[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 120 (Thursday, July 13, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2452-S2453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1672
Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, just last week, a Federal judge ruled
that the First Amendment prohibits the Biden administration from
colluding with Big Tech to censor Americans' speech. So the court
ordered Biden administration officials and Agencies not to coordinate
with Big Tech platforms in order to suppress American speakers and
Americans' viewpoints that they disagree with.
This seems obvious. The First Amendment would mean little if
government simply used Big Tech to get around it. Who disagrees with
this basic principle that government-directed censorship is un-American
and unconstitutional? Well, I can tell you who disagrees with that. The
Biden administration disagrees with it. The Justice Department, almost
immediately, asked the court of appeals to stay this ruling to allow it
to continue to censor Americans while it appeals.
In recent years, increasing evidence has emerged regarding a
disturbing alliance in which Big Government and Big Tech work together
to censor speech that they don't want Americans to see nor to hear.
Published emails among Twitter executives reveal the extent to which
the company worked to prevent Americans from seeing a New York Post
news story just weeks before the 2020 election. The extent of the
suppression was breathtaking. Indeed, the Twitter executives locked the
Twitter account of the White House Press Secretary simply for
mentioning this New York Post story.
Facebook admits that it, likewise, limited the spread of the story
based on a general warning from the FBI about it being propaganda. This
is even though the FBI had verified the authenticity of the laptop in
question.
This censorship activity has carried over into the Biden
administration. In 2021, then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated that the
government is ``in regular touch with social media platforms'' and
``flagging'' problematic posts for Facebook that spread what she called
``disinformation.''
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, disclosed that it
had communicated with more than 30 Federal officials about content
moderation on its platform, including senior employees at the FDA, the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and, of course, the White House.
YouTube, which is owned by Google, disclosed that it had such
communications with 11 Federal officials.
The disturbing truth is that when Biden administration officials
don't like what Americans are saying, they simply reach out to their
allies at Big Tech to silence it. Government using its power to coerce
censorship of disfavored information is what the Chinese Communist
Party or the North Korean regime would do. It is not only fundamentally
un-American; most often, it is unconstitutional.
The other day, a Federal court confirmed that the government cannot
use Big Tech as a tool to end-run the First Amendment. The judge wrote
that the case ``arguably involves the most massive attack against free
speech in United States' history.''
Americans deserve to know when their government and Big Tech
platforms are trying to manipulate what they can say or what they can
read. I introduced legislation last Congress and again this past May to
require this transparency. The Disclose Government Censorship Act would
require that government officials publicly disclose communications with
Big Tech regarding actions to restrict speech. The act contains
appropriate exceptions to protect legitimate law enforcement or
national security activity.
Our Nation was founded on the idea that protecting citizens' speech
from government censorship under the First Amendment would protect the
people's right to govern themselves by preventing government from
controlling information and ideas. Americans deserve to know when their
government is covertly trying to accomplish what the First Amendment
prohibits.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be
discharged from further consideration of S. 1672 and the Senate proceed
to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I certainly
appreciate Senator Hagerty's concerns. The freedom of speech, freedom
of association, and freedom of the press are all very foundations of
our Nation.
But I am also concerned about the power of large tech companies,
which we must--must--hold accountable. The Homeland Security Committee,
which I chair, has held a series of bipartisan
[[Page S2453]]
oversight hearings on social media, including bringing in top
executives to testify and to answer tough questions.
I am deeply concerned, however, that the legislation that we are
discussing today could have serious unintended consequences, including
undermining our national security. This bill could damage our national
intelligence and law enforcement operations by requiring Agencies to
disclose every interaction with a social media platform about the
activity of a terrorist or a criminal on their platform. This can
involve sensitive ongoing investigations and enforcement action,
including the terrorist use of social media to recruit Americans to
carry out attacks against our homeland.
The bill could also chill effects by executive and legislative branch
employees who are working to address online threats and hate speech
directed at Americans and communities all across our Nation. In
addition to creating new redtape for staff trying to address these very
difficult issues, it threatens them with a year in jail for not meeting
paperwork deadlines.
Certainly, we must all protect our Nation's First Amendment and the
right to speak freely. However, this bill will not accomplish that
goal, while potentially undermining our national security.
Mr. President, therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I appreciate the sentiments my Democratic
colleague expressed, and I very much appreciate his work and his
concerns with respect to Big Tech. I share those concerns.
And I share some optimism today that we will find common ground to
work together. The legislation I have put forward simply allows
Americans to see when the government is trying to censor them. My
colleague suggests that this is because of concern over protections for
law enforcement and national security work.
I would like to say this. My legislation contains appropriate
exceptions to protect legitimate law enforcement or national security
activity and preserve the confidentiality of those communications. But
in assuming that the details of those protections are my colleague's
only concern, I am happy to work with my colleague to address those
concerns and ensure that the core of this legislation, which requires
disclosure of government censorship efforts, is quickly enacted.
I hope that Senator Peters and I can work together and do this
because it is too significant to ignore. Our government, at the end of
the day, works for the American people, and to ensure that this
continues, the First Amendment prohibits the government from
controlling what Americans can say or read. But now government is using
Big Tech to accomplish such censorship, and without disclosure of such
communications, Americans' free speech rights become a dead letter
because there is no way to address improper government efforts to ban
speech.
My legislation would preserve these rights by allowing Americans to
see when government is trying to silence them. It is a basic element of
self-government. I look forward to working with Senator Peters and his
committee to try to make this something that can be acceptable to all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.