Footage of Vice President Kamala Harris from 2019 has recently resurfaced, sparking intense debate. In the clip, then-Senator Harris appears to threaten the use of the Department of Justice (DOJ) against social media platforms that fail to censor what she deems as “hate” and “misinformation.” The video, which is quickly going viral, highlights a speech Harris delivered at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) convention in Detroit, Michigan, during her bid for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination.
In her speech, Harris promised sweeping changes to how the federal government, particularly the DOJ, would tackle issues related to extremism and misinformation. “We will put the Department of Justice of the United States back in the business of justice,” Harris declared. She outlined her vision for doubling the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and directing law enforcement to combat what she described as “extremism,” specifically targeting social media companies.
Harris’s statements drew attention due to her clear warning to these platforms. She argued that companies profiting from or amplifying misinformation or hate should be held accountable. “We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy,” she said. “And if you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, if you don’t police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable as a community.”
Her comments suggest a willingness to use the full force of the federal government to ensure compliance from tech platforms. This approach has triggered concerns from critics about government overreach and potential infringements on free speech. By calling for the DOJ to play an active role in regulating online content, Harris raised the specter of a crackdown on free speech—particularly when the definitions of “hate” and “misinformation” can be subjective. The idea of weaponizing the DOJ in this manner could lead to significant restrictions on Americans’ First Amendment rights, her critics argue.
In recent years, the term “misinformation” has been a hot-button issue in political discourse. Misinformation, as defined by many authorities, includes false or misleading content, but it has also come to encompass accurate information that is politically inconvenient. For example, stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop and concerns over vaccine side effects were initially dismissed as misinformation by several media outlets and tech platforms, only to later be validated. This inconsistency, critics say, highlights the dangers of using government pressure to dictate what should or should not be allowed on social media platforms.
Harris’s remarks in 2019 resonate particularly strongly today as debates over the power and responsibility of tech companies continue to intensify. Since then, social media platforms have faced ongoing scrutiny, with both political parties expressing concerns about content moderation. Republicans, in particular, have argued that conservative voices are being disproportionately silenced, while Democrats have pushed platforms to more aggressively combat what they see as harmful or false content. Harris’s speech, therefore, fits within a broader national conversation about how far the government should go in regulating speech online and what role private companies should play in the process.
Critics of Harris view her comments as part of a larger pattern of authoritarian policies she has supported throughout her career. As a state politician in California, she pushed several far-left policies that have been viewed as attacks on personal freedom. For instance, she endorsed a handgun ban that was later overturned by the courts, and she argued for the ability of authorities to enter the homes of lawful gun owners to inspect their firearms—proposals that were seen as extreme by her opponents.
As part of her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris also took controversial stances on immigration and criminal justice issues. She endorsed the decriminalization of unlawful border crossings, a position that many critics argue could incentivize illegal immigration. Additionally, she supported taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries for prisoners and illegal immigrants, positions considered radical by many mainstream voters.
These far-left positions stand in contrast to the more moderate persona Harris has tried to cultivate during her snap 2024 presidential run. In her current campaign, Harris has attempted to portray herself as a more centrist candidate, distancing herself from some of her earlier policy positions. Yet, her past record and the resurfacing of this 2019 footage could complicate those efforts.
The viral video and Harris’s statements to the NAACP have reignited debates about the boundaries of free speech and government power. With the 2024 election approaching, voters and political analysts alike are questioning how much control over speech should be ceded to the government and what the consequences might be if tech companies fail to adhere to government demands.
For now, Harris’s comments continue to raise eyebrows, especially among her critics, who worry that her vision of justice may come at the expense of fundamental freedoms. As the vice president navigates the political challenges of her campaign, her past statements are likely to be scrutinized even more closely. Whether she can successfully distance herself from her prior rhetoric or if these moments will haunt her in the upcoming election remains to be seen.
WATCH:
https://twitter.com/realJoelFischer/status/1844184014896365975?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
