A resurfaced video of Kamala Harris has reignited concerns over government overreach and free speech. The clip, which dates back to a May 2019 speech at the NAACP's "Fight for Freedom Fund" dinner in Detroit, shows Harris discussing the possibility of using the Department of Justice (DOJ) to combat online misinformation. Harris emphasized the need to hold social media platforms accountable for allowing harmful rhetoric and cyber warfare to spread.
“We will hold Social Media Platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms,” Harris declared. “If you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation… we are going to hold you accountable,” she added, framing the issue as one of national security and democracy.
It turns out the day Kamala was bitching at DeSantis for not taking her phone call as a hurricane was barreling towards Florida, even though she is not in the chain of command on hurricane response, was the same day that she was doing a photoshoot with Vogue. pic.twitter.com/YMrQhZrnZN
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 11, 2024
Her remarks quickly resurfaced as a point of contention, with critics accusing Harris of advocating for the weaponization of the DOJ to silence political dissent and control online discourse. The resurfacing of this video has prompted renewed concerns among conservatives about government interference in free speech, especially on platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). They fear that Harris's vision of a DOJ crackdown could lead to biased censorship of conservative voices under the guise of combating "misinformation".
Harris’s stance on regulating social media has long been a flashpoint in political discourse. The Biden-Harris administration has already been scrutinized for its role in pressuring social media companies to address COVID-19 misinformation and the Hunter Biden laptop story. This has only deepened concerns that future moves could suppress political dissent more broadly, particularly as the administration appears focused on rewriting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 currently protects online platforms from liability for user content, a safeguard many conservatives argue is essential to maintaining free speech on the internet.
🚨BREAKING: Univision accidentally broadcast proof that Comrade Kamala used a teleprompter at her town hall 🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/d8yjUeJB1H
— AJ Huber (@Huberton) October 11, 2024
Critics, including conservative commentators and social media users, argue that this kind of government intervention is dangerous, likening it to authoritarian efforts to control public discourse. Harris’s remarks have been described as dystopian, with some comparing her approach to historical instances of government overreach, such as McCarthyism. The underlying fear is that Harris's plans could shift power away from the public and into the hands of government bureaucrats who may interpret "misinformation" in ways that stifle dissent.
Others have pointed out the potential for a "chilling effect" on free speech, where citizens might feel compelled to self-censor for fear of DOJ scrutiny. Some worry that this could erode trust in government institutions, further polarizing the public and encouraging conspiracy theories about censorship and political bias.
Proponents of Harris’s stance argue that stronger regulation is necessary to prevent the spread of dangerous misinformation, particularly in light of recent events, such as the January 6 Capitol riot, which was fueled in part by online conspiracy theories. However, her critics remain skeptical, insisting that the regulation of social media should be left to the platforms themselves and that any government involvement risks infringing on First Amendment rights.
In the ongoing battle between free speech advocates and those pushing for stricter regulation of online platforms, Harris’s remarks have only added fuel to the fire. As the 2024 election approaches, her views on how the DOJ should interact with tech companies are likely to remain a contentious issue, particularly as conservatives rally against what they see as an escalating war on free expression.
