[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 114 (Monday, June 22, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3119-S3121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          The First Amendment

  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,

[[Page S3120]]

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.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3121]]

  The Senator from Iowa.