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

During a recent debate, a question regarding whether Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) would challenge the 2024 election results quickly turned into a discussion about censorship and Big Tech, with Democratic candidate Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN).

Moderator Norah O’Donnell asked Vance about his previous stance on not certifying the last presidential election and whether he would challenge this year’s election results, even if all governors certified the results. Vance responded by shifting the focus to what he described as a significant threat—the silencing of citizens by big technology companies. He suggested that the efforts to censor misinformation were a greater danger to democracy than recent historical events.

Vance accused Kamala Harris of engaging in large-scale censorship, which he deemed a more significant threat than former President Donald Trump’s actions related to the January 6th Capitol insurrection. Vance drew parallels between Trump’s disbelief in the 2020 election results and Democratic concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 election, referencing a Senate committee’s conclusion that Russia attempted to influence the election in Trump’s favor.

Gov. Walz countered, labeling Vance’s comments as “revisionist history” and emphasizing that the January 6th incident was not equivalent to Facebook ads. Vance referenced the Supreme Court case Murthy v. Missouri, which dealt with accusations that the Biden administration pressured tech platforms into censorship. Although the justices ruled in favor of the Biden administration on grounds of standing, they expressed doubts about a direct link between government outreach and subsequent moderation decisions by the platforms.

Walz attempted to steer the debate back to the initial question by asking Vance if he believed Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance sidestepped, emphasizing his focus on the future and questioning whether Kamala Harris censored Americans post-2020.

Walz described Vance’s non-response as damning, while Vance accused Walz of avoiding the topic of censorship. Additionally, Vance criticized Harris for allegedly wanting to use government and Big Tech to suppress free speech. He contrasted this with a recent suggestion from Trump that some critics of the judiciary should be jailed, highlighting a similar stance toward limiting free expression.

Walz invoked the concept of “shouting fire in a crowded theater” as a Supreme Court test for unprotected speech, a claim which Vance did not contest. However, Vance distinguished between that and what he considered legitimate criticism of government policies, such as opposition to mask mandates for toddlers.

In response, Walz pointed out that he does not control Facebook, suggesting that the debate was more aligned with Trump’s perspective than reality.

Source link