[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 51 (Thursday, March 18, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1638-S1639]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Free Speech

  Mr. President, then, on my last point, I want to bring up another few 
remarks on the First Amendment, as I have spoken a couple of times 
before very recently.
  I have come to the floor over the last few weeks to talk about the 
First Amendment, one of America's most cherished pillars of freedom. 
Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen a corrosive culture 
undermining sacred civic freedoms Americans risk taking for granted. 
Too often we don't think about the freedoms we have because we were 
born here.
  We can learn a lot from immigrants that come to this country and 
appreciate Americans for our freedoms. Whenever I go to these 
citizenship ceremonies we have for immigrants, I always tell them: I 
wish you would tell--when you hear some American complaining about what 
is wrong with America, I hope you know from your experience in other 
lands that you came here for freedom. Remind us of how lucky we are to 
have what we were born into.
  Silencing the free exchange of ideas has infiltrated college campuses 
and even the American workplace. It has even affected journalism, 
traditional media, and all across our social media platforms. We all 
know that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment and, 
occasionally, we in the United States fall into a discussion about the 
technical boundaries of the First Amendment when we talk about the 
meaning and the merits of free speech.
  Now, the health of our democracy depends on free speech to foster an 
informed public, something that I think Thomas Jefferson made very 
clear. If democracy is going to work, it is going to have to work with 
an educated public. The rigorous exchange of ideas inform debate on 
issues affecting our lives and enables individuals to challenge power 
and also to challenge orthodoxy.
  In theory, the institutions of the ``fourth estate'' should be the 
staunchest defenders of the First Amendment. I think I said it before, 
but you can't say it too often--and there is probably a 100 different 
ways you can say it--but I always like to say that journalists are the 
police of our constitutional system to make sure that everybody and all 
follow the rule of law. What they bring to the people of this country 
about how our government functions makes everything very transparent, 
and when things are transparent, you have accountability.
  So as I think about these things, it has been baffling to watch over 
the last

[[Page S1639]]

year as some editors and executives, even at storied institutions, 
crumble under pressure to police speech, to conform to orthodoxy, and 
to stifle the exchange of ideas instead of what they should be doing, 
promoting the contest of these ideas--in other words, speech, 
orthodoxy, and exchange of ideas--when they are under attack.
  It is now old news, but, last summer, a long-time opinion editor of 
the New York Times was pushed out of his position. For what? For having 
the audacity to publish an opinion piece written by Senator Tom Cotton. 
Apparently, a group of readers and employees found Senator Cotton's 
ideas so upsetting as to warrant the removal of the editor who had the 
guts to publish them. The paper also issued a several-hundred-word 
editor's note even expressing regret for publishing the piece in the 
first place.
  If those readers and employees at the Times disagreed so strongly, 
the public could have learned something by publishing a counter-
argument instead of reading about their regret. I, myself, have 
publicly disagreed with Senator Cotton about a policy idea or two, and 
I make my points here on the Senate floor. I don't ask for Senator 
Cotton's resignation, like they had to expunge his or give all sorts of 
excuses why they published that and they shouldn't have published it.
  Instead, what do we have? We had executives at a paper of record 
scapegoat a colleague for failing to confirm to some yet unexplained 
orthodoxy versus a rational decision to engage in public debate on 
their pages.

  In January, POLITICO invited a slate of individuals to guest-edit 
their widely read newsletter, ``Playbook.'' Among those guest editors 
was Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator. His name alone was enough 
to spark a backlash among staffers and even outside commentators. To 
their credit, the editors of POLITICO did not apologize.
  But according to the Washington Post media writer, some POLITICO 
employees who privately supported the choice to publish Shapiro were 
``afraid'' to speak up on staff calls, fearing backlash among 
colleagues.
  Now, that is only two episodes I give you, but these episodes 
represent a very unhealthy environment where too many think it is 
prudent to give voice to those with whom they agree or whose views are 
deemed acceptable.
  While the editors did the right thing at one outlet, they didn't at 
the other. Either way, it probably means that they will be more 
selective about what is acceptable--what is acceptable--in the future 
as we do the businesses of our newspapers.
  Now, when you worry about what is acceptable, it certainly doesn't 
serve those principles that I mentioned earlier that ought to be 
encouraging dialogue, dispute, learning from each other, and educating 
each other. Now, these may be fairly obscure controversies I just gave 
you, but they are indicative of a yet wider problem.
  Expectations of acceptability and a preference for unchallenged 
ideas--this all chips away at the most sacred civic freedoms in 
America. No one learns more by less debate. Neglecting to defend free 
speech and champion the free exchange of ideas creates a pathway for 
censorship. Democracy doesn't thrive on censorship.
  The institutions of the news media ought to defend the fundamental 
principles behind free speech and free press at the top of their lungs. 
The First Amendment is the oxygen of their own existence.
  If they were doing their work, there shouldn't have to be a single 
Senator here in the U.S. Senate giving speeches about why they don't 
want more free speech and why they want less free speech.
  Last fall, the New York Post had a story censored on Twitter a short 
time before the election. Regardless of what one thinks about the 
content of that story, the methods of reporting, or even the tone of 
the writing, the suppression of information like that should alarm both 
news writers and news consumers. They ought to be more a protector of 
freedom of speech and freedom of press than a Senator here on the U.S. 
Senate talking about it.
  Many outlets went to work fact-checking or reporting on the topic in 
their own way. That is all well and good. It is their job. But the 
public conversation about the censorship devolved into a question of 
whether Twitter had the legal ability to do what it did instead of a 
discussion of whether it was the right thing to do, because it wasn't 
right. Even Twitter's CEO sees that now.
  However, there were no fiery defenses of free speech and free press 
from the mainstream outlets, and those mainstream outlets ought to be 
the ones talking more about freedom of speech and freedom of press than 
having Senators on the floor of the U.S. Senate bring it up and say: 
Why aren't you doing your job? Why aren't you practicing your 
profession as it ought to be? Why aren't you being the policemen of the 
system the way you ought to be?
  Not even media with caveats were reporting about that Twitter event 
that I just spoke about. This was a perfect opportunity for 
journalistic institutions to weigh in, and they should have weighed in. 
They have a dog in the fight. It should be the bread-and-butter issues 
for every editorial board across the country--not just the editorial 
board but the reporters. The lack of this kind of pro-free press and 
pro-free speech advocacy also contributes to the unhealthy environment 
that shuns debate and silences dissent.
  So what will be the consequences of a media environment where 
conformity and comfort take precedent over the free exchange of ideas? 
The first and most obvious is a less rigorous and less informed public 
discourse and the citizens less informed. Opinions and preferences, 
especially on matters of public interest, are always improved after 
being challenged.
  If you disagree with the New York Times' editorial board or a pundit 
for FOX News, that is fine.
  It would be better if the public heard all about it. Broader 
discussions mean broader understanding. Without a broad, vigorous 
public debate, we lose empathy that results from engaging with somebody 
else's ideas.
  In these divisive times in society, empathy is in low supply. The 
last thing that we lose in a media environment ruled by compliance and 
conformity is the grand American tradition of dissent.
  Free speech and free press have centuries-long history in America, 
from Thomas Paine's pamphlets to the tweets spreading across the land 
this very minute, the revolutionary contest of ideas might take a 
different shape but remain critical to our civic culture and the 
continued growth of our Nation and the strengthening of our democracy.
  I hope more institutions in the ``fourth estate'' will take an 
aggressive approach advocating free speech.
  Now, I wasn't around when Thomas Paine published ``Common Sense,'' 
but history and my own experience teaches me two important lessons: The 
free exchange of ideas strengthens representative government and will, 
then, help preserve our democratic Republic for generations to come. 
And that is what this generation should be all about, making it better 
for the next generation, both from the standpoint of the economy but 
also for an understanding of our democratic institutions.
  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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________