08 November, 2024
Search
Close this search box.
Kamala Harris threatens free speech and dissent in America

Date

Spread the love

As Vice President Kamala Harris continues to navigate her political career, an alarming trend has emerged-her consistent efforts to undermine free speech. Despite the fact that freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, Harris has repeatedly worked to limit it for those who disagree with her policies and worldview. These actions, which date back to her tenure as California’s attorney general, have largely flown under the radar, but they represent a significant threat to civil liberties.

A 2022 Sienna poll found that more than half of Americans are now afraid to speak their minds due to fear of retaliation. This is a chilling reality for a country that prides itself on robust debate and freedom of expression. The survey further revealed that 84 percent of respondents believe it is problematic when people do not exercise their right to free speech out of fear. This fear, commonly referred to as “cancel culture,” has permeated American society, stifling dissent and leading to widespread self-censorship.

One of the most glaring examples of this phenomenon is the political violence that has become increasingly common in recent years. Multiple assassination attempts against former President Donald Trump and threats against Supreme Court justices underscore the dangerous consequences of this environment. The most infamous case involved a threat against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, following the fervor stirred up against him by activists. Similarly, former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai faced harassment outside his home, with activists targeting his family. These incidents highlight the extent to which political disagreements can escalate into violence, a trend that should alarm anyone concerned with free expression.

Online, activists continue to “dogpile” individuals who voice support for right-of-center causes. These virtual mobs often result in job losses, social ostracization, and public humiliation. Many of these individuals have faced “cancellation” simply for expressing views that deviate from left-wing orthodoxy. Such cases reveal the extent to which free speech is being suppressed in today’s climate.

However, Kamala Harris’s role in this suppression extends far beyond her public rhetoric. Her record demonstrates a clear willingness to use the power of the state to target and silence those who oppose her. During her time as California’s attorney general, Harris implemented policies designed to cripple nonprofit advocacy groups that did not align with her political views. One of the most egregious examples of this was her demand that right-of-center nonprofit organizations disclose their donor lists to the government.

This demand led to public leaks of sensitive information, effectively putting a target on the backs of individuals who supported these groups. By making donor information public, Harris exposed them to potential harassment, intimidation, and retaliation. Such tactics are clear attempts to stifle speech by making it too dangerous for individuals to support causes they believe in. Though Harris may have framed this policy as a transparency measure, its real purpose was to deter donations to conservative organizations.

Unfortunately, Harris’s efforts to curtail free speech did not end in California. Other Democratic leaders soon followed suit. In New York, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo spearheaded a similar disclosure law, which went so far as to limit nonprofit groups’ ability to speak to the press. In New Jersey, Democratic Governor Phil Murphy signed another law with the same goal of forcing nonprofits to reveal their donor lists. Both laws were eventually declared unconstitutional in court, but the fact that these efforts were made at all highlights a disturbing trend among Democratic leaders: an increasing willingness to infringe upon the First Amendment in the name of political expediency.

California’s donor disclosure policy led to the Supreme Court case Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) v. Bonta. In this landmark decision, the court ruled that the policy violated the First Amendment, reinforcing that privacy is essential for Americans to exercise their rights to free speech and association. Without such protections, individuals are unlikely to support causes they believe in if they fear retribution.

Despite this clear ruling, Harris has continued her efforts to restrict free speech as vice president. One of the most troubling examples of this is her support for H.R. 1 and S. 1, two bills that were Congressional Democrats’ top priorities after President Joe Biden took office. These bills would have forced nonprofits to disclose the identities of donors who speak publicly on legislative issues, effectively subjecting them to the same risks of harassment and intimidation seen in California.

Even more concerning, these bills also contained provisions allowing the federal government to police online speech. Under these measures, any speech that “promotes,” “attacks,” “supports,” or “opposes” a potential candidate could be subject to government regulation. This kind of speech policing represents a clear violation of the First Amendment, and it could have devastating consequences for the free exchange of ideas online.

Harris’s support for such measures reveals her broader goal of expanding government control over free speech, particularly when it comes to her political opponents. For instance, Harris has also signaled her support for packing the Supreme Court. During her 2019 presidential campaign, she said, “I’m open to this conversation about increasing the number of people on the United States Supreme Court.” Such a move would effectively rig the court in favor of Democrats, allowing them to bypass constitutional safeguards designed to protect individual rights, including free speech.

The contrast between Harris and former President Donald Trump could not be starker. While Trump was often criticized for his combative rhetoric, his administration took concrete steps to protect free speech. For example, Trump nominated Supreme Court justices who have defended constitutional rights, including the right to free expression. Additionally, Trump stopped the IRS from collecting unnecessary personal information about donors to 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, preventing potential leaks of sensitive information.

Under a Harris presidency, however, Americans could expect an escalation in government efforts to monitor and suppress speech. Republicans, in particular, should be wary of granting the IRS more power over nonprofits under a Harris administration, especially given the agency’s history of discriminating against conservative groups.

Ultimately, the current climate of fear surrounding free speech is not sustainable in a democratic society. Americans must be able to voice their opinions without fear of retaliation or violence. Kamala Harris’s record shows that she is not committed to protecting this fundamental right. If anything, her presidency would likely turbocharge efforts to monitor and punish those who dare to dissent from the prevailing political orthodoxy.

The post Kamala Harris threatens free speech and dissent in America appeared first on BLiTZ.

About the Author

More
articles