In an article attempting to show that Kamala Harris didn’t call for shutting down X, an AP “Fact Focus” article inadvertently shows that she is an advocate of censorship. (As is Trump, but that’s for a different article.) It shows that a particular claim — that an old video by Harris “has threatened to censor both X and Musk” — is inaccurate, but it uses this to cast a shade over the fact that Harris has called for censorship of social media. The article goes on to quote that call verbatim:
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.
According to AP, her demand for “oversight” and “regulation” of speech is not a call for censorship; she merely “advocated for increased accountability.” The article quotes one thing that Robert Kennedy, Jr. got completely right: “Can someone please explain to her that freedom of speech is a RIGHT, not a ‘privilege’?” Someone needs to explain it to AP, too. As a journalistic organization, they ought to know that no one should be held “accountable” to the government for their speech. (Exceptions such as direct threats aren’t the issue here.)
Even as AP claims they should be understood, Harris’s remarks are disturbing.
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.
It’s not a First Amendment violation as such for a Senator to ask a private organization to suspend someone’s account, but it steps onto risky ground. It suggests an implied threat of unfavorable legislation or a Congressional summons. Keeping silence is always a legitimate option and often a wise one for people holding public office. A candidate’s criticizing a Senator for exercising that choice steps into questionable ground. I think Twitter made the right choice, but I can’t threaten to do anything worse than blog about it.
An article on Reason.com by Robby Soave addresses the same issue, commenting that Harris’s “monomaniacal focus on deplatforming Trump is representative of some of the worst tendencies in progressive speech policing and does not bode well for a future Harris administration.”
Harris has implied there should be federal regulation and oversight of the content of social media, and AP is suggesting there’s nothing wrong with that. It rebuts an overblown claim to make her actual position seem mild by comparison and therefore acceptable. Whether Trump or Harris wins, we’ll have a president who is less than an enthusiastic supporter of the First Amendment.