[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 62 (Monday, April 12, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1865-S1866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 Section 230 of the Communications Act

  I recently spoke on the Senate floor about the important issue of 
free speech. Today, I would like to speak on the power of Big Tech to 
censor free speech.
  It has been 25 years since section 230 of the Communications Act was 
signed into law. This law grants wide-sweeping immunity to interactive 
computer services that host third-party content.
  The goal of section 230 at the time was laudable. The internet was in 
its infancy, and content being posted to message boards by third 
parties was leading to litigation that threatened the spread of free 
speech and expression. Section 230 was enacted to encourage free 
speech, while giving companies the ability to remove illegal and 
obscene materials.
  Section 230 and the legal shield it offers helped to enable the 
internet to grow into what we know this very day. However, interactive 
computer services are no longer struggling companies but some of the 
largest corporations in the world today. Would you believe that when 
section 230 was signed into law, the words ``Google,'' ``Facebook,'' 
``Twitter,'' and ``YouTube'' did not even exist as words or companies? 
Today, they are giant, dominant tech companies.
  Many argue that these private companies have their own terms of 
service and are able to enforce them as they wish and also that they 
are not covered under the First Amendment. Yet, these platforms are now 
the new public square, where it is important that all voices and 
viewpoints are able to be heard.
  With the immunities that these companies have and the importance of 
dialogue on their platforms, arguably they are in effect state actors, 
and therefore First Amendment protections should apply to user-
generated content.
  The size and power of these companies also contribute to their 
ability to censor speech and undermine the First Amendment. Google 
controls 87 percent of search, Facebook has 2.8 billion monthly active 
users, 500 million tweets are sent on Twitter each day, and over 1 
billion hours of videos are watched on YouTube every day.
  When a campaign has monopoly power, it no longer is constrained by 
normal market forces. If these platforms had competitors, consumers 
could choose alternatives when they disagree with the terms of service 
or moderation policies. However, right now, the only choice consumers 
have is to take it or leave it.
  Section 230 appears to compound this problem. Big Tech has no 
competitors and is immune from liability. These companies are 
unaccountable to their customers, the courts, and the government. If 
not for their monopoly power and section 230 immunity, these companies 
might not be involved in the actions and the censorship we see today. 
These platforms are where people communicate online, and there are no 
real alternatives.
  This innovation has democratized our political system. I think that 
is good. Yet, there are people who don't like that every person is able 
to get their views out, and they want to interfere with and censor 
those views. We cannot stand for this cancel culture and the 
interference with free speech.

[[Page S1866]]

  Entrepreneurs want to challenge these big tech companies. 
Unfortunately, the system is rigged against the little-guy startup. 
These companies can remove your website from the internet, delete your 
app from the app store, and permanently ban you from their platforms. 
These companies can also remove competitors or those they disagree 
with, largely with no recourse.
  Millions of small business owners use tech platforms to operate their 
business. It has been a big boost to our economy over the last 25 
years. Many business owners have been censored, banned, and 
demonetized. This can be done without warning, no explanation 
whatsoever, and many times without any meaningful due process.
  Our antitrust regulators need to take a harder look at the actions of 
Big Tech. I recently introduced legislation with Senator Klobuchar to 
increase resources for FTC and DOJ antitrust enforcement. This 
legislation would provide an immediate boost to these Agencies' 
effective competition responsibilities.
  Right now, there are essentially five companies within just the 
United States that determine what can and cannot be viewed by the 
American public. It is becoming increasingly clear that these companies 
are more beholden to cancel culture and not to the free speech 
principles that this country was founded upon.
  When I talk about what these Agencies--the FTC and the DOJ--ought to 
be doing, I am not excluding anything that this Congress ought to be 
doing beyond what these Agencies have a responsibility to do.
  So I go back to a famous quote by Justice Brandeis:

       If there be time to expose through discussion the 
     falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes 
     of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not 
     enforced silence.

  It is time that we examine the need for section 230 immunity--that is 
beyond what we expect the DOJ and FTC to do--examine the need for 
section 230 immunity and to what extent these tech companies are 
abusing their monopoly power. It is time that these companies stop 
arbitrarily deciding what speech is acceptable for our country and the 
335 million Americans
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.