Parsing out the Trump and Harris threats to democracy

During Tuesday’s mostly cordial debate between the two vice presidential candidates, Donald Trump’s running mate JD Vance tried to deflect questions about the threat to democracy posed by Trump’s attempt to overturn the legitimate outcome of the 2020 election by mentioning a supposedly greater threat to freedom posed by Kamala Harris: “censorship.” Was this simply a cynical dodge, or is there a real issue at stake?

Vance’s bizarre definition of censorship included “Americans casting aside lifelong friendships because of disagreements over politics” and “big technology companies silencing their fellow citizens” (private companies moderating online speech). He also claimed that, as part of the Biden administration, “Harris is engaged in censorship at an industrial scale” on COVID-19 and other issues.

This claim is likely to baffle many Americans not actively involved in online debates. What’s at issue is coordination between government and internet companies to remove disinformation.

A July 2023 ruling by federal judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, held that the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment in its contacts with social media firms regarding COVID-19-related posts deemed to contain disinformation. None of these contacts involved threats of government retaliation. There is also no evidence Harris was involved. The Supreme Court threw out the decision last June.

In some cases, the connection between supposed government pressure and company action seems tenuous. Writer Alex Berenson, a prolific COVID crank, claims the Biden administration “forced” Twitter to ban him. What really happened: In a meeting with Twitter executives in April 2021, a White House official wondered why Berenson hadn’t been banned. In August, after Berenson stepped up the anti-vaccine rhetoric, Twitter banned him. He eventually sued and got reinstated.

Was this a result of government pressure? It’s hard to say: Social media companies had acted to curb postings that ran counter to scientific consensus on COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, during the Trump administration.

Voluntary coordination between government and media regarding content that affects public or national security is nothing new, but it raises concerns about First Amendment protections. The digital age and its unprecedented opportunities for both the spread and suppression of information magnifies these challenges. Malignant disinformation poses real dangers; so does allowing the government to decide what is and isn’t disinformation.

There is no question some progressives are far too comfortable with policing “harmful” speech. The Biden administration was widely criticized for an attempt to create a Disinformation Governance Board in 2022 (it was quickly dissolved). Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, has come under fire for suggesting the First Amendment doesn’t protect disinformation or “hate speech” related to elections. Walz may have been referring to narrow First Amendment exceptions — voter intimidation or false information about polling locations — but the comment is still troubling.

But defenses of free speech on the right are often cynical. Elon Musk, the pro-Trump chief executive of X (formerly Twitter), has railed against social media “censorship” but suppressed posts that raise his ire. Trump has bizarrely suggested that Fox News should not be allowed to broadcast Harris’ campaign rallies.

Government attempts to police speech, through regulation or intimidation, should certainly be a cause for concern. But to call anything Harris has proposed a threat to democracy on a par with an attempt to steal an election is the ultimate cynical ploy.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.