Morning Wire XX
[0] Accusations of viewpoint discrimination and political bias in big tech, particularly against conservatives, has prompted calls for more action to protect social media users.
[1] In response, lawmakers in Texas have passed an anti -online censorship bill, HB20, that is now headed to the Supreme Court for a hearing on Monday.
[2] In this episode, we talked to the author of the bill about its purpose, the complaints against it, and its upcoming day in front of the high court.
[3] I'm Daly Wire Editor -in -Chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe.
[4] It's Sunday, February 25th, and this is an extra edition of Morning Wire.
[5] Joining us to discuss HB20 and its Supreme Court hearing this Monday is the bill's author, Texas State Senator Brian Hughes.
[6] Senator Hughes, thank you so much for joining us.
[7] John, thanks for having me. So your bill has made its way to the High Court.
[8] First, can you walk us through the key provisions of HB20 and how it would impact social media platforms if allowed to take a effect.
[9] House Bill 20, first of all, recognizes that these major social media platforms, specifically those with 50 million U .S. users or more, these major platforms that have so much market power, they are common carriers, and they should be treated as common carriers.
[10] Just like your wireless telephone company cannot cut you off based on your politics or your religion for that same reasoning, which has existed for a long, time in American law.
[11] For that same reasoning, these major social media providers should not be able to punish you based on your exercise of free speech.
[12] So the bill makes a finding that in Texas, these carriers are common carriers and are subject to that kind of treatment.
[13] The bill also says that the major carriers, these major social media providers, are required to publish their methods for how they decide whether to block your content, how they decide what content you are allowed to see.
[14] It's not some algorithm that they hide behind in some big black box.
[15] It's got to be published so that people know what the rules are.
[16] And they also have to have a method for dealing with illegal content when that is reported by a user.
[17] And finally, and this is important, there's redress, there's recourse.
[18] If you are punished, if you are are deplatformed, if you're throttled, if you're taken off because of your free speech, based on your viewpoint that they don't like.
[19] If you were punished for that reason, you can file suit in a Texas court.
[20] If you win, they've got to put you back online and they have to pay your attorney's fees.
[21] Those are the three major elements of House Bill 20.
[22] Now, it's a complicated task to lay out reasonable policies for these ultimately private companies to decide what kind of content is not allowed like, you know, violent speech or quote -unquote hate speech, which is very loosely defined.
[23] Does your bill address what policies would be reasonable for removing people's posts on their platforms?
[24] It certainly does.
[25] And I'm glad you brought that up because I should have mentioned federal law already provides a framework for that kind of content that we all agree that most of us in society agree is not appropriate.
[26] And so the language, for example, if a post is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing.
[27] Those types of posts, of course, are subject to removal, even under this bill.
[28] This is not about content.
[29] This is about viewpoint.
[30] If they don't like your views on religion or on health care or any other topic, they can't punish you solely based on that.
[31] But lewd, lascivious, violent, harassing, of course.
[32] Under this bill, the social media companies clearly are to moderate that content and take those posts down.
[33] And why did you feel the need to write this bill?
[34] What is the purpose or benefit of Texas having its own law on this versus a federal approach?
[35] We would love to see Congress address this.
[36] As you know, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, an early Internet regulation measure is still using the same language from 1996.
[37] And social media companies, companies can hide behind that language, and they're allowed to have it both ways.
[38] They get to act as a publisher in that they decide what goes up and what doesn't go up, but then they cannot be held accountable like a publisher for what is on the site.
[39] And so they have it both ways.
[40] Congress has talked about addressing it.
[41] Courts have called on Congress to address this, and challenges from the left and the right have called for this to be done.
[42] And so obviously, that's in need.
[43] In the meantime, we can't wait around.
[44] Texas is big.
[45] enough with 30 million people and growing, a lot of people online, Texas is big enough that when we take a lead on an issue like this, other governments tend to take note.
[46] And because Texas has so many social media users, when Texas takes action, it forces these tech companies to respond.
[47] Was there a particular trigger or defining moment for you and your colleagues that prompted you to author this bill?
[48] There have been a number.
[49] We are so frustrated.
[50] A copy colleague of mine in the Texas House, who's also a pastor, did a post about his church's Easter sunrise service.
[51] And this post is about as beautiful as you can imagine, nothing political, nothing offensive.
[52] My goodness, hard to imagine that being offensive to anyone.
[53] It was offensive to some social media providers who would not allow them to post it.
[54] Around that same time, I was back in the district and I was coming out of a store and I saw this beautiful Texas sunset.
[55] And I had to take a picture of it and post it on social media with a reference to the Psalms, where the Lord tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God.
[56] Universal message widely accepted in America for a long time.
[57] That was offensive.
[58] I wasn't allowed to do that.
[59] I could give you a long list.
[60] And so the problem when that happens, if it happens to a politician, the politician can usually find a way to get to Facebook and get it fixed.
[61] but what about my constituents?
[62] What about the folks back home?
[63] When they get blocked, when they get throttled, what can they do?
[64] They have no recourse at all.
[65] And so we knew something had to be done to hold these companies accountable.
[66] They have made themselves the gatekeepers of speech in America.
[67] In in America, we have free speech.
[68] They don't get to take that role.
[69] And we knew that somebody had to teach them some manners.
[70] So that's why Texas had to do what we did.
[71] I love it.
[72] Now, your bill and a similar bill in Florida are being challenged by two technology trade groups who argue that, quote, viewpoint neutrality laws such as these violate the First Amendment.
[73] What's your response to that?
[74] How do you refute that claim?
[75] You know, those same tech companies are in other cases arguing that they should be allowed to moderate content and viewpoint, but not be treated like a publisher.
[76] In this case, they're arguing a different First Amendment position.
[77] I get it.
[78] They're holding all the cards now.
[79] They have so much power.
[80] so much immense power, which they are abusing, which they're abusing.
[81] And whether it's from the left or from the right, no one should be stifling free speech.
[82] You and I understand most Americans get this.
[83] Free speech is really important.
[84] Yes, it's guaranteed by the First Amendment.
[85] There are also many practical benefits.
[86] We need a robust debate on issues to get to the truth.
[87] We trust the American people.
[88] If the ideas are out there and you say what you believe and I say what I believe, and we hash it out, and other people participate, we are going to get to the truth.
[89] We are not afraid of a debate.
[90] We need a debate.
[91] We welcome that.
[92] These companies, anything but liberal, they want to stifle that debate.
[93] And so we feel very good about our chances.
[94] The Florida bill was a little different than ours.
[95] The Florida bill exempted Disney and treated politicians differently.
[96] Also, the Florida bill did not allow the social media platforms to exercise their own speech.
[97] didn't allow them to put notes next to your post, like a note that says there may be a question about this, see below.
[98] Under our bill, we make it very clear that these platforms, of course, they have the right to exercise speech as well.
[99] If they want to put a comment on my post or put a flag on my post, letting folks know that there are different opinions that is welcomed and it's specifically allowed under the Texas law.
[100] So we feel good about it.
[101] The full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it.
[102] And now we are in front of the U .S. Supreme Court.
[103] As you said, It was interesting.
[104] I'm sure you saw by a five to four ruling, the Supreme Court narrowly decided to allow the Texas law to be held in abeyance until the full treatment by the court.
[105] It was five, four, but wasn't your usual five, four, right?
[106] You probably saw this.
[107] Justice Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.
[108] And Justice Kagan also disagreed with blocking the Texas statute.
[109] So fascinating.
[110] We believe.
[111] free speech.
[112] Free speech is too strong in our jurisprudence.
[113] It's in our DNA as Americans.
[114] And we believe free speech is going to be upheld.
[115] We believe we're going to win.
[116] Well, the court will hear the case on Monday and we'll be looking for how they rule at the end of the term.
[117] Senator, thank you so much for coming on.
[118] So honored to be on.
[119] We're big fans, thankful for what you guys do.
[120] Again, free speech, man. That's the business you're in.
[121] Thank you.
[122] We're glad to be on.
[123] Well, we appreciate that.
[124] Thanks again.
[125] That was Texas State Senator Brian Hughes, and this has been an extra edition of Morning Wire.