First Amendment

Washington's Governor Wants To Prevent Another January 6 with Unconstitutional Censorship

Jay Inslee says we should make it a crime for politicians to lie about election results. What could go wrong?

|

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee wants to make it a misdemeanor for politicians to lie about election results. Yes, of course this would violate the First Amendment.

To justify the idea, Inslee is invoking the anniversary of the riot at the U.S. Capitol. "January 6 is a reminder not only of the insurrection that happened one year ago, but that there is an ongoing coup attempt by candidates and elected officials to overturn our democracy. They are willing to do this by provoking violence, and today I proposed we do something about that," he wrote last week.

He does not indicate what this has to do with elections in Washington state, all the way on the other side of the country, which is the only place where his law would apply.

In August, five Republican legislators in Inslee's state held a rally encouraging the conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. They cannot be punished for such speech, because the First Amendment protects such arguments—yes, even false arguments.

Inslee thinks he can get around these protections by targeting falsehoods that are spread "for the purpose of undermining the election process" and "likely to incite or cause lawlessness." The wording of the bill is not publicly available yet, but the governor seems sure that it will fit within the limits of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the 1969 Supreme Court case establishing that speech inciting lawless action is not protected.

But that precedent requires the threat of lawless action to be "imminent." Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, notes that this is not a minor threshold.

"If I'm standing outside a police station and yelling 'burn it down,'" that counts as calling for imminent lawless action, Volokh explains. "But just saying an election is a fraud and we should do about it isn't incitement." And to the extent that speech can incite imminent violence, Washington already has a law criminalizing it.

Volokh also notes that courts have historically been reluctant to give officials the authority to punish certain types of false speech about the government itself. Some laws, like those that forbid lying about when and where elections take place, have passed muster. But trying to outlaw speech that questions the legitimacy of election results echoes the Sedition Act of 1798, which permitted the punishment of anybody publishing "false, scandalous, or malicious writing" about the United States. "This is part of the debate in the U.S. that is literally 225 years old," Volokh says.

The Sedition Act expired in 1801, but Inslee's arguments echo the arguments made for the act back then—the idea that if false speech undermines the government's credibility, it may foster violence against the government. Since then, many courts have recognized that such censorship can suppress legitimate allegations about government misconduct. The court precedents are not in Inslee's favor here, Volokh says. (Volokh has written more on the proposal here.)

There's a sharp irony to Inslee's efforts. A law that censors critiques of elections, even if these critiques are outright lies, would surely fan doubts about elections' legitimacy. By trying to suppress distrust in government, the law would foster it instead.

In case there are any questions about whether Inslee grasps the limits on the government's power to censor, he has defended his proposal by blithely invoking the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" cliché. When a public figure deploys that quote from 1919's Schenck v. United States, it's virtually always a sign that he knows very little about the First Amendment's history. If you want to convince people that you'll censor in a restrained way, don't quote from a case authorizing the imprisonment of protesters who had been distributing anti-draft pamphlets.

NEXT: A Drive-Thru Window Saved His Business, but Now He’s Being Forced To Shut It Down

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12920 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋS CASHAPP NOW ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ... Yᴏᴜ D ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ,go to tech tab for work detail,..........

      Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW

    2. Stop pouncing!

  1. Remember, during the 2020 election, Jay Inslee was an 'also ran', LITERALLY polling below "other" in the long list of Democratic candidates.

  2. Man there sure are a lot of speech policing policies being pushed by the left. How many more of them suggesting certain speech needs to be criminalized before they try and make it law?

    1. Who cares, it's the reactionary right that's the REAL threat to liberty.

      1. The reactionary right conducted ideological purges in the military, infringed on individual's bodily autonomy, indefinitely jailed dissidents without trail and deplatformed Oxford, Stanford and Harvard university virology professors who... Oh wait.

        Well they probably spat in the mayo at their fry cook job. The point is that they're the real danger.

  3. so, like everyone involved in Russia-gate would be in jail if this law was around??

    1. Don't forget Hillary from 2016 to today and probably tomorrow.

      Don't forget all the idiots saying there was zero fraud. All it takes is one proven case of fraud, showing they are lying in an attempt to change the election, and a gung-ho prosecutor ready to throw them in the clink.

      Don't forget all the rants that voter ID is trying to disenfranchise voters, or all the whining that if 16-year-olds and non-citizens who don't get to vote are being disenfranchised.

      Yes, what could go wrong?

    2. No, there would just be a lot of misdemeanors being handed out.

      1. No bail, just free release. Lots of citations will be written, though.

  4. But looting and rioting are still ok, right Jay?

  5. Washington's Governor Wants To Prevent Another January 6 with Unconstitutional Censorship

    How about voting in November? 'Cause that's what I'm looking forward to.

    1. They've had that handled since the Rossi debacle. Just count until you win, then stop counting.

      1. Especially whan a few cartons of "ballots' are discovered on a high shelf in a post office in Seattle three weeks after the first recount, and are "certified" as valid.... also, what does ol Jayzee think about the HUGE numbers of overseas military ballots that were not sent out in time by Washignton election boards, and which were seemingly mystereiously "delayed" on their trip back.. andwere NOT certified to be counted?

        This guy is SO skanky... s corrupt as they come. He's ony on about tyranny.

        Will his pet bill lead to citing folks who simlyybre-read aloud some of the "findings" from the examiatioins in Arizona, Philadelphia, Goergia, Ohio, etc? Stuff suppsed neutral groups examiend and foiund, then revealed in their reports? Can I sit and read thosea aloud in public, Jay?

  6. elections are a fucking illusion as it is. who decides when the liars are lying?

    1. Snopes and Politifact, obviously.

      1. It only becomes true once they've factchecked it against the CDC and Media Matters lists of approved truths.

  7. If as the left claims, there is no objective truth, how can anything be a lie?

    1. It's a lie when it disagrees with The Party.

      1. "It's not a lie if you believe it." -George Washington... er, Costanza.

        1. Also happens to be true.

  8. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee wants to make it a misdemeanor for politicians to lie about election results. Yes, of course this would violate the First Amendment.

    Where's the stormfag to dispute this comment?

  9. King Jay is the worst governor in the nation. Fight me.

    1. Phil Murphy is the ugliest. And the worst.

      1. We're hiring concentration camp guards.

        https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/washington/jobs/3233390/isolation-quarantine-strike-team-consultants-ps2-non-permanent-doh5814

        Inslee wants to mandate the vax for schools. He also wants the power to forcefully quarantine others.

        1. They really are going full nazi.

          1. Inslee is 100% on board with the Gates/Bezos/CCP/DNC plan. And he's able to get away with a shitload because we're a tiny corner of the country nobody cares about anyway. We had LITERAL insurrection this summer, and Inslee did jack and shit about it.

            1. Stay frosty.

        2. See Á àß äẞç?

          It's happening.

    2. Gretchen Whitmer.

      *drops microphone*

      1. Not even close. She got her balls snipped by the state. King Jay is running EVERYTHING with proclamations and edicts.

        1. That fucking hog, JB Pritzker, at least deserves a seat at the slop pit.

          1. A seat? Try a bench.

  10. I don't suppose the progressives making the First Amendment a campaign issue for 2022 should surprise anyone, but I'm sure this revelation is extremely disappointing to moderate Democrats in red states and purple districts. Chuck Schumer is doing the same thing to moderate Democrats in the Senate, with his insistence on making socialism a campaign issue by taking a vote on BBB. It's across the board. This is probably why 23 House Democrats have decided not to run for reelection in 2022, presumably because they expect to lose over progressive issues like this.

    If the Democrats being associated with the progressive war against the First Amendment and in favor of socialism doesn't cost moderate Democrats their seats, they'll probably lose over the issue of progressive school boards. And if the state wide elections in Virginia and New Jersey told us anything, it's that being closely associated with any Democrat as "moderate" as Joe Biden won't be enough to save you--unless your state is bluer than New Jersey.

    I'm looking forward to the world after the election of 2022, when the government is divided and we can go back to the two parties being awful in their own special way again. Between now and then, however, with the Democrats officially in favor of socialism, and all but officially opposed to the First Amendment, I don't see anywhere for a libertarian or a Libertarian to hide. We have a one party government that is pro-socialism and openly hostile to the First Amendment. It's like the communists and the Nazis are all on the same side. When that happens, this libertarian knows exactly what to do.

    1. "If the Democrats being associated with the progressive war against the First Amendment and in favor of socialism doesn't cost moderate Democrats their seats, they'll probably lose over the issue of progressive school boards."

      And if that doesn't do it, then the country is too far gone to save.

      "When that happens, this libertarian knows exactly what to do."

      Gin or Scotch? Bourbon?

      1. "When that happens, this libertarian knows exactly what to do."

        Gin or Scotch? Bourbon?

        Legalized, but taxed and regulated weed, if I'm correct.

  11. Washington owned slaves. Racist state!

    1. "Hello, exactly!" -Dirk Diggler

    2. So did Chief Seattle.

  12. Jeff made it very clear a few days ago that we are not to use Inslee's words against him or to show that democrats are authoritarians against free speech.

    1. Damn you beat me to it.

      https://reason.com/2022/01/07/mandatory-gmo-disclosure-doesnt-sway-shopping-habits-but-will-drive-up-costs/?comments=true#comment-9293653

      If Chemjeff is consistent, he should be lambasting Shackford for spreading right wing lies. Or if he is honest, he will admit that his blind hatred of the Right leads him to give a pass to the Left even when they are doing things a Libertarian ought to oppose.

      1. "Or if he is honest,"

        LOL x infinity

      2. The original claim from right-wing news:

        Democrat Governor Jay Inslee Vows to Make It a CRIME to Question Fraudulent Elections
        https://newspunch.com/democrat-governor-jay-inslee-vows-to-make-it-a-crime-to-question-fraudulent-elections/

        What Inslee actually proposed:

        Washington Gov. Jay Inslee wants to make it a misdemeanor for politicians to lie about election results.

        Can you spot the difference?

        1. "Can you spot the difference?"

          Yes on the one hand, you have a right wing newspaper uncharitably pointing out how the law is likely to be used. On the other hand, we have you running cover for the left. What is funny is that you don't see the difference.

          1. Why am I not surprised to see you defending the right even when they are caught lying.

            Does "running cover for the left" include disagreeing with their idea? Hmm?

            I knew that right-wing article was false because it was so cartoonishly idiotic and played so perfectly into the narrative that right-wingers have constructed about The Left. That they are evil intolerant authoritarian Marxist assholes who want to crush all dissent and rule with an iron fist. And sure enough it was. Even as bad as Inslee's plan was, it was not criminalizing all dissent or questioning of the election. It was questioning LIES. That is the difference.

            you have a right wing newspaper uncharitably pointing out how the law is likely to be used.

            That is NOT what they did. You are attempting to cover for their lies. They did NOT say "Inslee wants to criminalize lying about the election, which might be used to criminalize all dissent". They said straight-up "INSLEE WANTS TO CRIMINALIZE EVERYONE WHO QUESTIONS THE ELECTION". They LIED, Overt and I would have hoped you'd have more integrity than Jesse and point it out.

            1. "Why am I not surprised to see you defending the right even when they are caught lying."

              They weren't caught lying.

              They listed the actual quote from Inslee ("Knowingly lie"). So...you know...that is them being honest, the opposite of lying. And they opined that inslee is going to use it to go after people who question the election.

              "I knew that right-wing article was false"

              It was false that Inslee was quoted as saying "knowingly lie"? Because that is literally the quote sourced in the article. Are you saying that is a falsehood? Because the tweet from him is quoted above and...yup it says the same thing.

              "They LIED, Overt and I would have hoped you'd have more integrity than Jesse and point it out."

              Ehem...let me see if I am doing this right:

              Sorry, Chemjeff, I probably wouldn't have worded it that way, but you obviously are just too emotionally invested in this thing to think straight. You want me to condemn a difference of opinion, and I just cannot be bothered to do so.

              In the meanwhile, Inslee is still criminalizing speech and all you want to talk about is this two bit blog. Yes, it is integrity you are about, imma sure.

              1. "Democrat Governor Jay Inslee Vows to Make It a CRIME to Question Fraudulent Elections"

                Is this statement true or false, Overt?

                1. Jeff. What part of inslees tweet are you having difficulty with?

                2. True, obviously.

                  Seriously, are you fucking high? That's literally the only way you can interpret what he said. He was perfectly clear.

              2. And by the way, the entire point of my comment WAS to call out the "two bit blog" and the other right-wing news sources like it which don't report the news but lie to people to push a narrative.

                But this is how it goes nowadays:

                Some Democrat: I'm going to propose to raise taxes.
                Right-Wing News: DEMOCRAT WANTS TO MURDER PUPPIES
                Me: Umm, that's not what he said...
                You: WHY ARE YOU RUNNING INTERFERENCE FOR THE LEFT? HUH???

                1. Some Democrat: I’m going to violate the First Amendment by criminalizing lying.
                  Right wing news: DEMOCRATS WANT TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO LIE ABOUT ELECTION FRAUD!
                  Lying Jeffy: Ummm, no. Just OTHER lying. My side would never use it for things like that. You just compared raising taxes to killing puppies.

                2. Jeff. You post almost exusoey daily beast articles.

                  Again. The article quotes inslee. They postulated on its meaning. Inslee helpfully corroborated their postulate.

                  You denied it. And you are a fucking idiot.

                3. Inslee said it, you fucking moron. Seriously, it was a direct, unedited quote.

                  I don't get what kind of game you're trying to play here.

            2. Also from the article above:
              "many courts such censorship can suppress legitimate allegations about government misconduct."

              OMFG Shackford is lying. The courts are lying. Inslee only said that he was trying to supress lies. Therefore any idea that this censorship would be used to suppress legitimate allegations ARE FALSE LIES OF RIGHT WING HACKERY!

              Are you ready to take Shackford and the Supreme Court to task too?

              1. See, Shackford is illustrating the correct way to report on this.

                He reported what Inslee actually wanted to do, and then hypothesized that it *might* lead to a further worse result.

                What Shackford didn't do, is immediately leap to the further worse result from the outset, claiming that this is what Inslee wanted all along. That is what the two-bit right-wing "news" outlet did.

                1. Yes I see now. It is totally WORSE that a right wing blog didn't use enough qualifiers.

                  On the one hand we have a political leader calling for the infringement of free speech and on the other hand we have a right wing blog that declined to use the word *might*.

                  As far as I can tell, this is a matter of you being too emotionally wrapped up in hating the right. It is a fact that a lefty is pushing a deeply authoritarian law that abriges free speech and is of the type you see Communist countries pass in order to persecute political opponents. And your OUTRAGE is not this perversion of the American legal system, or the attack on our rights- no the outrage is that some on the right think Inslee is going to do what leftist governments around the world seem to do when they get these laws in place.

                  smh.

                  1. So your answer is that I should accept right-wing lies about what Inslee is doing because what Inslee is doing is so bad that it's no big deal that two-bit rags lie about him. Is that it?

                    1. You are literally helpless.

                      Why do people call you a leftist shit. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

                    2. Why do people call him a fifty-center.

                      You only try to lawyer away unarguable shit like this if you're a paid shill.

                    3. @Jeffy, no, you should be worried that someone like Inslee would even contemplate such a corruption of freedom of speech in the first place.

                      I would expect, as a liberal, you would call him out for his fuckery on trying to charge fellow citizens with a crime for speech!!!!!

                      I would expect you to shit all over any republican legislator that proposed abridging any of our rights (and we would cheer you one) - however, we expect you to shit all over Inslee for even thinking this is a good idea...

                      your turn....

                  2. And no, I do not think that a right-wing blog lying about Inslee is worse than Inslee wanting to criminalize election lies. OBVIOUSLY what Inslee is proposing is worse.

                    The whole point of my comment though was to call out the right-wing insanity in lying about an already bad idea to turn it into something worse so as to fit a narrative.

                    So what does a person have to do, who doesn't like what Inslee is proposing, but who also doesn't like how right-wingers are reacting to it? What is the correct response here?

                    1. 20 comments of rage about a right wing blog quoting Inslee and finally one final comment saying Inslee is wrong because you finally realized how idiotic and anti libertarian you looked. Lol.

                      Youre a leftist fuck.

                    2. "the right-wing insanity in lying"

                      The only person lying about this was you. Nobody else here, just you.

            3. Waitwaitwait...so, "Newspunch" (which I've never heard of) is "The RIght" now?? Wow. When did that happen? And secondly, who appointed you "definer of what's "The Right""?? No offense, but you wouldn't be my first choice. Or my billionth.

              SO many questions, just to parse out an obscure headline amidst a veritable gaslight blizzard of other dubious etymological trickery.

              I know! If "Newspunch" had their own fact-checkers, I bet we'd see it's actually all okay!

        2. Lol. Wow, just wow.

      3. If Chemjeff is consistent, he should be lambasting Shackford for spreading right wing lies.

        Shackford reported what Inslee *actually proposed* and argued against it. Convincingly, IMO.

        "Newspunch" twisted what Inslee actually proposed into a much scarier strawman which furthers the right-wing narrative of Team Blue not being just wrong, but demonically evil.

        Why is it so hard to just report against what Team Blue is actually doing, instead of making up shit instead?

        1. The story you linked to is basically quotes from Inslee the same day he released a twitter saying exactly what the article said. The tweet was provided to you in the same thread dummy.

          take the L.

          1. It comes down to a single word "question" instead of "lie".

            Well sorry. Since every time someone on the right "questions" the evidence of the CDC or election commissions, people like Chemjeff are here to insist that they are lying, (and tbf the same thing when lefties "question" right wing tropes), I have no doubt that hanging on the two words is a distinction without a difference.

            1. He is being fully dishonest.

              Basically jeff is saying nobody can ever make a prediction critical of the left.

              This is the same as Cotton getting 4 Pinocchio for correctly predicting criminals like the Boston bomber would get covid payments. He was right but was called a liar.

              Jeff is completely partisan and useless.

              For someone who relies on what ifs and might have happens and imagine a world of bears in trunks.... how dare someone point out the issues of something a leftist openly admitted.

              1. "useless". That's the word. As witness, this effort to dismiss some obscure site for "whipping up right-wing outrage" or some shit. As if the left, up to and including Bezo's rag and the NYT and CNN and MSNBC and the hilariously-named "fact-checkers" who serve them don't produce enough grist for a very large outrage mill, pretty much non-stop.

                The latest facts checked? No such thing as "mass formation psychosis! No word yet on mass sociogenic illness, mass psychogenic disorder, epidemic hysteria, or mass hysteria, which are things I'm pretty sure have existed, and which describe the behaviour of the wokie cult very well. And that of chemjeff, now I think on't.

  13. How do you prove someone is lying and not just wrong (or even not wrong at all, but taking an unpopular position)?

    And even if you could prove that someone is deliberately lying, it's still pretty dangerous to regulate any kind of political speech.

    1. Not easy to do. There was a former journalist that did a long dissertation on that very subject, and she said there was a time when journalists would be very judicious and careful with the term "lying", even when it seemed obvious.

      "Lying" in journalism used carry a certain weight and have to be proven that the person uttering the falsehood was knowingly trying to deceive. She gave examples of CEOs or politicians stating such and such a falsehood in one scandal or another, and she said that unless they had incontrovertible proof that they were knowingly trying to deceive, they would not use the term "lie". The reasoning was that it was possible they believed that a certain uttered falsehood was true. Or that they had possibly been given bad information, or were working with information provided to them that had been falsified etc.

      For instance, many people, including people here in the comments kept saying Sotamayor was "lying" about her 100,000 kids remark.

      I don't believe she was. I think she actually believed the 100,000 kids figure because so many people (especially on the left) have been shown to operating with the belief that the disease is far more dangerous than it actually is. The poll that showed Democrats overwhelmingly believing a positive COVID test resulted in a much greater than 50% chance of being hospitalized comes to mind.

      1. It’s the age old question we ask of our own resident lefties: are they stupid or lying?

      2. These days reporters can confidently write "Trump falsely claimed X" with no negative consequences. Well, mostly where X = "election fraud", but they've used other substitutions.
        Proper reporting would have dropped the word "falsely" or attributed the falseness claim to someone else, e.g. "Trump claimed X which Y claimed is false." Without the attribution to another party it is the reporter who is clearly making a forceful assertion without supporting material (i.e. how did they determine it was false?) Makes the reporter a target for a defamation suit. But if enough reporters do it they can count on sheer numbers to protect them, for who has that kind of time and legal resources to fight them all?
        Anyway, the modest strides "journalism" made since Thomas Jefferson complained about newspapers in his day are long gone.

  14. The wording of the bill is not publicly available yet, but the governor seems sure that it will fit within the limits of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the 1969 Supreme Court case establishing that speech inciting lawless action is not protected.

    I'm not surprised he would take that tack; I remember during the Trump administration seeing social media posts to the effect that Brandenburg makes it legal to "punch a Nazi" because having the wrong politics is "incitement". Of course, actually reading the decision will disabuse an honest person of that idiocy but these aren't honest people.

  15. And how about "chilling effect"?

    God, these people are fucked.

  16. I caught the latest episode of 1883 last night, and it was libertarian as fuck.

    Without giving too much away, it was about these immigrants who sacrificed everything they had to go to up the Oregon trail to what is now Oregon and Washington. They get to a river crossing, and the German leader of the immigrants explains to the trail guide that none of the Germans can swim because it was against the law to swim in Germany. When people committed suicide by drowning in the river, the authorities would whip their dead bodies for breaking the law against swimming. According to the German immigrant, the only thing that wasn't illegal was paying taxes.

    "You might think that the only sensible countermeasure against drowning would be to teach people how to swim. But in the 1530s, German schools and universities decided that the best remedy would be a total ban on swimming, which, in the university town of Ingolstadt on the Danube, was punishable by the whipping of the drowned offender before burial."

    ----History Today

    https://www.historytoday.com/miscellanies/how-europe-learnt-swim

    I'm sitting there thinking, how did these people's descendants end up to be so fucking progressive and authoritarian? It's like Puritans fleeing religious persecution--and then setting up a colony in the New World that discriminates against people for their religion. It's amazing how oppressive people can become in the name of liberty. I understand people in Oregon and Washington still celebrate the pioneer spirit, too. I don't understand how that translated into a culture that seems to be so hostile to liberty. How did those pioneers end up with people who could vote for a guy like this?

    1. The northwest is libertarian as fuck if you get out of Seattle/Portland and into places where wild animals are still a legitimate fear and police are 30 minutes (at least) away.

    2. I understand people in Oregon and Washington still celebrate the pioneer spirit, too. I don't understand how that translated into a culture that seems to be so hostile to liberty. How did those pioneers end up with people who could vote for a guy like this?

      There's an old political saying here in Washington:

      "To win an election in Washington, you only need to carry what you can see from the Space Needle"

    3. Since we are off topic I was reading that my home town of Denver, Colorado has its own interesting history. It turns out that when Larimer got to the confluence of Cherry Creek and the South Platte, he observed two settlements- Auraria and St Charles. St Charles was not heavily populated- most of its residents had gone east to Missouri for the winter. So he told the existing residents in charge that they could sign their claim over to him, or get hanged. A few years later when the owners of Auraria went back east to fight the Civil War, he annexed that land too.

      My home town...one big claim jump. Fan-fucking-tastic.

    4. "How did those pioneers end up with people who could vote for a guy like this?"

      Assimilation.

      1. Assimilation with who?

        I think it's simpler than that. A few generations of easy, comfortable living can make all the difference.

        1. It may be that they just emulated the people who oppressed them.

    5. I don't think Puritans cared too much about liberty as a general concept. Just their liberty to practice their particular religious way of life.

    6. "How did those pioneers end up with people who could vote for a guy like this?"

      The story of the Brass Cannon in Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" comes to mind.

    1. And since YOU all brought up the subject, not me...

      Let's take a look at the journalistic integrity on display here with the article that was linked.

      A biased media outlet, makes a damning accusation about the other team acting in some horrible authoritarian manner, and the source for this accusation is a tweet with an unsourced quotation.

      Yeah, sure. Let's all believe it uncritically when it's some right-wing rag making some claim about a leftie, but then let's put on our skepticism hat and demand the highest standards of journalistic practice when it's some left-wing rag making some claim about a rightie. Amirite here?

      1. The media outlet essentially provided Inslee quotes dummy. Everybody can click the link to see that. You were told this before.

        TAKE THE L.

        1. Somehow, the whole "chemjeff vs. Newspunch" saga doesn't seem to be rising to Jack Murphy Encuckiad levels of 'trending'. I know I don't give a shit.

      2. "makes a damning accusation about the other team acting in some horrible authoritarian manner,"

        Um...they *are* acting in a horrible authoritarian manner. Just read the article above these comments: Restricting speech is a horrible authoritarian thing. And specifically restricting POLITICAL speech is a HORRIBLE AUTHORITARIAN THING.

        "and the source for this accusation is a tweet with an unsourced quotation."

        The source was a DIRECT QUOTE, mentioning the "Knowingly lie" distinction that you think is so important.

        "Amirite here?"

        No, and here is why: this law is an abridgement of free speech. That right wing rag knows it. We know it. Shackford above knows it. It is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Even if it is only ever used to target people who knowingly lie, it is an authoritarian law.

        With you it is always the same. "How dare the right not talk nicely about the left. Oh those deeply creepy as fuck laws that they were complaining about? Oh I guess those aren't great...I just can't get excited enough to complain about them- not when the right is using words like 'question' instead of 'lie'!"

        1. Jeffy remains the college sophomore in a philosophy class arguing semantics on behalf of real life authoritarianism.

        2. "How dare the right not talk nicely about the left.

          It's not about "talking nicely". It is about being HONEST.

          Here is an example:

          Suppose a Democrat says: "I support enforcing stricter limits on the size of gun magazines."
          And then some "two-bit" right-wing blog reports: DEMOCRATS WANT TO GRAB YOUR GUNS
          So, how should I respond here? Based on your responses to these comments, I have only two choices: either I must agree with the Democrat who wants gun control, or I must agree with the "two-bit rag" that DEMOCRATS WANT TO GRAB YOUR GUNS. And I am pointing out that this is a false choice. I can oppose the magazine restrictions while also calling out the right-wing news for the fake reporting.

          That is exactly the same as what happened here.
          Inslee said: I want to criminalize election lies.
          Two-bit right-wing rag reports: INSLEE WANTS TO CRIMINALIZE ANY QUESTIONING OF THE ELECTION RESULTS

          So, I have only two choices, right? Either I must agree with Inslee, or I must agree with the crappiest right-wing reporting on Inslee. That's it, right?

          1. “Suppose a Democrat says: "I support enforcing stricter limits on the size of gun magazines."
            And then some "two-bit" right-wing blog reports: DEMOCRATS WANT TO GRAB YOUR GUNS”

            Why exactly do you think the left continues to enact policies that violate the 2nd Amendment? Is your position seriously that left wing politicians don’t want to take away people’s guns?

            Or is this ok with you because they only come after certain types of arms?

            1. Obviously Lying Jeffy has muted me. Maybe someone else can ask him the purpose of all the Democrats gun laws?

          2. I told you to take the L already jeff. Pretend it is an extra large cake.

          3. The thing is, your fine quibbleicious parsing of "Newspunch" journalistic practice STILL in no way disproves that indeed "INSLEE WANTS TO CRIMINALIZE ANY QUESTIONING OF THE ELECTION RESULTS", derpy.

            In fact, I'm pretty sure he's not desirous of criminalizing ALL questioning of election results, just questioning of certain results. This is fully in line with the wokies efforts to inject their own double standards and arbitrary application of (usually very flexible) principles into our legal code.

            That's my interpretation:
            Consistent with observed data and precedent? Check.
            Explanatory power? Check.
            Predictive power? Pretty confident, but we'll have to see.

            All without parsing the grammar or vocabulary choices of a blogger calling it/her/him self "Newspunch", the which of what I still don't give a fuck about. It could be one person, it could be right behind Ben Shapiro and Stormfront in the Nazi Threat, no idea.

  17. The problem with this proposal is not just the 1st amendment, but the question who gets to decide what is/is not a lie.

    1. You know who will decide. See Wash DC and J6 as clear example.

  18. So glad that Washington state doesn't currently have any radicals calling for the destruction of the United States! Then islee would look like an evil dirt bag.

  19. I’ve had to withdraw my offer to trade governors sight unseen, but Comrade Idiotslee is making that attractive again.

  20. I wonder if this fucktard believes CHAZ activists were insurrectionist?

  21. "In August, five Republican legislators in Inslee's state held a rally encouraging the conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent."

    Drink!

    1. No price is TOO high to stop mean tweets...

    2. “People who are sociopathic demonstrate a number of things....
      One is the absence of conscience.
      Two is to hurt people and take advantage whether it’s lying, cheating, stealing—on a habitual, regular basis.
      Three is they take pleasure in their destructiveness and have a very limited range of close relationships or pets.
      Mushroom dick is 3/3.

  22. Hmm. Speaking of lies, I think the governor is lying about what the members of his state's legislature did. I do not believe they lied, based on the link provided.

    In August, five Republican legislators in Inslee's state held a rally encouraging the conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. They cannot be punished for such speech, because the First Amendment protects such arguments—yes, even false arguments.

    This appears untrue. Following the link in the paragraph:

    On Sunday, five Republican state representatives are hosting an unofficial public hearing at a Snohomish church, encouraging the public to bring forward evidence of voting fraud or irregularities.

    The goal is to lay groundwork for a review of Washington’s election results, similar to the controversial “forensic audit” being conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona, by a private company called Cyber Ninjas.

    The goal seems to be investigatory, to see if potential evidence could be produced in order to trigger an audit. Remember that auditing has no effect on the outcome of the election, it merely delves into where the records came from and there's no power to decertify results. So there's a few Republicans in Washington that want their results audited.

    Further statements from Sutherland, who seems to have been one of the driving forces involved:

    In an interview with a conservative talk-show host at the cyber symposium, Sutherland said he’d heard from many voters concerned about ballot integrity. For example, he said, one woman reached out to tell him she is in the U.S. on a visa but was automatically registered after getting a driver’s license and received a ballot.

    It's possible this is a false claim, I suppose, but it sounds exceedingly plausible to me. I can believe it happened, or I can believe that someone invented this story of it happening to give to him.

    So I see nothing close to proof that anyone involved is lying, they actually just wanted to call for any suspected evidence of fraud in their state in order to trigger an audit. However, I do believe Jay Inslee's statement in which he said there is an "ongoing coup attempt by candidates and elected officials to overturn our democracy" is a lie. So Inslee already seems to be in violation of the law he is proposing.

    1. One of the odder official stances Reason has taken during the Trump years is that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. And despite all the squawking from Reason apologists about them not having any official stances, the evidence sure points to this being one. It’s been stated consistently across all authors/editors since the days right after the election.

      Matt Welch’s appearance on Kennedy at the time was particularly embarrassing, coming across as Chuck Todd with worse grooming as he literally laughed off the idea of any election fraud.

      So this bias will continue to taint any coverage of any story that even tangentially relates to the topic.

      1. And I really don't understand the evil of wanting to audit the election. Just check to see if there's any problems to address, ESPECIALLY since most states massively increased the percentage of votes received by mail, and procedures were vastly altered in order to have a stable election. Everyone should have wanted to audit the procedure in 2021 even if they were greatly confident in the vote to see if there's any errors to correct going forward. That's not the same as credulously believing every single claim of ballots being burned, or trunkloads of ballots coming in from nowhere. It means you're investigating your own internal process.

        It's funny how they're gung-ho about auditing the Pentagon and Police Departments, but the election results can't be double-checked even a tiny bit. Do NOT audit those, auditing those is evil! Fuck me, audit everything, it's the government. Audit the Post Office, audit the DHS, audit the FBI, audit the NSA, and yes, audit the election results too.

        1. “And I really don't understand the evil of wanting to audit the election. Just check to see if there's any problems to address,”

          Anyone objectively paying attention already knows there’s problems to address. Many of them have already been addressed by judges ruling changes to elections laws were illegal. That’s not even debatable, there’s court records and everything. That’s why I find Reason’s position so concerning.

        2. Yeah. That is a really remarkable part of this. Even wanting an audit is sign of badness.
          If democrats really wanted to bring the country together, they would get behind full audits of the election rather than calling a large proportion of the electorate stupid liars.

  23. Of course this is a terrible idea. People have the right to lie. The only way that IMO this wouldn't be the case was if the lie was a part of some type of fraud. Even then, fraud should be limited to material harm suffered as the direct result of a person believing and acting upon those lies. Not simply the beliefs that a person has.

    The problem here isn't the lies themselves, or the people who believe lies, but media outlets who have a greater incentive to spread lies than to spread the truth. People just have to stop consuming clickbait garbage posing as news and demand higher standards from the media sources that they consume. Two handy rules of thumb to decide if your news source is clickbaity garbage is: (1) If your source portrays one side as comic book caricatures of evil, then it is probably wrong; (2) If your source only cites other sources within the same echo chamber, rarely or never delving
    into the source material itself, then it is probably wrong. It may be fun to read "news" articles about how Republicans are White Supremacist Nazis or how Democrats are America-Hating Communists, but those articles are fictional stories not news.

    1. "If your source portrays one side as comic book caricatures of evil, then it is probably wrong;"

      Yeah except making laws that prosecute "telling lies about the election" are always what evil dictators do as part of their repression. They did this in Hong Kong, Venezuela, Russia, and other places just in the last two decades.

      This isn't a "bad idea", it is authoritarian and deeply creepy as fuck- the sort of law that is used by tyrants to silence criticism from political enemies. The idea that supposedly liberal leaders are endorsing these rules is a huge, huge problem.

      1. It's also built on an obvious lie by the governor. Nobody was telling blatant election lies-at least none of the statements linked to I found were lies. No elected officials are actively engaged in a coup to overthrow the government, as he claimed. Representatives wanted people to voluntarily submit any evidence of suspected election fraud so they could trigger an audit.

        It's authoritarianism based on a lie.

  24. 80 million ballots voted for Joe Biden.

  25. They are going off on a total non-sequiter. The important thing about Jan 6 wasn't that the underlying cause was wrong, it was that it was a riot. If they had rioted over something truthful or was a matter of opinion, would that suddenly make it okay? Of course not. If instead, they had yelled and screamed about stolen elections, but followed all instructions given by police as to where they can protest? Sure, have fun exercising your constitutional rights.

    You want to prevent another Jan 6, you don't focus on elections, because, there is always good to be some group or other that says that global warming is going to kill us all or that the police are killing black people asleep in their beds or that all politicians are secretly lizard people. You stop the next Jan 6 by putting in to place procedures to ensure sufficient crowd control exists. Because... If you don't have crowd control, crowds tend to go out of control. That is literally the reason why crowd control exists.

    1. And the reason the Capitol Police were so undermanned. Everybody in the country knew there was a rally on Jan 6th. The idea that they were surprised by the gathering is preposterous.

      1. Why did Pelosi break house rules when assigning members to her January 6th commission?

        Who is responsible for Capital police?

    2. Can I quote you on that Lizard People thing? Got some clicks to chase...

      1. Sure, but you'll probably get more clicks if you choose a side and say everyone else is a lizard.

  26. I’ve been asking folks, including the liberal commentariat from the Washington Post, how a few hundred yahoos running around in the Capitol could have overthrown the government. The few responses I get are from either people who don’t understand how our government works, or think our democracy is so weak that stopping the election certification for a few hours would cause the government to topple.

    1. Have you met Mike Liarson? Ask her next chance you get.

    2. Well, you see, there's these "Levers of Power" they use to run the government. From there, and I think it's in a little room like a janitors' closet, they can control NORAD, the Pentagon, the Internal Consultancy of the CIA, the Space Force and the underground entrances to the Inner Earth!

      That's serious business, especially the entrances. We'd need those to escape from these crazy conspiracy theorists, amirite?

  27. How DARE Reason compare the Sedition Act of 1798 with progressive responses to the J6 Insurrection?! Why, that’s just comparing Adams and Apples!

  28. Is anyone under the impression that this law would be enforced in an even-handed manner?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.