JD Vance dodges questions about January 6 by shifting the topic to Facebook's 'censorship.'
Walz stated that January 6 was not related to the Facebook announcements.
During a recent debate, a question about whether Republican vice-presidential candidate Senator JD Vance (R-OH) would challenge the results of the 2024 elections quickly turned into a confrontation over censorship and the power of large tech companies. Moderator Norah O’Donnell questioned Vance about his statements regarding the certification of the previous presidential election and his willingness to ask states to present alternative electors, actions that have been deemed unconstitutional.
Vance shifted the focus, arguing that the real concern lies in the risk of large tech companies silencing citizens, rather than the threats to democracy mentioned by Democrats. He claimed that Kamala Harris wants to censor those who spread misinformation, which, in his opinion, poses a greater threat to democracy than any recent incident.
The senator compared the events of January 6, when the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol occurred, to the Democrats' concerns about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, where it was claimed that foreign agents purchased Facebook ads that contributed to Hillary Clinton's defeat against Trump. Vance justified his perspective and downplayed the relevance of the Facebook ads in the context of the insurrection.
Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) countered Vance, emphasizing that the January 6 insurrection has no comparison to social media ads. He also attempted to steer the conversation back to the original topic and asked Vance if he really believed he had lost the 2020 elections. To which Vance responded that his focus was on the future and questioned whether Harris had censored Americans after the COVID-19 situation.
Throughout the debate, the exchange became heated, with Vance accusing Harris of intending to use both the government and tech platforms to silence dissenting voices. Walz, for his part, replied with the well-known though controversial assertion that “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a criterion from the Supreme Court for determining unprotected speech. Vance, without rejecting this argument, defended that questioning government policies should not be subject to censorship.
In the course of this confrontation, the discussion centered on fundamental values such as freedom of expression, the influence of technological power, and the ability of politicians to address sensitive issues without evading responsibility.
