Podcast host Joe Rogan expressed concerns over the future of the First Amendment, warning that free speech could be further restricted if Kamala Harris becomes president.

Nov 15, 2015; Melbourne, Australia; Joe Rogan looks on during UFC 193 at Etihad Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Matt Roberts-USA TODAY Sports

During a Thursday episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, Rogan discussed censorship on social media platforms, particularly highlighting his fears about the direction of free speech under a potential Harris administration.

Rogan singled out two platforms, X (formerly known as Twitter) and Rumble, as the only remaining places where free speech still exists without restrictions.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

MORE NEWS: TMZ Apologizes After Staff Laughter Erupts During Coverage of Charlie Kirk’s Death [WATCH]

However, he expressed concern that this could change if Democrats win the 2024 election. “I don’t think it [censorship] turns around if Kamala Harris gets into office. I think they clamp down more,” Rogan said.

He referred to past statements made by Harris, noting her support for stronger regulations on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. “She openly discussed the need for the same rules to apply to Facebook and Twitter and the possibility that Elon Musk could lose his privileges,” Rogan added.

Harris, who has been outspoken on the issue, previously called social media platforms “purveyors of hate and misinformation” in a 2019 speech to the NAACP.

She vowed to hold these companies accountable for the content posted on their platforms, stating, “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.”

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Do you support the name change from Department of Defense to Department of War?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from RVM News, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Rogan also brought up Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s comments about the pressure his company faced from the government to remove certain content.

According to Zuckerberg, there was “extreme pressure” to censor specific content, a pressure that he felt was “wrong.”

Rogan further criticized the stance of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who had previously claimed that the First Amendment doesn’t protect misinformation or hate speech. “Tim Walz said that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to misinformation or hate speech. OK, well, it certainly does,” Rogan said.

He emphasized that the purpose of free speech is to allow dialogue and debate, stating, “The goal of the First Amendment is to encourage dialogue so that when you say something wrong, this person who is an expert says the right thing and you correct them.”

MORE NEWS: Benny Johnson: Charlie Kirk Helped Save My Family After a Mass Shooting in DC [WATCH]

Governor Walz had earlier remarked, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around democracy.”

However, this viewpoint is countered by the 2021 Supreme Court decision that upheld the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment.

MORE NEWS: Fauci Knew a ‘Reckoning Was Eventually Coming,’ Unveiled Emails Reveal: Senator Rand Paul

In that ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts affirmed, “As a Nation, we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

During the podcast episode, Rogan also questioned the legitimacy of certain topics that were censored in the past but have since been proven true.

Rogan’s warnings about the future of free speech reflect growing concerns over censorship and the role of government and social media in controlling public discourse, particularly with the 2024 election approaching.

Whether or not these fears will materialize remains to be seen, but Rogan’s comments have reignited the debate over the importance of the First Amendment and the potential consequences of future political leadership on free speech rights in the U.S.