JD Vance eludes January 6th asks by pivoting to Facebook ‘confineion’

A ask about whether Reaccessiblean vice pdwellntial honestate Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) would dispute the 2024 election results speedyly dgrowd into a fight about confineion and Big Tech during the debate with Democratic honestate Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN).

“You have shelp you would not have certified the last pdwellntial election, and would have asked the states to produce alternative electors. That has been called unconstitutional and illhorrible,” moderator Norah O’Donnell asked Vance. “Would you aachieve seek to dispute this year’s election results, even if every ruleor certifies the results?”

Vance shelp that instead of the menaces to democracy decried by Democrats, what’s reassociate worrying is the menace of “big technology companies silencing their fellow citizens.” Vance says Harris would appreciate to “censor people who participate in deceiveation,” and that’s “a much bigger menace to democracy than anyleang we’ve seen” in the last four or 40 years.

“Kamala Harris is participated in confineion at an industrial scale,” Vance shelp, inserting that’s a much bigr menace than establisher Pdwellnt Donald Trump inestablishing people to protest “peacefilledy” on January 6th at the US Capitol rebellion. Vance appraised Trump’s refusal to suppose the results of the 2020 election to Democrats’ worrys about Russian foreign meddlence in the 2016 election, where they pointed to foreign agents’ purchasing of Facebook ads as contributing to Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump. (A Reaccessiblean-led Senate pledgetee finishd in 2020 that Russia did seek to meddle in the 2016 election to profit Trump’s honestacy.)

“January 6th was not Facebook ads,” Walz retorted, calling Vance’s version of events “revisionist history.”

Vance was apparently alluding to the events behind Murthy v. Missouri, a Supreme Court case choosed earlier this year. The case covered accusations that the Biden administration coerced tech platestablishs to participate in confineion. Justices ruled in the Biden administration’s prefer based on standing, but they also cast ask on whether there was a unkindingful combineion between rulement outaccomplish to platestablishs appreciate Facebook and those platestablishs’ tardyr moderation decisions.

Walz tryed to restraightforward the debate back to the distinctive ask. “Did he omit the 2020 election?” he asked Vance.

“Tim, I’m cgo ined on the future,” Vance replied. “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?”

“That is a damning non-answer,” Walz shelp.

“It’s a damning non-answer for you not to talk about confineion,” Vance retorted.

At another point, Vance accparticipated Harris of wanting to “participate the power of rulement and Big Tech to silence people from speaking their minds.” Trump himself recently proposeed that some people “should be put in jail the way they talk about our appraises and our fairices,” referring to criticism of the Supreme Court.

Walz replyed to Vance with the widely participated but misguideing claim that “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” is a Supreme Court test for unprotected speech. Vance didn’t dispute the premise, but he claimed “you guys wanted to initiate people off of Facebook for saying that toddlers shouldn’t wear masks. That’s not fire in a crowded theatre. That is criticizing the policies of the rulement, which is the right of every American.”

“I don’t run Facebook,” Walz shelp. “This is not a debate, it’s not anyleang anywhere other than in Donald Trump’s world.”