"That Has to Stop": Harris Denounces Unfettered Free Speech in 2019 CNN Interview
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I previously wrote how a Harris-Walz Administration would be a nightmare for free speech. Both candidates have shown pronounced anti-free speech values. Now, X owner Elon Musk and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have posted a Harris interview to show the depths of the hostility of Harris to unfettered free speech. I have long argued that Trump and the third-party candidates should make free speech a central issue in this campaign. That has not happened. Kennedy was the only candidate who was substantially and regularly talking about free speech in this election. Yet, Musk and Kennedy are still trying to raise the chilling potential of a Harris-Walz Administration.
In my book "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," I discuss how the Biden-Harris Administration has proven to be the most anti-free speech administration since John Adams. That includes a massive censorship system described by one federal judge as perfectly "Orwellian."
In the CNN interview, Harris displays many of the anti-free speech inclinations discussed earlier. She strongly suggests that X should be shut down if it does not yield to demands for speech regulation.
What is most chilling is how censorship and closure are Harris's default positions when faced with unfettered speech. She declares to CNN that such unregulated free speech "has to stop" and that there is a danger to the country when people are allowed to "directly speak[] to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight and regulation."
Harris discussed her view that then-President Trump's Twitter account should be shut down because the public had to be protected from harmful viewpoints.
"And when you're talking about Donald Trump, he has 65 million Twitter followers, he has proven himself to be willing to obstruct justice - just ask Bob Mueller. You can look at the manifesto from the shooter in El Paso to know that what Donald Trump says on Twitter impacts peoples' perceptions about what they should and should not do."
Harris demanded that Trump's account "should be taken down" and that there be uniformity in the censorship of American citizens:
"And the bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power… They are speaking to millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop."
In other words, free speech should be set to the lowest common denominator of speech regulation to protect citizens from dangerous viewpoints.
Harris's views have been echoed by many Democratic leaders, including Hillary Clinton who (after Musk purchased Twitter) called upon European censors to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA).
Other Democratic leaders have praised Brazil for banning X after Musk balked at censoring conservatives at the demand of the socialist government. Brazil is where this anti-free speech movement is clearly heading and could prove a critical testing ground for national bans on sites which refuse to engage in comprehensive censorship. As Harris clearly states in the CNN interview, there cannot be "one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter." Rather, everyone must censor or face imminent government shutdowns.
The "joy" being sold by Harris includes the promise of the removal of viewpoints that many on the left feel are intolerable or triggering on social media. Where Biden was viewed as an opportunist in embracing censorship, Harris is a true believer. Like Walz, she has long espoused a shockingly narrow view of free speech that is reflective of the wider anti-free speech movement in higher education.
Harris often speaks of free speech as if it is a privilege bestowed by the government like a license and that you can be taken off the road if you are viewed as a reckless driver.
Trump and the third party candidates are clearly not forcing Harris to address her record on free speech. Yet, polls show that the majority of Americans still oppose censorship and favor free speech.
In my book, I propose various steps to restore free speech in America, including a law that would bar federal funds for censorship, including grants and other funding that target individuals and sites over the content of their views. The government can still speak in its own voice and it can still prosecute those who commit crimes on the Internet or engage in criminal conspiracies. Harris should be asked if she would oppose such legislation.
For free speech advocates, the 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800. One of the greatest villains in our history discussed in my book was President John Adams, who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents - including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.
It was the only presidential election in our history where free speech was a central issue for voters. It should be again. While democracy is really not on the ballot this election, free speech is.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage."
Tags
Who is online
402 visitors
They definitely don't like free speech.
The violated the rights of Americans before so they think they can do it again.
I don't see this ending well for them.
I wish I had such optimism.
She can't take questions from the media.....can't they see that she is on the phone.
Zoom in on that picture. See the wire coming out of the phone? Now, see the wires going up to her ears? She has buds in and there is no reason she needs to hold that phone to her ear...............except for the photo op fake out.
Another fatal mistake.
They don't care. She mocks them and they still worship her.
I suppose as long as she delivers on defeating Trump and nationalizing abortion, they don't care about anything else.
An all out war on the first amendment.
Brazil's leader just ended free speech in Bazil.
Funny how they claimed Bolsenaro was the dictator.
Very funny, just like they told us that it was Batista who was the devil.
ris often speaks of free speech as if it is a privilege
That seems to be the default position for many on the left.
Most people deserve free speech and then there is Elon Musk who should shut the fuck up.
He is the great defender of free speech.
Don't worry, they'll try to shut many of us up.
After a nationwide suspension of billionaire Elon Musk’s X platform in Brazil, social media users — including former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — are misrepresenting a years-old video of Vice President Kamala Harris to falsely claim that the Democratic presidential nominee has threatened to censor both X and Musk.
Here’s a closer look at the facts.
CLAIM: A video clip portrays Harris as saying that she will shut down X if she wins the 2024 presidential election and that Musk has “lost his privileges.”
THE FACTS: That’s false. Harris was referring to Trump long before Musk bought Twitter and rebranded it as X.
The clip is from 2019 and shows Harris speaking with CNN host Jake Tapper after a Democratic primary debate, discussing whether then-President Donald Trump’s profile should be removed from the platform, called Twitter at the time, and how there needs to be increased accountability for social media companies.
Kennedy, who on Aug. 23 suspended his presidential bid and endorsed Trump, used the clip in an X post as alleged proof that Harris was talking about Musk, stating: “Can someone please explain to her that freedom of speech is a RIGHT, not a ‘privilege’?” He also provided his own interpretation of Harris’ comments on social media sites in general as follows: “If they don’t police content to conform to government-approved narratives, they will be shut down.”
In extended footage of the interview, part of CNN’s post-debate analysis on Oct. 15, 2019, Tapper asked Harris: “So, one of the topics that you chose to talk a lot about, especially confronting Sen. Warren on, was your push, your call, for Twitter to suspend the account of President Trump. Why was that important?”
Tapper was referring to the moment in the debate when Harris criticized then-fellow Democratic candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren for not urging such a suspension. Twitter did eventually ban Trump’s account in January 2021, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence” after the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, with multiple other social media platforms kicking him off around the same time. Musk restored Trump’s account in November 2022 after he bought the platform.
Harris responded during the interview that Trump had “proven himself to be willing to obstruct justice” and that what he says on Twitter “impacts people’s perceptions about what they should and should not do.”
She continued: “And as far as I’m concerned, and I think most people would say, including members of Congress who he has threatened, that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down.”
Harris did not call for the platform as a whole to be shut down. Rather, she advocated for increased accountability.
“ The bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter ,” she stated. “The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.”
FACT FOCUS: Posts falsely claim video shows Harris promising to censor X and owner Elon Musk | The Seattle Times
So just more miserable conservatives knowingly misrepresenting Harris as they try and bamboozle their gullible moron supporters.
The flaw in this argument is the presumption that social media sites qualify legally as free speech fora. That is not the case.
Traditionally, the fora where our speech is most free is what are considered totally public spaces. Usually, streets, sidewalks, and parks are held up by courts as classic examples of the traditional public forum. These are places owned and controlled by the public, and set out for their general use. Government can only place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in these locations. Punishment of topics or viewpoint in this context is typically unconstitutional.
By contrast, social media sites like Facebook, X, and even Newstalkers are privately held and subject to privately defined terms of use. Those who speak in such fora enter into a contract that defines what they are and are not allowed to say. The fact that some of these sites have hundreds of millions of users does not morph them from private into public.
Attach to that, any benefits they might enjoy from the government, such as tax breaks, liability privileges, or access to public infrastructure, and now that government has a voice in how they are run.
I asked ChatGPT the following.
Imagine a modern poltical party.
Imagine that all you know about it is the following:
It champions rights for state sponsored schools over the rights of the parents on behalf of their own children.
It promotes equality of outcome over a level playing field.
It is concerned that unfeterred speech is a threat to the safety of the population.
It supports candidates chosen by party leaders rather than the people via primary elections.
It celebrates choices for irreversable self-sterilization via reproductive surgical mutilation within the K-12 curriculum.
It does not want people to have to show ID to vote.
Q: To which political parties is this unspecified party most similar worldwide and throughout history?
It mentions Maoist China, the CCP, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and the Nazis.