The Democratic Party’s stance on free speech has come under scrutiny after Brazil’s socialist government successfully silenced opinions it deemed undesirable. Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) have expressed similar sentiments, suggesting they would use the power of the federal government to stifle dissenting voices.
Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court recently upheld a judge’s decision to ban X, a social media platform, after its owner, Elon Musk, refused to delete over 140 accounts deemed unacceptable by the judge. The court also threatened to fine Brazilian citizens $9,000 a day for using VPNs to evade the block.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a Democrat, applauded the move, tweeting “Obrigado Brasil!” (Thank you, Brazil!). This endorsement raises concerns about the Democratic Party’s commitment to free speech.
Harris has previously called for the censorship of former President Donald Trump on social media, citing the impact of his words on public perception. She has also attacked fellow Democrats for not joining her in demanding Trump’s suspension from Twitter.
Walz has also demonstrated a disregard for the First Amendment, stating that there is no guarantee of free speech when it comes to “misinformation” or “hate speech.” However, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that such speech is protected under the First Amendment.
The Brazilian judge’s actions and the Democratic Party’s response have sparked concerns about the erosion of free speech. The party’s allies in the media have historically stifled opinions they disagree with, but the rise of social media has made it more difficult to control the national discourse.
The Democratic Party’s efforts to silence dissenting voices have been met with criticism, with many arguing that the proper response to speech one disagrees with is more persuasive speech, not censorship. The party’s stance on free speech has raised concerns about what Harris and Walz would do if they gained control of the Justice Department?
