There is no interpretation here because the First Amendment is explicit and the Supreme Court has settled this many times. In Miami Herald v. Tornillo the Court ruled that the government cannot force a newspaper to publish content because that is compelled speech and a violation of editorial freedom. In New York Times v. Sullivan the Court ruled that public officials cannot punish speech with vague claims of falsehood since the standard is actual malice, not government oversight of narratives. In Brandenburg v. Ohio the Court ruled that speech cannot be restricted unless it is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action which means false or unpopular ideas are still protected. Supporters of the Charlie Kirk Act are asking for state control over speech which is exactly what the First Amendment forbids. Comparing it to defamation law is dishonest and misleading. This is not post–World War II propaganda control. This is a direct attempt at government censorship. The Constitution is clear, the precedents are binding, and the result is black and white. The Charlie Kirk Act is dead on arrival.
Quote
Thomas Massie
@RepThomasMassie
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (part of 2013 NDAA) repealed the prohibition that kept the U.S. government from using propaganda on U.S. citizens.
I voted against that NDAA.
Recently, I offered an Amendment to reinstate the prohibition, but @SpeakerJohnson blocked the vote.
