Written by Jason McAllister.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is back in the spotlight with a surprising call for stricter punishments regarding the spread of misinformation. During a recent interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Clinton argued that individuals who share false information, even unknowingly, should face legal consequences. This bold stance adds fuel to the ongoing debate about how far the government should go in controlling the flow of information, especially when it involves foreign interference.
While Clinton’s proposal may sound like a safeguard against malicious foreign actors, it raises significant concerns about free speech and who decides what counts as “misinformation.” As we dig deeper into her comments, it’s clear this isn’t just about stopping propaganda—it’s about silencing voices, especially those that oppose her political views.
Criminal Charges for Memes?
Clinton, who has been a vocal critic of disinformation campaigns, especially regarding Russia, went so far as to suggest that Americans who inadvertently spread “Kremlin propaganda” should be held accountable. “Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda… should civilly, or even in some cases criminally [be] charged,” Clinton said in her interview. In her view, punishing these individuals would serve as a deterrent, given that foreign actors are beyond the reach of U.S. courts.
Her comments appear to align with the Biden administration’s crackdown on what it perceives as harmful information, but there’s a fine line between holding people accountable and stifling free expression. Clinton’s reference to prankster Douglass Mackey, who was arrested for a meme telling Democrats to vote via text, is a prime example of how far this could go. Mackey’s meme, while tasteless, was a joke—yet it led to a criminal charge. Clinton’s remarks suggest she believes Mackey and others like him deserve punishment for spreading misinformation, even when it may have been in jest.
And the implications extend further. Clinton’s idea of prosecuting individuals for inadvertently sharing propaganda opens up a slippery slope. If you happen to post something the government deems as false, could you end up facing charges? What happens when the government decides that dissenting opinions are no longer acceptable?
The Real Danger of “Dangerous” Speech
Clinton didn’t stop at condemning misinformation. She went on to label former President Donald Trump a “danger to our country and the world,” doubling down on past claims that he harbors dictator-like ambitions. Such inflammatory rhetoric, though, seems even more irresponsible given the recent assassination attempts against Trump. Clinton’s words have consequences, and her continuous vilification of her political rival serves only to inflame tensions. In the same breath that she accuses others of spreading harmful rhetoric, she pushes dangerous narratives herself.
What’s particularly troubling is Clinton’s refusal to acknowledge the gravity of her own actions. Her dismissal of the potential consequences of her incendiary statements, especially in light of the recent attempts on Trump’s life, is telling. While she accuses Trump of promoting violence, her careless remarks may be doing just that.
Meanwhile, many Democrats have toned down their attacks on Trump, but Clinton seems undeterred. Her claims about his supposed dictatorial ambitions are not only exaggerated but have been debunked repeatedly. Still, she insists on spreading this narrative, ironically accusing others of the very thing she herself is guilty of—spreading misinformation.
Our Take
It’s concerning when a political figure like Hillary Clinton pushes for criminal penalties over subjective terms like “misinformation.” The core problem lies in who gets to define what constitutes misinformation and what doesn’t. Clinton’s rhetoric goes beyond protecting the public from foreign influence—it could lead to government overreach and the silencing of opposing views. Such a precedent would be bad for the country, further polarizing an already divided nation.
Free speech, even when it’s uncomfortable or controversial, is a cornerstone of American democracy. Clinton’s proposal veers dangerously close to authoritarianism, where speech is controlled, and dissent is punished. In the end, it’s not about protecting democracy—it’s about controlling the narrative. And that’s something we should all be wary of.
