With Harris now running for president in the upcoming November election, questions naturally arise about how her administration might handle free speech, especially concerning platforms such as X, now owned by Elon Musk. If elected, Harris could spearhead initiatives which severely impact Musk’s platform, possibly even leading to a ban or other significant legal actions.

There is already some cause for concern. Recent email revelations from Facebook’s parent company Meta show that Harris’s current deputy campaign manager Rob Flaherty, at the time White House Director of Digital Strategy in the Biden administration, put pressure on the social media company to remove a Tucker Carlson post related to Covid-19. Similar emails revealed other senior Biden staffers leaning on Facebook to remove Covid-19 posts as well as political reporting, including the New York Post’s October 2020 scoop on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

The growing trend of government intervention in social media under the guise of combating “disinformation” is not limited to the United States. Recent events in Brazil serve as a cautionary tale. X has faced increasing pressure from Brazilian authorities for failing to address what they deem to be disinformation, leading to the platform being taken offline temporarily in the country.

This drastic measure highlights the precarious position social media companies find themselves in when governments decide to wield their power against perceived threats to the public narrative. In Brazil, this clampdown is seen by many as an anti-democratic move, with Lula’s Left-wing government potentially using disinformation claims as a cover to suppress dissenting voices which challenge the ruling party’s agenda.

Meanwhile, Pavel Durov, the co-founder and CEO of Telegram, was recently arrested at a French airport. His arrest, which has sent shockwaves through the tech community, is similarly based on accusations related to the spread of disinformation via the Telegram platform.

The subjective nature of what constitutes disinformation raises significant concerns about the future of free speech, especially as it becomes more entwined with political motivations. In Harris’s case, her 2019 statements provide a preview of the aggressive stance she might take against platforms such as X if she ascends to the presidency. She not only advocated for Trump’s removal from Twitter, but also took the extraordinary step of writing directly to then-CEO Jack Dorsey, urging him to suspend Trump’s account permanently. Her call to action did not go unnoticed — Trump’s Twitter account was “permanently suspended” in January 2021 following the Capitol riots, underlining the potential impact of political pressure on social media platforms.

As the world watches these developments unfold, it’s clear that the line between fighting disinformation and suppressing free speech is becoming increasingly blurred. If Harris is elected president, Musk and his platform could face unprecedented challenges, possibly even severe legal repercussions. The implications for free speech in the digital age are profound, as the definition of disinformation remains dangerously fluid, often tailored to serve the interests of those in power.

Ashley Rindsberg is author of The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times’ Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History

https://unherd.com/newsroom/will-kamala-harris-censor-elon-musks-x/