JD Vance avoids January 6 questions by resorting to Facebook ‘censorship’

A question about whether Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) would challenge the results of the 2024 election quickly turned into a fight over censorship and Big Tech during the debate with Democratic nominee, Governor Tim Walz (D-MN).

“You have said that you would not have certified the last presidential election and would have asked states to present alternative electors. That has been called unconstitutional and illegal,” moderator Norah O’Donnell asked Vance. “Would you again seek to challenge the results of this year’s election, even if all governors certify the results?”

Vance said that instead of the threats to democracy denounced by Democrats, what is In fact What is worrying is the threat of “big tech companies silencing their fellow citizens.” Vance says Harris would like to “censor people who engage in misinformation,” and that is “a much bigger threat to democracy than anything we’ve seen” in the last four to 40 years.

“Kamala Harris is engaged in censorship on an industrial scale,” Vance said, adding that that is a much bigger threat than former President Donald Trump telling people to protest “peacefully” at the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. USA. Vance compared Trump’s refusal to believe the 2020 election results to Democrats’ concerns about Russian foreign interference in the 2016 election, where they noted that foreign agents’ buying of Facebook ads contributed to the Hillary Clinton’s defeat to Trump. (A Republican-led Senate committee concluded in 2020 that Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 elections to benefit Trump’s candidacy.)

“January 6 wasn’t Facebook ads,” Walz replied, calling Vance’s version of events “revisionist history.”

Vance was apparently alluding to the events behind Murthy v. Missouria Supreme Court case decided earlier this year. The case covered allegations that the Biden administration forced tech platforms to engage in censorship. judges ruled in favor of the Biden administration based on position, but they also cast doubt on whether there was a meaningful connection between the government’s approach to platforms like Facebook and those platforms’ subsequent moderation decisions.

Walz attempted to redirect the debate back to the original question. “Did he lose the 2020 election?” he asked Vance.

“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance responded. “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their minds in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?”

“That is a damning lack of response,” Walz said.

“Not talking about censorship is damningly irresponsible,” Vance replied.

At another point, Vance accused Harris of wanting to “use the power of government and big technology to silence people and prevent them from speaking their minds.” Trump himself recently suggested that some people “should be jailed for the way they talk about our judges and magistrates,” in reference to criticism of the Supreme Court.

Walz responded to Vance with the widely used but misleading They claim that “screaming fire in a crowded theater” is a Supreme Court test for speaking without protection. Vance did not dispute the premise, but stated, “you guys wanted to kick people off Facebook for saying little kids shouldn’t wear masks. That’s not fire in a crowded theater. That is criticizing government policies, which is the right of every American.”

“I don’t run Facebook,” Walz said. “This is not a debate, it is nothing more than in the world of Donald Trump.”