As we noted with some alarm in an Aug. 31 editorial, Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee for vice president, seems to have difficulty understanding the perimeters of the First Amendment and of free speech.

This obliviousness was on display again during the vice presidential debate, at which Walz insisted that the First Amendment does not protect “misinformation” or “hate speech” and referenced an old statement by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes about yelling fire in a crowded theater.

The reference to Holmes’ words about yelling fire in a theater is perhaps especially troubling: the Supreme Court’s decision from which those words stem, since gradually overturned, plagued the U.S. for years with a standard under which the government could censor pacifists and skeptics of military intervention.

To reiterate, Holmes was not speaking about literally causing a panic in a crowded public venue by literally falsely claiming their was a life-threatening disaster. Rather, he was conflating expressing an unpopular political opinion with doing such.

“Today, we recognize that the right to criticize U.S. military policy and oppose foreign wars is an essential component of the First Amendment,” Robby Soave of Reason magazine writes, as he details how the Supreme Court, over a series of decisions, came to correct that rhetorical sleight of hand by Holmes.

As we said in that Aug. 31 editorial — that is precisely the risk with allowing the erosion of free speech under the guise of preventing “misinformation” or “hate speech.” Opinions and principles and viewpoints with which authorities merely disagree will be maliciously labeled as either misinformation and hate speech.

As the stewards of this very op-ed page, we have repeatedly seen that tactic. Readers upset that a letter or opinion cartoon or column that expresses a viewpoint with which they strongly disagree will argue with us that it never should have been printed because it’s “false” or “hateful” or “provokes violence.”

While some letters, columns and opinion cartoons may cross the boundaries of what is appropriate for the tone of our opinion page and we will continue to decline to publish those submissions, we also will remain committed to sharing a wide variety of opinions. We believe our communities are stronger for knowing what our neighbors and fellow citizens believe. And we will continue to try to be as inclusive as possible and as skeptical of claims that the public can not handle that range of opinions as possible.

We wish the Democratic nominee for vice president shared our commitment to the marketplace of ideas and our faith that Americans can thrive as they encounter ideas they find wrong or even offensive. Unfortunately it seems he does not.