Criticism of Kamala Harris’s Past Remarks on DOJ and Social Media resurfaces

A video of Kamala Harris has reignited concerns over government overreach and freedom of speech. The video, from a May 2019 speech at the NAACP’s “Fight for Freedom Fund” dinner in Detroit, shows Harris discussing the idea of using the Department of Justice (DOJ) to combat online misinformation. Harris stressed the importance of holding social media platforms responsible for allowing harmful rhetoric and cyber warfare to spread.

“We will hold Social Media Platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms,” Harris stated. “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 affecting national security and democracy.

It turns out the day Kamala was criticizing DeSantis for not taking her phone call as a hurricane was approaching Florida, even though she is not in the chain of command for hurricane response, she was also doing a photoshoot with Vogue. pic.twitter.com/YMrQhZrnZN

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 11, 2024

Her statements have resurfaced as a point of contention, with critics accusing Harris of supporting the use of the DOJ to silence political opposition and control online conversations. This resurgence of the video has sparked renewed worries among conservatives about governmental interference in free speech, especially on platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). Concerns have been raised that Harris’s proposal of a DOJ crackdown could lead to biased censorship of conservative viewpoints under the guise of combating “misinformation”​.

Harris’s position on regulating social media has been a divisive topic in political discussions. The Biden-Harris administration has faced scrutiny for pressuring social media companies to address COVID-19 misinformation and the Hunter Biden laptop story. This has amplified concerns that future actions could suppress political dissent more broadly, particularly as the administration shows interest in revising Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 currently shields online platforms from liability for user content, a protection many conservatives believe is crucial for upholding free speech on the internet.

🚨BREAKING: Univision accidentally aired evidence that Kamala used a teleprompter at her town hall 🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/d8yjUeJB1H

— AJ Huber (@Huberton) October 11, 2024

Critics, including conservative pundits and social media users, argue that this type of government intervention is risky, drawing parallels to authoritarian measures aimed at controlling public discourse. Harris’s statements have been characterized as dystopian, with some likening her approach to historical instances of government overreach, like McCarthyism. The fundamental concern is that Harris’s proposals could transfer power from the general public to government officials who might interpret “misinformation” in ways that suppress dissenting voices​.

Some individuals have highlighted the potential for a “chilling effect” on free speech, where individuals might feel compelled to self-censor out of fear of DOJ scrutiny. There are worries that this could diminish trust in governmental institutions, further dividing the public and fostering conspiracy theories about censorship and political biases.

Supporters of Harris’s position argue that stricter regulations are necessary to combat the spread of dangerous misinformation, especially in light of recent events like the January 6 Capitol riot, partly fueled by online conspiracy theories. However, critics remain wary, claiming that the regulation of social media should be managed by the platforms themselves and that any government involvement poses a threat to First Amendment rights.

In the ongoing debate between advocates of free speech and those advocating for increased regulation of online platforms, Harris’s statements have added more fuel to the fire. As the 2024 election nears, her perspective on how the DOJ should engage with tech companies is likely to remain a contentious topic, particularly as conservatives rally against what they view as an escalating assault on free expression​.