Clinton: Americans Who ‘Parrot Russian Propaganda’ Should Be ‘Criminally Charged’

During an interview on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” on Tuesday, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton declared that Americans who engage in speech that “parrot Russian propaganda” should be “civilly or even in some cases, criminally charged.” Clinton became the latest in a recent string of high-profile Democrats to suggest that First Amendment free speech rights in America should be curtailed.

In response to Maddow questioning whether the Biden-Harris administration was doing enough to counter Russia’s efforts to interfere with U.S. elections through misinformation campaigns, Clinton first accused Republican congressmen of being Russian stooges, without providing clarification on precisely what kind of views constitute being a Russian sympathizer. “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.”

Clinton went on to say this about Americans who supposedly “parrot Kremlin propaganda”: “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.” Clinton did not specify or give examples of what kind of speech would equal “Kremlin propaganda.”

The remarks from the prominent Democrat echoed those made by Minnesota Governor and current Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz some months ago, when he declared during an MSNBC interview that “there’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” Experts have noted that the Supreme Court’s clear precedent is that almost all speech, no matter how detestable or out of favor, is in fact protected by the First Amendment.

The comments come in the wake of a House Committee on Small Business (HCSB) report released last week indicating that the free speech views held by Clinton and Walz appear to be widely shared within the Biden-Harris administration, which has taken significant measures to censor views it disagrees with. The report found that a State Department interagency body “circumvented its strict international mandate by funding, developing, then promoting tech start-ups and other small businesses in the disinformation detection space to private sector entities with domestic censorship capabilities.” In addition, “a private non-profit funded almost entirely by Congressional appropriations, violated its international restrictions by collaborating with fact-checking entities in assessing domestic press businesses’ admission to a credibility organization.”

In comments to The Washington Stand, Joseph Backholm, senior fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement at Family Research Council, contended that Clinton’s remarks are in line with a trend occurring within the Left that seeks to infringe on free speech rights.

“This openness to criminally punishing people who say things they disagree with is evidence of the Left’s departure from our founding principles,” he insisted. “In the past they said, ‘I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.’ This was a reflection of their belief that the protection of individual rights was the purpose of government. Today, they believe the purpose of government is to eradicate discrimination and impose equity on the world.”

“When that’s your goal, individual rights like free speech are the problems that have to be solved in the pursuit of the equitable world they’re sure they can create once they have enough power,” Backholm concluded.