The Daily Signal - Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Targets Big Tech's Censorship of Free Speech

Episode Date: March 30, 2022

Almost every day, it seems as though a Big Tech company has deplatformed another user. User content is blocked or removed continually.  What is being done to hold Big Tech accountable for its actions? What is Section 230 in U.S. law, and does it need to be reformed? How can we protect both free speech and free markets?  “These tech companies have become very destructive in so many different ways, and it is time for Congress to act on behalf of the American people, on behalf of parents, and on behalf of our children and the young generation," Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., says.  Rodgers, who leads House Republicans' task force on Big Tech Censorship and Data, joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to answer these questions and explain what Congress is doing to protect Americans' free speech rights on social media platforms.  We also cover these stories:  Following face-to-face talks with Ukrainian counterparts in Istanbul, Turkey, officials on Tuesday, Russian officials announce a reduction in military operations near the Ukrainian cities of Kyiv and Chernihiv.  Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., says Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should resign over his wife's actions. The Food and Drug Administration gives emergency authorization to a second booster shot for the COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna.  Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, March 30th. I'm Doug Blair. And I'm Virginia Allen. Almost every day. It seems as though we learn about another social media user that has been banned from a big tech platform. But what is the answer? Are there steps lawmakers need to take to ensure that free speech is protected on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook? Today, I sit down with Representative Kathy McMorris Rogers to discuss next steps to address the

failings of big tech companies. Rogers leads the Republican House Task Force on big tech censorship and data and offers perspective into what lawmakers are doing to try to stop so many people from being de-platformed on these sites. But before we get to Virginia's conversation with Representative Kathy McMarris Rogers, let's hit our top news stories of the day. There may be some positive developments in the ongoing invasion of Ukraine by the Russian military. Following face-to-face talks conducted in Istanbul, Turkey, between Russian and Ukrainian officials on Tuesday, Russia announced it had reduced its military activity near Kiev and the city of Sharniv. Russian Deputy Minister of Defense, Alexander Fomene, said the move was aimed at increasing mutual trust

and creating conditions for further negotiations. Both Ukrainian and American military leaders confirmed Russian forces had begun withdrawing from those cities. USA Today reports that lead Russian negotiator Vladimir Medinsky said the Ukrainian delegation, led by David Arahamiya, presented an official proposal to the gathered delegates. In the proposal, Ukraine pledged not to pursue weapons of mass destruction. In return, Ukraine requires that Russia will not object to Ukraine joining the EU sometime in the future. Additionally, Ukraine pledged not to join any military alliance and not to host any foreign military bases or foreign troops.

New York Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says Justice Clarence Thomas should resign. On Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that if Thomas does not resign, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations recuse himself from matters involving his wife and his vote to block the January 6th Commission from key information must be investigated. must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment. Ocasio-Cortez's comments come after it was revealed publicly last week that Thomas's wife, Ginny Thomas, exchanged a number of text messages with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows after the 2020 election.

Ginny Thomas wrote to Meadows about the 2020 election saying that the outcome of the election was obvious fraud and the greatest heist of our history. This has led to some say Justice Thomas should not vote in any future cases involving disputes over the Trump-Biden election or the January 6th riots. And now, Ocasio-Cortez has taken it one step further, calling on Thomas to be impeached or resign to be continued. On Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration gave emergency authorization for a second booster shot of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The new authorization permits adults' ages. 50 and older to get a second booster four months after their first booster dose of any other

COVID vaccine. In a news release announcing the authorization, Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research said, based on an analysis of emerging data, a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-Biotech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine could help increase protection levels for these higher-risk individuals. The boosters will be available once CDC director Rochelle Walensky gives her approval. While Walensky is expected to give providers permission to administer a second booster, it is unlikely she will issue a formal recommendation. Now stay tuned for my conversation with Representative Kathy McMorris-Rodgers, as we discuss what can be done about big tech companies, de-platforming users.

Do you have an interest in public policy? Do you want to hear lectures from some of the biggest names in American politics? The Heritage Foundation, host webinars called Heritage Events Live. These events are free and open to the public. To find the latest heritage events and to register, visit heritage.org slash events. I am so pleased today to be joined by Congresswoman Kathy McMorris-Rogers. Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining us once again here on the Daily Signal podcast. Thanks. Great to be with you again. Well, you had the task force on big tech censorship and data for the House Republicans. And this is an issue that is really of concern to all of us,

because daily we are seeing more and more issues of these big tech platforms censoring conservatives in particular, even of the daily signal we've experienced that of content being taken down. What to you are a couple of the most egregious examples of big tech censorship? Yes, unfortunately, There's too many examples. Probably one that is still being played out today is the example of Hunter Biden and his emails on his laptop and the New York Post story that just days before the election in 2020 was censored.

It was taken down. It was blocked. New York Post was blocked days leading up to the election. And now it is playing out even today where we are learning more about these emails. that they are, in fact, legitimate, right? So that's one. There's the example of COVID-19 origins when at the beginning of COVID-19 for months,

actually, well over a year, any mention of the potential of COVID being originated at a Wuhan lab in China was blocked. But there's also examples where individuals, members of Congress. Conservatives have been blocked or taken down by these platforms. Certainly,

there's a lot of different examples. And there's a big difference between taking down illegal content and then censoring political speech, free speech. As Americans, one of our constitutional values, fundamental values, fundamental rights,

is the right to free speech. And it includes a political speech. Absolutely. Well, and you yourself say there's no silver bullet to fix all of this in one fell swoop. That would be nice, but it's just not practical. But you do talk about needed changes to something called Section 230. So let's dive in and talk a little bit about that. Can you first just explain what Section 230 is? Yes. Section 230 is in the law. It was put into place in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. long before Google, Facebook, Twitter was even dreamed of, right?

1996, Section 230 was put into place, and it was to encourage future platforms to moderate content. And the goal was to incentivize these platforms companies to moderate content. So illegal content, illicit content. at the time there was a big debate over pornography or criminal activity, that companies would be protected from liability. Because if a company, take the example of Twitter, if they're not originating this content,

if you're posting something else that happened or an article or a statement, you're not originating that content. and tech companies were arguing, well, we can't be held liable for this content. So there was a grand compromise. And the goal was to create the incentives for these companies to moderate the illegal, the illicit material in exchange for immunity protections from lawsuits. So they wouldn't be held liable for this content.

The way that it has been interpreted in the years after 1996 has really given them, Unfortunately, the courts have given them blanket immunity. There's examples where illegal activity, sex trafficking, or the individual who bought a pill, thinking that it was oxy-cotton when it was laced with fentanyl off of Twitter, and yet Twitter can't be held liable, right? So the liability protections have been pretty broad, And I believe that these companies also, it's not just illegal, illicit material,

but now we see we're through algorithms, they are promoting certain content. So they're absolutely deciding what's going to be shared and promoted through their algorithms. And that is different than just hosting a site. So I believe that we need to address Section 230. We need to incentivize more content to be left up, the battle of ideas that we've long cherished as Americans need to be protected. So one of the proposals is making changes to Section 230. This is fundamental to addressing the censorship question

and how do we prevent these platforms from continuing to censor. I'm working with Jim Jordan from Judiciary Committee on draft legislation that would remove those. those Section 230 provisions for the larger companies and hold them accountable for a new set of rules while protecting those liability protections for the smaller startups, the new innovators, the parlors, the getter, the Truth Media of the future.

We want them to be able to compete and grow. And in fact, truth today is using Section 230 immunity protections to grow their platform. So we're trying to thread the needle. Yeah, no, that's definitely a needle that needs to be thread. And thank you. I think that's a really helpful explanation to kind of hear some of the background of Section 230 and then what you all among the House Republicans are trying to do to really protect Americans

and to ensure those free speech rights. So when we dive in and when we talk about these various instances of tech censorship, what are some of the other policies that you and your colleague, are promoting and are discussing in order to stop so much censorship happening. Another pillar that's really important is around privacy. Clearly, these companies are collecting a ton of data, personal information on citizens of this country and beyond. We need to take action that will protect our privacy.

Our personally identifiable information is like a property right. I mean, that's pretty fundamental to who we are. And we need a privacy law that will ensure that we know what's being collected, how it's being shared, and how it's being used, and if it's being sold, and empower the individual to protect that private information. So a privacy law is really important. I also believe that the issue around the harm of these platforms, Facebook and Twitter and these platforms social media on our young people, needs to be addressed. I am heartbroken by the number of stories I hear today of young people that are being harmed by these platforms. Cyberbullying. I've talked to parents whose kids were the victims of cyberbullying and parents felt like they had no place to go.

Kids who committed suicide in response to this activity. Others, it is the anxiety, the stress, the mental health that has been driven by these companies, but also the illegal activity. I mentioned the access to drugs on these platforms or human trafficking that's taking place on these platforms. I just talked to a mom in Spokane who lost her son, 23-year-old son, The day after Thanksgiving, Friday morning, she found him dead. He had bought oxycotton, thinking it was oxycotton off of Snapchat. It was laced in fentanyl, and he died.

So we're proposing to ensure more transparency, ideas to equip parents to protect their kids from the uses of these platforms. And another one I would mention on censorship is demanding that there would be a way for someone to appeal the decision. So if you are subject to your individual or your site being taken down, you would be able to appeal that decision in a short amount of time. Also requiring transparency of the platforms as to why they're making those decisions and that would all have to be made public. Excellent. Thank you so much for breaking that down. You know, I think traditionally, well, what we've really seen in the past few years is that even among conservatives, there's quite a bit of debate about what do we do with these big tech companies? Because, of course, as conservatives, you know, we champion free markets and we want, you know, companies to be able to make their way and forge ahead, but we also champion free speech and protection of those rights. Is there agreement among House Republicans? about how to solve these issues and how to move forward on things like Section 230. Are you all united?

The goal is to agree on a package of bills that will hold big tech accountable, that will ensure that we are protecting free speech in the battle of ideas, because that is so fundamental. And as conservatives, we are seeking a lot of input. My goal is to be ready on day one, on day one of January, 23.

that we would be able to hammer out what we believe are going to be very, very strong and effective reforms that will hold big tech accountable while also protecting the free markets. As you said, we believe in free markets. We believe in competition. And that's fundamental to these reforms, that the smaller companies and the new competitors are able to be competitive. We are welcoming that input so that we're ready, on day one with the conservative, we're going to, conservative reforms because we're going to have to be united

if we have any chance of being successful. So the work that we're doing over these few months is critical to that overall success and having a set of reform. Sometimes something sounds good, but then it turns out not to be what we thought. There was a time when President Trump called for the outright, repeal of section 230. And he actually vetoed the NDAA saying that we need to repeal Section

230. Most have concluded since then that that actually would have only further entrenched the big guys and that the very 230 immunity protections that would have been vetoed are what are being used right now by truth. His media company in order to grow and to be competitive. There's another one that is debated around common carrier and whether or not these big tech companies should be treated as common carriers. I think some who have been promoting that are now recognizing that that might actually entrench them also, that we would put them into the law as a monopoly. I don't necessarily want Twitter around for the end of time, right? that I want a reform proposal that will actually challenge Twitter and be competitive to Twitter. So those are some of the questions that we're having to debate right now.

And what about among Democrats? Is there bipartisan support between Republicans and Democrats to recognize, okay, there are changes that need to take place, reforms are needed, and is there collaboration across the aisle to say, okay, we can work together on some of these reforms? There's been some conversations. Unfortunately, when it comes to censorship, when it comes to protecting free speech, we've had hearings in the House, in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Democrats' proposals are really focused on more government, more government regulation, and advocating that we need to address misinformation and disinformation. But that's just another way for them to control what actually would be. on these platforms. So there's a big debate between government regulating and controlling in the name of misinformation, disinformation, versus those of us who believe in the battle of ideas, free speech, and that the answer to information that is false is actually more information.

It is to get it out there so you can have the battle of ideas and that you can expose when something that is being said is actually false. Well, before we let you go, I do want to ask you personally, you're a mom, and I think so many parents struggle with social media. And, you know, as lawmakers move forward, as they look for solutions, that's obviously so critical. But there's an immediate need for individuals in their own homes to kind of be judging, okay, how do we set boundaries on things like time on, you know, Instagram and Snapchat and all these things? What would be your words of wisdom as, you know, you're talking with parents in your state and even across the country? country who are seeing the negative implications of social media on their kids. What's, what's any advice that you would offer to parents in America? Well, as a mom, I know, I know firsthand

it's a battle every day. We're living it in my household. I have three school-aged kids, and the screens are a continual battle, and so much of our lives take us to the screens. I have examples in my own household among my kids that it's frightening to me how quickly they can get down a path on some of the internet or on some of these sites that is very destructive. So it only underscores my passion for this issue that as a parent, my biggest fear has become these big tech companies. And we're living it in my household, and parents need to be equipped. Right now, it's not a fair fight. It is extremely difficult for parents to control what's happening on these devices. And that's why we need to take action.

We need to equip parents. We need to protect our kids. We need to ensure our constitutional rights, freedom of speech, the battle of ideas continues in this country. And these tech companies have become very destructive in so many different ways. And it is time for Congress to act on behalf of the American people, on behalf of parents, and on behalf of our children and the young generation. Congresswoman Kathy McMorris-Rogers, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it.

It's great to be with you. Thank you. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thank you so much for listening to the Daily Signal podcast. As always, you can find the Daily Signal podcast. on your podcast listening app of choice. That is Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and IHeartRadio. Please be sure to leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening and we'll be right back here with you all tomorrow.

The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. The executive producers are Rob Blewey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Doug Blair. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John. Pop. For more information, please visit dailysignal.com.