Fact check: Did Clinton call for jail over misinformation?

The race for the White House is in full swing. Members of both parties including their respective presidential candidates — Vice President Kamala Harris for the Democrats and former President Donald Trump for the Republicans — have accused each other of spreading lies, fake news and foreign propaganda.
While some right-leaning Republicans have insisted that it’s everyone’s right to say whatever they like, center-left Democrats tend to be more open to some restrictions on free speech. A 2023 poll from RealClear Opinion Researchsuggested that three-quarters of Democrats think the government should limit “hateful” social media posts.
Earlier this week, Trump supporters were outraged over a video of Hillary Clinton that had aired earlier in the day on US broadcaster MSNBC. Among other claims, they accused the former secretary of state of demanding that political opponents be penalized for exercising their right to free speech.
DW’s Team Fact check had a look.
Claim: “Hillary Clinton suggests jailing Americans for posting ‘misinformation’,” the well-known right-wing X account “End wokeness” posted on Tuesday, along with a video clip that had gained more than 68 million views as of Thursday evening.
The account “Wall Street Apes” targeted Republican voters with an X post that has garnered 2.9 million views. It says: “Hillary Clinton now calling for Trump supporters to be thrown in prison for sharing misinformation.”
DW Fact check: False.
In the interview, Clinton proposed that “[Americans] should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged” for certain social media posts. However, she did not call for charges for anyone who has posted or reposted erroneous or counterfactual content, as some of the reactions suggest.
This stance could be viewed as scandalous as it would also contradict freedom of speech, which is a constitutional right in the US, as in most, if not all, democratic countries.
However, in the interview clip in question, Clinton was talking about US citizens who are getting paid by Russian agents to “parrot Russian talking points.” She referred to US special counsel Robert Mueller, who in 2018 indicted 13 Russians for allegedly meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
She went on to suggest that indicting Americans for spreading Kremlin propaganda would be a “better deterrence,” as Russians are very unlikely to “ever stand trial in the United States.”
Writing on X, Alex Mooney, a Republican congressman from West Virginia, issued a “reminder” to his followers alongside the Clinton clip: “Democrats Fear Our First Amendment Right to Speech,” referring to section in the US Constitution that ensures the right to free speech.
However, many governments and supreme courts worldwide, including those in Washington and Germany, have limited free speech when it has interfered with other constitutional rights, such as personal or public security. That’s why incitement of crime is usually not covered by the right to freedom of expression.
Morevoer, the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which almost all UN states have signed and ratified at least in part, states that freedom of expression can also reach its limits when it comes to hate speech.
For example, 
Germany has stricter limits on hate speech than the US. However, in both countries, defamatory or discriminatory verbal abuse can only be punished when “it goes beyond mere expression of opinion and targets a particular person for harm,” as explained by theNational Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), an alliance of 59 national not-for-profit organizations. However, NCAC asserts, that in the US such harassment usually is only punishable when it, purposeful or effectively, creates “an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment”, as NCAC puts it.
A trial taking place in Tampa Bay, Florida, where four men have been accused of conspiracy and acting as unregistered Russian agents, could shed new light on whether promoting foreign propaganda is punishable in the US.
Just like the Republicans who have — wittingly or not — misinterpreted Clinton’s interview, the four defendants in Florida, as reported in “The New York Times” on September 3, have argued that prosecutors are criminalizing dissent opinions that are protected under the First Amendment.
Edited by: Rachel Baig