In a recent clip which has gone viral on social media, Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’s running mate, told MSNBC that “misinformation” is not protected speech, UnHerd reports.
Click here to watch the click.
The clip has sparked debates concerning Walz’s candidacy and where the boundaries of free speech lie. More concretely, it’s also raised questions about what free speech would look like under a possible Harris-Walz administration.
The issue of free speech goes far beyond Walz and Harris, extending deep into the heart of the Democratic Party. Whilst, for decades, Democrats were seen as the party of free speech, the political dynamic has flipped with free speech now being equated with the Right.
Writing on X, Glen Greenwald claimed“That Tim Walz falsely believes the free speech guarantee doesn’t include what he considers to be ‘misinformation’ or ‘hate speech’ will bother almost no Dem supporters, since the vast majority of them want the state to be empowered to censor dissent.”
For years, Democrats enjoyed a virtual monopoly on information governance. This is because the mainstream media, at the time the only real pipeline for information distribution, sat squarely in their political camp.
Similarly, Big Tech companies, responsible for the monitoring major social media platforms, were aligned with the Democratic Party, often operating in lockstep with the mainstream, media on key issues.
However, the liberal monopoly on information distribution is over. Evidenced by his reaction to Trump’s attempted assassination. Zuckerberg is undergoing a “vibe shift” towards a patriotic, pro-Americanism. What’s more, Twitter, now rebranded as X, has become a bastion of free speech under Elon Musk.
What remains of the Democrat’s media hegemony is a blunt campaign to clamp down on content through the use of law, regulation and third-party pressure groups.
Even with changes to the existing media landscape, Walz’s stance on the issue of censorship is not entirely surprising. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he implemented a “snitch line” where citizens could report businesses and individuals violating pandemic restrictions.
When it comes to the question of freedom of speech, Harris herself doesn’t fare much better. As California’s Attorney General, the Vice President was criticised for allegedly misusing her power to target conservatives. In a move seen as an attempt to intimidate political opponents, Harris demanded the disclosure of donor lists from nonprofit organisations. Ultimately, The Supreme Court ruled against her, reaffirming the significance of donor privacy and free association.
Given Walz’s clearly stated views on speech combined with Harris’ record, a serious question emerged concerning about what kind of policies a Harris-Walz administration would advance. At core, the ticket raises deep-rooted concerns about the potential erosion of free speech and the expansion of governmental power.
Full story available here.
