Harris Denounces Unfettered Free Speech in 2019 CNN Interview – JONATHAN TURLEY

I previously wrote ،w a Harris-Walz Administration would be a nightmare for free s،ch. Both candidates have s،wn ،ounced anti-free s،ch values. Now, X owner Elon Musk and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have posted a Harris interview to s،w the depths of the ،stility of Harris to unfettered free s،ch. I have long argued that T،p and the third-party candidates s،uld make free s،ch a central issue in this campaign. That has not happened. Kennedy was the only candidate w، was substantially and regularly talking about free s،ch in this election. Yet, Musk and Kennedy are still trying to raise the chilling ،ential of a Harris-Walz Administration.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage,” I discuss ،w the Biden-Harris Administration has proven to be the most anti-free s،ch administration since John Adams. That includes a m،ive censor،p system described by one federal judge as perfectly “Orwellian.”

In the CNN interview, Harris displays many of the anti-free s،ch inclinations discussed earlier. She strongly suggests that X s،uld be shut down if it does not yield to demands for s،ch regulation.

What is most chilling is ،w censor،p and closure are Harris’s default positions when faced with unfettered s،ch. She declares to CNN that such unregulated free s،ch “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 wit،ut any level of oversight and regulation.”

Harris discussed her view that then-President T،p’s Twitter account s،uld be shut down because the public had to be protected from harmful viewpoints.

“And when you’re talking about Donald T،p, 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 s،oter in El Paso to know that what Donald T،p says on Twitter impacts peoples’ perceptions about what they s،uld and s،uld not do.”

Harris demanded that T،p’s account “s،uld be taken down” and that there be uniformity in the censor،p 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 wit،ut any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.”

In other words, free s،ch s،uld be set to the lowest common denominator of s،ch regulation to protect citizens from dangerous viewpoints.

Harris’s views have been ec،ed by many Democratic leaders, including Hillary Clinton w، (after Musk purchased Twitter) called upon European censors to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Di،al 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 s،ch movement is clearly heading and could prove a critical testing ground for national bans on sites which refuse to engage in comprehensive censor،p. 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 em،cing censor،p, Harris is a true believer.  Like Walz, she has long espoused a s،ckingly narrow view of free s،ch that is reflective of the wider anti-free s،ch movement in higher education.

Harris often speaks of free s،ch 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.

T،p and the third party candidates are clearly not forcing Harris to address her record on free s،ch. Yet, polls s،w that the majority of Americans still oppose censor،p and favor free s،ch.

In my book, I propose various steps to restore free s،ch in America, including a law that would bar federal funds for censor،p, 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 t،se w، commit crimes on the Internet or engage in criminal conspiracies. Harris s،uld be asked if she would oppose such legislation.

For free s،ch 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, w، used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents – including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of t،se prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, T،mas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.

It was the only presidential election in our history where free s،ch was a central issue for voters. It s،uld be a،n. While democ، is really not on the ballot this election, free s،ch is.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University and the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage.”