to book bans, a position entirely unrelated to the free speech debate in question.

The reality is that Walz’s original comments reveal a disturbing viewpoint: the idea that speech can and should be censored if it doesn’t align with the government’s version of "truth." In a time when free speech is already under attack from many angles, these views set a dangerous precedent.

Walz’s attempt to rewrite history only underscores the growing divide in America over what constitutes free speech. Should the government be the arbiter of truth, or should the First Amendment’s protections continue to safeguard even speech that some might find uncomfortable or wrong? For now, it seems the governor wants it both ways.

Share this article with friends or subscribe to our newsletter for more insights on the battle over free speech.