TWITTER SEEING THE BIGGEST GAIN,
UP ABOUT 4.6%.
SENATOR ROGER WICKER OF
MISSISSIPPI IS A REPUBLICAN
SENATOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE
SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE,
HOSTING TOMORROW’S HEARING.
HE IS ALSO THE CO-SPONSOR OF A
BILL TO UPDATE SECTION 230.
HE JOINS US NOW IN A FOX
BUSINESS EXCLUSIVE AHEAD OF THE
TOMORROW MOMENT HERE.
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE.
WHAT IS YOUR NEW MEXICOUMBER ONE
TOMORROW’S HEARING?
>> WELL, WE WOULD LIKE TO
QUESTION THESE THREE CEOs
BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY ARE AMONG
THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN THE
COUNTRY, IF NOT THE MOST
POWERFUL PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.
IF YOU CONTROL THE FLOW OF NEWS,
IF YOU CONTROL THE FLOW OF
INFORMATION, YOU ARE INDEED
POWERFUL AND IT’S GOOD TO HEAR
THAT THEIR TESTIMONY TOMORROW
WILL EMBRACE EVEN-HANDEDNESS BUT
I THINK RECENT EXAMPLES,
PARTICULARLY THIS "NEW YORK
POST" STORY ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN,
THEY JUST INDICATE TO A LOT OF
US ON THE RIGHT THAT WHEN IT
COMES TO POLICING WHAT ACTUALLY
GETS OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND WHAT
DOESN’T, THERE’S A BIT OF BIAS
ON BEHALF OF THE LIBERAL POINT
OF VIEW AND A WHOLE LOT MORE
RESTRICTION TO CONSERVATIVE
THOUGHT.
SO THAT’S PART OF WHAT WE’LL ASK
ABOUT.
BUT ALSO, LET ME JUST SAY THIS.
I DON’T WANT TO FILIBUSTER BUT
THIS SECTION 230 OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT IS A
PROVISION THAT BOTH PRESIDENT
TRUMP AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
HAVE INDICATED SHOULD BE
REPEALED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME THIS LIABILITY
SHIELD THAT THESE THREE POWERFUL
EXECUTIVES ENJOY IS UNDER ATTACK
FROM BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE
LEFT, AND I THINK THEY WILL BE
GETTING QUESTIONS FROM BOTH
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ABOUT
ISN’T IT TIME FOR THIS SPECIAL
PROTECTION, WHICH THEY HAVE BUT
WE
YOU DON’T HAVE AS A JOURNALIST,
BUT THESE INTERNET PLATFORMS
HAVE SPECIAL LIABILITY
PROTECTION AND ISN’T IT TIME FOR
US AT LEAST TO TIGHTEN UP THAT
LANGUAGE.
LIZ: SENATOR, PEOPLE KNOW
EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE
LAST COUPLE WEEKS, IT’S AT THE
FOREFRONT OF THIS ACTUAL EVENT
AND THE TRIGGER WAS THE THE
REQUEST NEW YORK POST"NEW
YORK POST" HAD PUT TOGETHER THIS
ARTICLE INVOLVING HUNTER BIDEN,
SON OF JOE BIDEN, AND A LAPTOP
AND ALL KINDS OF ISSUES SWIRLING
AROUND THAT AND TWITTER DID NOT
ALLOW IT TO BE FORWARDED OR
SHARED.
THAT BECAME A REAL POINT OF
CONTENTION FOR QUITE A FEW
PEOPLE.
SO HOW IMPORTANT WILL THAT BE
AND THIS IS REALLY KIND OF
ZEROING IN ON TWITTER AND WHERE
DOES GOOGLE STAND IN ALL OF
THAT?
THEY WERE REALLY PART OF THAT
ISSUE.
>> WE WILL ASK GOOGLE ABOUT
OTHER EXAMPLES, BUT TWITTER WAS
TO ME OUTRAGEOUS IN THEIR
RESPONSE TO THAT, AND I’M SURE
THE CEO OF THAT COMPANY WILL
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
WHAT THEY DID NOT ONLY DID THEY
REFUSE TO ALLOW THIS "NEW YORK
POST" STORY BUT THE FIFTH
LARGEST NEWSPAPER IN THE
COUNTRY, AND THE OLDEST
NEWSPAPER IN THE COUNTRY, THEY
DID NOT ALLOW THAT INFORMATION
TO GO FORWARD.
THEY SHUT DOWN THE TWITTER
ACCOUNTS OF PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO RETWEET IT.
RETWEET IT.
SO IT WAS AN OUTRAGEOUS
OVERREACTION AS FAR AS I’M
CONCERNED.
I THINK THE CEO OF THE COMPANY
WILL TELL US TOMORROW THAT WE
DID THIS, WE DID THAT AND NOW
THAT INFORMATION CAN GO FORWARD.
FACEBOOK LIMITED IT IN OTHER
WAYS WHICH WERE NOT QUITE AS
EXTREME.
BUT THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF
SOMEONE WHO IS A FINALIST FOR
THE MOST POWERFUL POSITION IN
THE WORLD, PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND AN ALLEGATION
THAT HIS SON SOLD ACCESS TO THIS
POTENTIAL PRESIDENT FOR MILLIONS
AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS, AND A COUPLE OF FOLKS
AT THESE COMPANIES DECIDED THAT
INFORMATION SHOULDN’T GO OUT TO
THE PUBLIC.
LIZ: THAT CASE, THEN YOU CAN
LOOK AT FACEBOOK, WHERE FOR SO
LONG, THEY WERE ALLOWING
INFORMATION TO GET OUT THERE ON
FACEBOOK ABOUT -- FROM HOLOCAUST
DENIERS OR WHITE SUPREMACY WHICH
IS JUST SHORT OF INCITING
VIOLENCE IN MANY CASES, IT TOOK
THEM FOREVER TO COME AROUND AND
IN A WAY, THEY BROUGHT THIS UPON
THEMSELVES, THIS SCRUTINY ON
BEHALF OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
BUT ISN’T THIS ALSO A SITUATION
WHERE SENATORS MAY LOOK, YOU GOT
TO SAY BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH
FOR.
SECTION 230, FOR PEOPLE WHO
DON’T QUITE UNDERSTAND,
BASICALLY SAYS NO PROVIDER OF AN
INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE
SHALL BE TREATED AS THE
PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER OF ANY
INFORMATION THAT HAPPENS TO PASS
THROUGH IT.
THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE.
IF YOU DO MAKE THEM RESPONSIBLE,
DO YOU NOT THEN RISK HAVING THE
ENTIRE SYSTEM SHUT DOWN AND
BECAUSE THEY WILL BE SO
PROTECTIVE, THEY ARE NOT GOING
TO LET ANYTHING OUT THERE?
>> THAT’S A CONCERN I HAVE.
I SHARE THAT CONCERN.
YOU STATED IT WELL.
MY PROPOSAL WOULD NOT REPEAL
SECTION 230 LOCK, STOCK AND
BARREL.
WHAT 230 DOES NOW, IT ALLOWS
THESE PLATFORMS TO TAKE DOWN
ANYTHING THEY VIEW AS
OBJECTIONABLE.
NOW, TO ME, OBJECTIONABLE IS
LIKE BEAUTY.
IT’S IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.
AND WE NEED TO GET RID OF THAT
LANGUAGE.
IF WE WANT TO SPECIFY ADVOCACY
OF ILLEGAL ACTIONS, ADVOCACY OF
TERRORISM, SELF-HARM, THINGS
LIKE THAT, THAT PEOPLE KNOW THE
MEANING OF, I THINK THAT WOULD
BE FAR BETTER.
BUT WHEN YOU SAY WHATEVER
SOMEONE IN SOME CEO’S OFFICE
THINKS IS OBJECTIONABLE, THAT
GIVES THEM TOO MUCH LEEWAY AND
BASICALLY THE RIGHT TO CENSOR
WHATEVER THEY DISAGREE WITH.
LIZ: WE WILL BE WATCHING IT.
WE WILL BE CARRYING MUCH OF IT.
SENATOR ROGER WICKER WILL BE THE
HEAD OF IT.
WE WILL BE REALLY VERY MUCH