The question of whether Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) would challenge the 2024 election results quickly devolved into an argument about censorship and Big Tech during the debate with Democratic nominee Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN).
“You said you did not certify the last presidential election and asked states to submit alternative electors. That was called unconstitutional and illegal,” moderator Norah O’Donnell asked Vance. “Would you try again to challenge this year’s election results even if every governor certifies the results?”
Vance said that instead of the threats to democracy denounced by Democrats, what is Really What is worrying is the risk of “big technology companies silencing their fellow citizens.” Vance says Harris would like to “censor people who spread misinformation” and that that is “a far greater threat to democracy than anything we've seen in the last four or 40 years.”
“Kamala Harris is engaging in censorship on an industrial scale,” Vance said, adding that this was a much greater threat than when former President Donald Trump urged people to “peacefully” on Jan. 6 ahead of the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol protest. Vance compared Trump's refusal to believe the 2020 election results to Democrats' concerns about Russian foreign interference in the 2016 election, where they suggested that foreign agents' purchase of Facebook ads contributed to Hillary Clinton's defeat Trump contributed. (A Republican-led Senate committee concluded in 2020 that Russia did indeed attempt to interfere in the 2016 election to benefit Trump's candidacy.)
“January 6 was not a Facebook ad,” Walz responded, calling Vance’s version of events “revisionist history.”
“January 6th wasn’t a Facebook ad”
Vance was apparently alluding to the events behind it Murthy v. Missouria Supreme Court case decided earlier this year. The case involved allegations that the Biden administration forced technology platforms to censor. The justices ruled in favor of the Biden administration based on its reputation, but also expressed doubts about whether there was a meaningful connection between the government's outreach to platforms like Facebook and those platforms' subsequent moderation decisions.
Walz tried to bring the debate back to the original question. “Did he lose the 2020 election?” he asked Vance.
“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance replied. “Did Kamala Harris stop Americans from expressing their opinions in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?”
“That’s a damn non-answer,” Walz said.
“It’s a damn non-response for you not to talk about censorship,” Vance replied.
Elsewhere, Vance accused Harris of wanting to “use the power of government and Big Tech to stop people from expressing their opinions.” Trump himself recently suggested that some people should be “jailed for the way they talk about our judges and our judges,” referring to criticism of the Supreme Court.
Walz responded to Vance with the widespread but misleading claim that “shouting fire in a crowded theater” was a Supreme Court test of unprotected speech. Vance didn't dispute the premise, but claimed, “You wanted to kick the people off Facebook for saying little kids shouldn't wear masks.” This isn't a fire in a crowded theater. This is criticism of government policy, and that is the right of every American.”
“I don’t run Facebook,” Walz said. “This is not a debate, this is nowhere other than in Donald Trump’s world.”