JD Vance Dodges January 6th Questions, Focuses on Facebook ‘Censorship’

The debate between Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) and Democratic candidate Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) took a sharp turn from election integrity to censorship and Big Tech.

Moderator Norah O’Donnell asked Vance whether he would challenge the 2024 election results if elected, referencing his previous stance on not certifying the last presidential election and asking states to submit alternative electors, a move deemed unconstitutional and illegal by some.

Instead of directly addressing the question, Vance shifted the focus to what he described as the more pressing threat of big technology companies silencing citizens. He accused Kamala Harris of wanting to censor individuals who disseminate misinformation, claiming this poses a greater risk to democracy than any other issue in recent decades.

Vance further alleged that Harris is engaged in widespread censorship, framing it as a greater danger than former President Donald Trump’s actions on January 6th when he encouraged people to protest peacefully at the US Capitol. He drew a comparison between Trump’s skepticism of the 2020 election results and Democrats’ concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 election, highlighting Russian agents’ use of Facebook ads as a factor in Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump—a conclusion supported by a Republican-led Senate committee in 2020.

Gov. Walz countered Vance’s assertions about the nature of January 6th, dismissing them as revisionist history.

Vance’s comments appeared to refer to the Supreme Court case Murthy v. Missouri, which addressed allegations that the Biden administration pressured tech platforms into censorship. The justices ruled in favor of the Biden administration based on standing but expressed doubts about a significant link between government communications with platforms like Facebook and those platforms’ moderation decisions.

Walz sought to steer the debate back to its original focus by questioning Vance on whether Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance avoided a direct response, instead questioning whether Harris had censored Americans following the 2020 Covid situation. Walz labeled Vance’s reply as a “damning non-answer.”

At another point in the debate, Vance accused Harris of wanting to leverage government and Big Tech to stifle free speech. He referenced Trump’s recent statements suggesting that critics of judges and justices ought to be jailed.

Walz invoked the common but inaccurately applied notion of “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” as a test for unprotected speech. Vance countered by arguing that criticism of government policies, such as opposition to masking toddlers, should be protected speech, not grounds for censorship.

Walz responded, emphasizing his lack of control over Facebook and dismissing the debate’s focus as an issue isolated within Trump’s worldview.

Source link