[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 137 (Monday, August 3, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Page S4658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Communications Decency Act

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, for almost 25 years, the internet has 
grown and thrived under the light-touch regulatory framework 
established by the Communications Decency Act. I hope we can continue 
that. I think some changes need to be made.
  Passed in 1996, the law that the Communications Decency Act is a part 
of helped create the internet. Section 230 of that law gives broad 
liability protections to interactive computer services, such as 
Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms. This provision 
protects online platforms from being held liable for content posted by 
their users.
  This is a unique protection for online platforms, and not everyone in 
our country enjoys those protections. For example, newspapers do not 
enjoy this important protection. But we have done this for internet 
platforms.
  At the same time, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 
allows online platforms to censor content that they--the platforms--
consider obscene, lewd, harassing, along with several other categories, 
including the term ``otherwise objectionable.''
  I am concerned that this term, ``otherwise objectionable,'' is too 
broad and ends up protecting online platforms when they remove content 
that they simply disagree with or dislike or find distasteful 
personally.
  I fear section 230 has enabled big tech companies to censor 
conservative views and voices, and I am joined by a lot of Americans in 
that view. As such, this provision has become a loophole for censoring 
free speech, and it risks negating the values at the very heart of our 
First Amendment.
  In the last few years, reports of online censorship of conservative 
viewpoints have grown more frequent. In early 2018, for example, an 
undercover report exposed Twitter for systematically ``shadow banning'' 
conservative profiles--meaning users were blocked from the platform 
without being notified.
  More recently, Google threatened to demonetize a conservative news 
site, The Federalist, for not removing offensive content in their 
comment section. Based upon information I received, the comments may 
indeed have been derogatory and unacceptable. But what is noteworthy is 
that Google's threat toward the Federalist was hyperselective and a bit 
hypocritical. Google held the Federalist accountable for comments made 
by the Federalist readers, but Google does not want to be held 
responsible for the posts or comments by users on Google's platforms, 
including YouTube--a double standard imposed by Google itself. This 
selective scrutiny reveals what most Americans already believe: that 
tech companies are politically biased.

  According to a 2018 Pew study, 7 out of 10 Americans believed social 
media companies censor political viewpoints that they find 
objectionable. That was 2 years ago. It has only worsened in the 2 
years since then.
  These concerns come at a time when tech companies wield unprecedented 
power within our economy and our culture at large, and no one can deny 
that. A bipartisan chorus of committee members from the other body 
pointed this out just last week. More and more of our daily business is 
taking place online, and that trend is only accelerating during the 
current pandemic.
  As we near the 2020 election, Americans have serious concerns about 
whether online platforms will treat campaigns on both sides of the 
aisle fairly and equally. Those concerns are warranted. I have those 
concerns. Americans are right to be worried about interference by 
politically homogenous tech firms that hold unprecedented sway over our 
Nation's political discourse.
  After 24 years, it is time for Congress to revisit section 230 of the 
Communications Decency Act and start with refining--perhaps narrowing--
the scope of what counts as otherwise objectionable content subject to 
censors. There may be other reforms that would be better, but I think 
it is time for Congress and the committee that I chair to revisit this 
section of the law.
  Last week, the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, 
Innovation, and the Internet convened a hearing to consider exactly 
this issue, and it was a very good hearing. As chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, I intend to pursue this matter thoroughly and evaluate what 
changes are needed to section 230. Congress needs to ensure that the 
internet remains a forum for a ``true diversity of political 
discourse'' that promotes competition and innovation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.