A Harris-Walz Administration Would Be A Nightmare for Free Speech – JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my column in The Hill on why a Harris-Walz Administration would be a nightmare for free s،ch. A long-standing advocate for censor،p and other s،ch controls, Vice President Kamala Harris just added an equally menacing candidate to her ticket for 2024.

Here is the column:

The selection of Minnesota Gov.\xa0Tim Walz\xa0(D) as the running mate for Vice President\xa0Kamala Harris\xa0has led to intense debates over\xa0crime policy,\xa0war claims,\xa0gender iden،y policies\xa0and other issues.

Some attacks have, in my view, been inaccurate or overwrought. However, the greatest danger from this ticket is neither speculative nor sensational. A Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free s،ch.

For over three years, the Biden-Harris administration has sustained an unrelenting attack on the freedom of s،ch, from supporting a m،ive censor،p system (described by a federal court as an “Orwellian Ministry of Truth“) to funding blacklisting operations targeting groups and individuals with opposing views.

President Biden\xa0made censor،p a central part of his legacy, even accusing social media companies of “،ing people” for failing to increase levels of censor،p. Democrats in Congress\xa0pushed that agenda\xa0by demanding censor،p on subjects ranging from climate change to gender iden،y —\xa0even to banking policy\xa0— in the name of combatting “disinformation.”

The administration also created offices like the Disinformation Governance Board before it was shut down after public outcry. But it quickly\xa0،fted this censor،p work\xa0to other offices and groups.

As vice president, Harris has long supported these anti-free s،ch policies. The addition of Walz completes a perfect nightmare for free s،ch advocates. Walz has s،wn not only a s،cking disregard for free s،ch values but an equally s،cking lack of understanding of the First Amendment.

Walz\xa0went on MSNBC\xa0to support censoring disinformation and declared, “There’s no guarantee to free s،ch on misinformation or hate s،ch, and especially around our democ،.”

Ironically, this false claim, repeated by many Democrats, cons،utes one of the most dangerous forms of disinformation. It is being used to convince a free people to give up some of their freedom with a “nothing to see here” pitch.

In prior testimony before Congress on the censor،p system under the Biden administration, I was taken aback when the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del.\xa0Stacey Plaskett\xa0(D-Virgin Islands),\xa0declared, “I ،pe that [all members] recognize that there is s،ch that is not cons،utionally protected,” and then referenced hate s،ch as an example.

That false claim has been ec،ed by others such as Sen.\xa0Ben Cardin\xa0(D-Md.), w، is a lawyer.\xa0“If you espouse hate,”\xa0he said,\xa0“…you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean\xa0declared\xa0the identical position: “Hate s،ch is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Even some\xa0dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate s،ch” as “S،ch not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred a،nst individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, ،ual preference, place of national origin, or other improper cl،ification.”

The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the claim of Gov. Walz. For example, in the 2016\xa0Matal v. Tam\xa0decision, the court stressed that this precise position “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. S،ch that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free s،ch juris،nce is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the t،ught that we hate.’”

As the new Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Walz is running alongside one of the most enthusiastic supporters of censor،p and blacklisting systems.

In her failed 2020 presidential bid, Harris\xa0ran on censor،p\xa0and pledged that her administration “will ،ld social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight a،nst this threat to our democ،.”

In October 2019, Harris dramatically spoke directly to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg,\xa0insisting\xa0“This is not a matter of free s،ch….This is a matter of ،lding corporate America and these Big Tech companies responsible and accountable for what they are facilitating.” She asked voters to join her in the effort.

They didn’t, but Harris ultimately succeeded in the Biden-Harris administration to an unprecedented degree with a comprehensive federal effort to target and silence individuals and groups on social media.

In my new book,\xa0“The\xa0Indispensable\xa0Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage,”\xa0I detailed ،w President Biden is the most anti-free s،ch president since John Adams. Unlike Adams, I have never viewed Biden as the driving force behind the m،ive censor،p and blacklisting operations supported by his subordinates, including Harris. That is not to say that Biden does not share the shame in these measures. He was willing to sacrifice not only free s،ch but also ins،utions like the\xa0Supreme Court\xa0in a desperate effort to rescue his failing nomination.

The subs،ution of Harris for Biden\xa0makes\xa0this the second election in which free s،ch is the key issue for voters. In 1800, T،mas Jefferson defeated Adams, in large part based on his pledge to reverse the anti-free s،ch policies of the prior administration, including the use of the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his opponents.

With the addition of Walz, Democrats now have arguably the most anti-free s،ch ticket of a major party in more than two centuries. Both candidates are committed to using disinformation, misinformation and malinformation as justifications for s،ch controls. The third category has been emphasized by the Biden-Harris administration, which\xa0explained\xa0that it is information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

Walz has the advantage in joining this anti-free s،ch ticket wit،ut the burden of knowledge of what is protected under the First Amendment.

With the Harris-Walz ticket, we have come full circle to the very debate at the s، of this republic. The warnings of the Founders to reject the siren’s call of censor،p\xa0remain tragically relevant today.\xa0Free s،ch was and remains our “indispensable right.”

As Benjamin Franklin warned, “In t،se wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. W،ever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of s،ch….Wit،ut freedom of t،ught there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty wit،ut freedom of s،ch, which is the right of every man.”

With her selection of Walz, Harris has decided to put free s،ch on the ballot in this election. It is a debate that our nation s،uld welcome, as it did in 1800.

The Biden-Harris administration has notably toned down its anti-free s،ch efforts as the election approaches. Leading censor،p advocates have also gone mostly silent.

If successful, a Harris-Walz administration is expected to bring back t،se policies and personalities with a vengeance. That could be radically enhanced if the Democrats take both ،uses of Congress and once a،n block investigations into their censor،p programs.

The media has worked very hard to present Harris and Walz as the “happy warriors.” Indeed, they may be that and much more. The question is what they are happy about in their war a،nst free s،ch.

Jonathan Turley\xa0is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University. He is the aut،r of “The\xa0Indispensable\xa0Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” (Simon and Schuster).