"Harris Denounces Unrestricted Free Speech in 2019 CNN Interview"
Jonathan Turley, the author of this piece, has previously expressed concerns about the potential threat to free speech under a Harris-Walz administration. Both candidates have demonstrated values that are contrary to the principles of free speech.
Elon Musk, owner of X, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a former independent presidential candidate, have highlighted an interview with Harris to illustrate her hostility towards unrestricted free speech. Turley has been advocating for free speech to be a central issue in the campaign, but this has not been the case. Kennedy was the only candidate who consistently emphasized the importance of free speech during the election. Despite this, Musk and Kennedy continue to highlight the potential dangers of a Harris-Walz administration.
In Turley's book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," he discusses how the Biden-Harris administration has proven to be the most anti-free speech administration since John Adams. This includes a large-scale censorship system that one federal judge described as "Orwellian."
In the CNN interview, Harris exhibits many of the anti-free speech tendencies discussed previously. She strongly suggests that X should be shut down if it does not comply with demands for speech regulation.
Harris's default positions when confronted with unrestricted speech are censorship and closure. She tells CNN that such unregulated free speech "has to stop" and that it's dangerous for the country when people can "directly speak to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight and regulation."
Harris expressed her belief that then-President Trump's Twitter account should be shut down to protect the public from harmful viewpoints. She insisted that Trump's account "should be taken down" and that there should be uniformity in the censorship of American citizens.
In essence, Harris believes that free speech should be regulated to protect citizens from dangerous viewpoints.
Many Democratic leaders, including Hillary Clinton, have echoed Harris's views. After Musk purchased Twitter, Clinton called on European censors to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA).
Other Democratic leaders have praised Brazil for banning X after Musk refused to censor conservatives at the request of the socialist government. Brazil is a clear example of where this anti-free speech movement is heading and could serve as a critical testing ground for national bans on sites that refuse to engage in comprehensive censorship.
Harris promises to remove viewpoints that many on the left find intolerable or triggering on social media.
Unlike Biden, who was seen as an opportunist in embracing censorship, Harris is a true believer. Like Walz, she has consistently advocated for a shockingly narrow view of free speech, which reflects the broader anti-free speech movement in higher education.
Harris often refers to free speech as if it is a privilege granted by the government, like a license, and that you can be taken off the road if you are viewed as a reckless driver.
Trump and third-party candidates are not forcing Harris to address her record on free speech. However, polls show that the majority of Americans still oppose censorship and support free speech.
In his book, Turley proposes various steps to restore free speech in America, including a law that would prohibit federal funds for censorship, including grants and other funding that target individuals and sites based on the content of their views.
For advocates of free speech, the 2024 election is eerily similar to the election of 1800. One of the greatest villains in our history, President John Adams, used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents, including journalists, members of Congress, and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.
It was the only presidential election in our history where free speech was a central issue for voters. Turley argues it should be again. While democracy may not be on the ballot this election, free speech certainly is.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage."
Bottom Line
The threats to free speech are real and present. The views expressed by Harris and other Democratic leaders highlight the potential dangers of a government that seeks to regulate and control speech. The question is, are we willing to sacrifice our freedom of speech for the sake of perceived safety and uniformity? This is a conversation that needs to be had, and the outcome will shape the future of our democracy. What are your thoughts on this issue? Share this article with your friends and let's continue the discussion. Remember, you can sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is every day at 6 pm.
"Harris Denounces Unrestricted Free Speech in 2019 CNN Interview"
Jonathan Turley, the author of this piece, has previously expressed concerns about the potential threat to free speech under a Harris-Walz administration. Both candidates have demonstrated values that are contrary to the principles of free speech.
Elon Musk, owner of X, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a former independent presidential candidate, have highlighted an interview with Harris to illustrate her hostility towards unrestricted free speech. Turley has been advocating for free speech to be a central issue in the campaign, but this has not been the case. Kennedy was the only candidate who consistently emphasized the importance of free speech during the election. Despite this, Musk and Kennedy continue to highlight the potential dangers of a Harris-Walz administration.
In Turley's book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," he discusses how the Biden-Harris administration has proven to be the most anti-free speech administration since John Adams. This includes a large-scale censorship system that one federal judge described as "Orwellian."
In the CNN interview, Harris exhibits many of the anti-free speech tendencies discussed previously. She strongly suggests that X should be shut down if it does not comply with demands for speech regulation.
Harris's default positions when confronted with unrestricted speech are censorship and closure. She tells CNN that such unregulated free speech "has to stop" and that it's dangerous for the country when people can "directly speak to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight and regulation."
Harris expressed her belief that then-President Trump's Twitter account should be shut down to protect the public from harmful viewpoints. She insisted that Trump's account "should be taken down" and that there should be uniformity in the censorship of American citizens.
In essence, Harris believes that free speech should be regulated to protect citizens from dangerous viewpoints.
Many Democratic leaders, including Hillary Clinton, have echoed Harris's views. After Musk purchased Twitter, Clinton called on European censors to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA).
Other Democratic leaders have praised Brazil for banning X after Musk refused to censor conservatives at the request of the socialist government. Brazil is a clear example of where this anti-free speech movement is heading and could serve as a critical testing ground for national bans on sites that refuse to engage in comprehensive censorship.
Harris promises to remove viewpoints that many on the left find intolerable or triggering on social media.
Unlike Biden, who was seen as an opportunist in embracing censorship, Harris is a true believer. Like Walz, she has consistently advocated for a shockingly narrow view of free speech, which reflects the broader anti-free speech movement in higher education.
Harris often refers to free speech as if it is a privilege granted by the government, like a license, and that you can be taken off the road if you are viewed as a reckless driver.
Trump and third-party candidates are not forcing Harris to address her record on free speech. However, polls show that the majority of Americans still oppose censorship and support free speech.
In his book, Turley proposes various steps to restore free speech in America, including a law that would prohibit federal funds for censorship, including grants and other funding that target individuals and sites based on the content of their views.
For advocates of free speech, the 2024 election is eerily similar to the election of 1800. One of the greatest villains in our history, President John Adams, used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents, including journalists, members of Congress, and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.
It was the only presidential election in our history where free speech was a central issue for voters. Turley argues it should be again. While democracy may not be on the ballot this election, free speech certainly is.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage."
Bottom Line
The threats to free speech are real and present. The views expressed by Harris and other Democratic leaders highlight the potential dangers of a government that seeks to regulate and control speech. The question is, are we willing to sacrifice our freedom of speech for the sake of perceived safety and uniformity? This is a conversation that needs to be had, and the outcome will shape the future of our democracy. What are your thoughts on this issue? Share this article with your friends and let's continue the discussion. Remember, you can sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is every day at 6 pm.
