00:00 Thank you very much, and that will conclude our witness opening statements, and I'll now
00:06 recognize myself for five minutes.
00:10 Professor Franks, during your testimony, you detail how the courts have interpreted Section
00:14 232 broadly.
00:15 Will you just explain how the interpretation of Section 230 has evolved over this time,
00:21 and to what extent you think the courts have applied 232 broadly, too?
00:28 Thank you.
00:29 What we've seen is that this very limited immunity that was provided clearly in Subsection
00:34 C2 has been sort of transferred over to C1 and then expanded.
00:40 Instead of saying, for instance, that you can't treat a particular intermediary as if
00:44 it were the speaker of someone else's speech, we now see every kind of claim, speech claims,
00:49 non-speech claims, basically anything one can imagine, being treated as though it were
00:54 clear that any responsibility that the intermediary might have is foreclosed by C1.
01:01 And that, I think, does not make any sense, of course, in the context of the statute,
01:04 but it has also meant that in terms of incentives for the industry, it is essentially saying
01:09 to the industry, you can participate in any kind of reckless profit-maximizing behavior
01:14 that you want.
01:15 It doesn't matter what the consequences are for you because you will not have to pay for
01:18 them.
01:19 Thank you very much.
01:20 Thank you.
01:21 Professor Leary, how can we strike a balance between protecting free expression and holding
01:30 big tech accountable for dangerous content that it promotes under Section 230?
01:37 I think the balance is struck similarly to what Dr. Singer was saying by the reality
01:42 of the marketplace.
01:43 This is the only industry that things are so out of balance.
01:48 So one of the ways that we can strike the balance of free speech is to really focus
01:53 on the harms, the harms that are caused by Section 230.
01:57 And one of the free speech aspects that is often overlooked in these discussions is this
02:02 access to court, the access to civil rights from parties who are challenging the actions
02:09 of these companies.
02:10 And they've been completely denied and shut out.
02:12 So when we talk about balancing free speech, I think we have to think about all the speech
02:17 that has been shut out as a result of Section 230, all the cases that are closed off at
02:22 immunity as opposed to that are closed off after a full litigation of hearings.
02:28 Thank you.
02:29 Professor Stanger, this is something interesting before you close about talking about national
02:37 security.
02:38 Would you want to speak to that, which you were referring to?
02:44 Yes, I'm happy to do so.
02:47 I think it's important to realize that our internet is precisely unique because it's
02:54 so open and that makes it uniquely vulnerable to all sorts of cyber attacks.
03:00 Just this week, we saw an extraordinarily complicated plot that is most likely done
03:07 by China, Russia, or North Korea that could have blown up the internet as we know it.
03:14 If you want to look up XZutil, Google that and you'll find all kinds of details.
03:18 They're still sorting out what the intention was.
03:21 It's extraordinarily sophisticated, though.
03:25 So I think that the idea that we have a Chinese company where data on American children is
03:32 being stored and potentially utilized in China, it can be used to influence our children.
03:37 It can be used in any number of ways, no matter what they tell you.
03:41 So I very much support and applaud the legislation to repeal, not to repeal, but to end TikTok's
03:49 operations in the United States.
03:52 The national security implications are extraordinary.
03:54 Where the data is stored is so important and how it can be used to manipulate and influence
03:59 us is so important.
04:01 And I think the next frontier that I'll conclude with this for warfare is in cyberspace.
04:08 It's where weak countries have huge advantages.
04:12 They can pour resources into hackers who could really blow up our infrastructure, our hospitals,
04:19 our universities.
04:20 They're even trying to get, as you know, into the house.
04:24 So this house right here.
04:26 So I think repealing Section 230 is connected to addressing a host of potential harms.
04:34 In my last 35 seconds, let me ask one last follow up on this then.
04:38 You know, you're talking about our national security and the cyber attacks and of course
04:42 TikTok as the chair mentioned that we passed out of here.
04:50 How vulnerable are we?
04:52 How vulnerable are we?
04:54 Are we winning this race or are we losing this race in my last 14 seconds?
05:00 We are stars in innovation and so we want to keep that advantage, but our very openness
05:05 makes us vulnerable.
05:06 China doesn't have to worry about freedom of speech.
05:09 So they get security.
05:10 We've got to balance the two.
05:12 Well, thank you very much.
05:13 My time has expired and I now recognize the gentlelady from California's 16th district
05:17 for five minutes for questions.
Comments