Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I so enjoyed listening to the comments of my colleague from Texas, and it causes me to think that, yes, we are moving forward with another week, and what we have to realize is that, indeed, our Nation was built on free speech and the premise to have dissent or robust, respectful political debate. That is something that keeps our Nation strong.
To go back and look at the work of our Founders, there was barely a day that went by that they were not having that robust debate, that they were not having those arguments that were really constructive conversations that would say: We are here; how do we go here?
That is how you solve problems. Indeed, that is what Tennesseans are telling me every day that they want us to do: Solve these problems. Let's get ourselves on the right track
When you look at it and go back and look at the Founders, you see that the debates they had were not superficial. They were not necessarily the bright, shiny object story of the day. They were deep, philosophical debates on issues that were about the future of the Nation they were trying to build. Everything was on the line, and no one kept quiet. They felt as if their opinions were important, and indeed, today, there is a lot on the line when we talk about civility and when we talk about the strength, the core, and the preservation of our rights and our freedoms. Nobody spared anyone's feelings at that point because the stakes were too high and they were focused on freedom.
How did they create a free nation? How did they create it so that it would pass to their children and their grandchildren? Indeed, you can go forward in history and look at the words of Ronald Reagan reminding us that freedom is not something that is permanent. Every single generation--every single generation--has to fight for it.
Madam President, of course, we say an extra thank-you to you and others in this Chamber who have worn the uniform and have served, and we are grateful for that service.
I would state that, in spite of all the strife that our Founders went through, they never wavered from their commitment to building a society that was, in their hearts and minds, a society of the people, for the people, by the people--of the people. It was freer and more Democratic than the land they had left in order to get here.
The First Amendment to our Constitution is more than just a prohibition against government repression. It is a warning against the private attacks on free speech. The success of online discussion platforms is a testament to how much the American people still value the free exchange of ideas.
Don't you love it? In a good conversation with good friends, somebody makes their point, and you make a counterpoint. Then you discuss it, and you have a respectful conversation.
Everyone from political candidates to corporations to the free press has taken advantage of the opportunity to reach those millions of eyeballs that are scrolling through social media timelines and news aggregation services. For a while, it looked as if the system would revolutionize the way we read and the way that we share information, the way we have that debate, and it did--just not necessarily for the better.
I believe we should always encourage more speech, and when you look at the early days of Twitter and Facebook, it seems that they were on the right track, and we kind of call that the good old days of social media.
Over the past few weeks, we have seen these platforms devolve into a state of all-out war that makes our previous concerns about censorship and speech policing look petty. Liberal activists have deployed against anyone and anything that strays from their preferred narrative. It is the cancel culture in full force. Even more concerning than digital mob rule is the behavior of corporations and platforms caving to these intimidation tactics and selectively policing dissent.
Just imagine what would have happened all those years ago in our founding if one group decided they were going to shut up and quiet another group. What if they had decided that respect doesn't matter? What if they had decided that debate doesn't matter? It is our way or the highway. What do you think would have happened, and where would we be today?
Google and its parent company, Alphabet, have distinguished themselves as the worst offenders. Google is under investigation for potential antitrust violations, but that hasn't stopped them from surrendering to this latest political moment. Last week, Google threatened to kick two conservative-leaning media outlets off of the Google ads platform after determining content found in the respective sites' comment sections violated platform policies. A representative from Google complicated matters by running to the media and insisting that the ban was imposed because the Federalist and ZeroHedge had both published derogatory comments promoting racial violence. NBC and other news organizations ran with that false narrative, and before you knew it, thousands of voices condemned in unison the speech and opinions of dozens of writers who had done nothing wrong.
They were, as the left likes to say, ``deplatformed,'' which, of course, was the goal. The ease with which Google fell in step with this coordinated campaign to chill speech becomes all the more concerning when one considers that they didn't just threaten the livelihoods of the writers, editors, and graphic designers employed by those outlets. Google employees let their bias--hear that?--Google employees let their bias, not the facts--not the facts, the bias--their bias, the bias that they bring to work with them, the bias of their worldview, which they think is right--they let their bias and their prejudice lead the way and decided that the American people didn't need to see what those writers had to say.
Who told them that they are the speech police? Who told them: Google, you are in charge. You decide what is going to be prioritized on your platform. Google, you go in here, and you decide if this is worthy or unworthy content. It is all up to you. Google, you can subjectively manipulate these algorithms based on what you think.
What we have are Google employees who let their bias lead the way, and they decided that the American people didn't need to see what writers had written because they, the employees' superiors, decided you didn't need to know that. They determined that the speech was dangerous, harmful, and illegitimate. So what did they do? They shut it down before you could browse it.
Just imagine--just imagine--if the Founders had been so brazen in their actions: Let's not have a discussion on that point. Let's just throw it to the side. Let's not hear somebody out. Let's just push them aside. No, they didn't form a clique who said: We are better than you. We are smarter than you. What did those Founders do? They looked at one another and said: We are all in this together. We are here because freedom is paramount in establishing a nation that is a nation of, by, and for the people--all of us. That is the goal.
You know, I think what Google has done is a bold move coming from the same parent company that has allowed YouTube's reprehensible comment section to spiral into notoriety. But if you comment on the Federalist, beware. You see, it is not about protecting customers. All they are doing is defending a dangerous and un-democratic double standard.
These incidents are not isolated, and there is no meaningful choice publishers can make to take their business elsewhere because Google effectively controls online advertising. Last year, they brought in $100 billion in ad revenue. You know, even in this town, $100 billion is not chump change. That is a lot of money.
This year they are flexing their muscles against competitive conservative outlets just as more mainstream outlets are facing cutbacks and layoffs. I know this body is well aware that Big Tech needs some guide rails to control their approach to consumer privacy, data security, and these increasingly oppressive content moderation policies.
Google is the main player. The majority of searches are done through Google. Is it a monopoly? Pretty close to it. Should it be viewed under antitrust? Worthy of discussion. Right now we are working out the proper strategy to reform the section 230 protections. This is written into the Communications Decency Act that the Googles of the world hide behind when they want to silence you, when they want to shut you down because they do not agree with you. Their bias is against you. Their prejudice is against you. They don't like what you have to say.
In this body we may not agree, but we will fight to defend the right of individuals to stand up and have their say. The First Amendment says that political speech is--guess what--free speech. The First Amendment says that you, the citizen--remember that line, ``of the people.'' The people have the right to petition their government to seek a change. But, oh no, Google or Facebook--I have to say, I remember the comment from Mark Zuckerberg that Facebook was more like a government than a business.
We have the Communications Decency Act, and there is a section in it called section 230, and that is the section that Big Tech goes and cowers behind when they want to shut you up. Section 230 needs to be reformed. DOJ has said that this is something that is ready for reform. We need to protect free speech. We need to make certain that illicit content is moved off. We need to look at competition. We need to look at the threshold for users--maybe not revenue--but look at a threshold for users and put some guidelines in place. We are dealing with an industry that has moved on to using social pressure to provide cover as they act as judge, jury, and executioner over what Americans should be allowed to know.
If you are researching something online, what do you do? You Google it. You get in that search engine; you go looking for it; and then you look at the things as they come up. Maybe what you are looking for doesn't show up on the first page even though it is something that has been in the news. Why would that be? Oh, prioritization--because Google prioritizes how this information gets delivered to you: if they like it, top of the list; if they don't, bottom envelope.
Today, I sent a letter to the Attorney General, outlining the threat this poses to a free and fair press and calling for a full investigation that examines the company's control over the internet economy. I also encouraged AG Barr to meet with the news publishers who have been harmed by this anti-competitive behavior and learn firsthand about the fear and intimidation tactics activists have weaponized against legitimate journalism.
This can no longer be chalked up simply to bias. The people making these decisions are the most powerful voices in the world, and they have decided that they don't want you to think. They don't want you to challenge the narrative, and they sure don't want you to rock the boat and draw the ire of activists who still don't believe these efforts at censorship have gone far enough to silence conservative voices.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source