Sen. Cruz clashes with Sen. Whitehouse on Section 230 as Hawley amendment fails in committee
The debate came amid a broader controversy over social media bias and censorship
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., debated internet censorship on Thursday after the latter suggested that social media companies shouldn't give equal access to accounts that make arguments based on false information.
For months, social media giants have come under fire for applying an apparent bias to their censorship of certain content on their platforms. Perhaps most notable was Twitter's decision to suspend the New York Post's account and limit distribution of its explosive story about Hunter Biden before the election.
"If you imagine a hypothetical argument that is taking place on one of these platforms between two entities and one entity is trafficking in false information and fraudulent information, and the other is not -- to then say that you have to be fair to both sides ... even at the cost of allowing your platform to be used to propagate false and fraudulent information, I think misstates the question that we're faced with," Whitehouse said during Thursday's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}The former attorney general of Rhode Island added that it wasn't "even-handed to say to one side 'yeah you guys both have full access to my platform' ... that just to me isn't real fairness."
Cruz responded by accusing Whitehouse of wanting to silence opinions he opposed.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}"I know Sen. Whitehouse speaks from conviction but the argument he put forth I think is very dangerous -- that essentially any political position he disagrees with is objectively false," Cruz said. "And so he explained if someone has a different view on a policy issue, that's disinformation, that's false, and because it's objectively false, it should be silenced."
Whitehouse denied Cruz's accusation, arguing that he didn't define disinformation as something he disagreed with.
"There is plenty that I disagree with that is not disinformation," he said. "It's disinformation when it's the product of a fraudulent campaign, when it's funded with dark money, when it's designed to interfere improperly in politics, when it has all of the attributes of a covert information operation."
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Their exchange came during a committee hearing where members were considering an amendment by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., to modify the scope of providers' protection from civil liability under the Communications Act of 1934.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Section 230 of that law specifically grants services immunity from liability for third party content. Citing social media bias, President Trump has called for that exception to be removed but some, like Shoshana Weissman of the R Street Institute, have defended it from additional changes.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}"Currently, Section 230 says that an internet service isn't liable for other people's content, including when they choose to moderate content," she said. "That makes sense. Each person should be liable for his own words. The problem with any legislation that conditions Section 230 immunity on specific speech standards is that making the protections conditional opens up the litigation floodgates that 230 closed. It defeats the purpose of having immunity."