00:00We do think this committee has had a huge impact on protecting free speech.
00:03The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes.
00:05Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:07Today we are examining a growing threat,
00:10the way that Europe and the UK are using so-called digital safety and competition laws
00:15to undermine American values and American innovation.
00:19The EU Digital Services Act and the UK's Online Safety Act
00:23go far beyond legitimate regulation.
00:26They empower foreign bureaucrats to label political dissent,
00:31even ordinary phrases like take back our country, as hate speech.
00:35And they pressure US platforms to apply those censorship rules globally.
00:40At the same time, the EU's Digital Markets Act and the UK's DMCC
00:44deliberately single out American technology companies for punitive treatment,
00:49forcing them to share proprietary data and subsidize less innovative rivals.
00:55These laws are protectionist by design and they put American jobs, innovation and free speech at risk.
01:01Congress has a duty to push back.
01:03We must ensure that foreign governments cannot dictate what Americans are allowed to say online,
01:09nor use regulatory schemes and backdoor taxes on our most successful industries.
01:15I look forward to hearing from you all today and appreciate your testimony.
01:20Mr. Price, I am a former American judge.
01:24And as such, I know that laws must have clear, defined terms in order to be applied impartially and fairly and consistently.
01:34I'd like to return to the discussion of the OSA and specifically the requirement under which that for speech to be censored as a false communication,
01:44it must cause, quote, non-trivial psychological or physical harm.
01:49Would you share with us your perspective on the use of phrases such as non-trivial psychological harm,
01:56and your view of whether it is possible for these terms to be applied uniformly, fairly and consistently?
02:02Good question.
02:03I'm afraid I really can't.
02:05And you've hit the nail on the head, really, in terms of your question.
02:09These terms are extremely vague, and it's a longstanding principle of the common law that vagueness in the criminal law is repugnant.
02:17And so, sir, is it your view that this is actually an appropriate or even enforceable regulatory scheme?
02:24It's not appropriate, but they certainly intend to enforce it.
02:28Mr. Reid, I'd like to turn back to the DMA's application to our companies
02:35and the concept of gatekeepers, which we touched on earlier today.
02:39Would you please describe how that operates and how these regulations are creating an unfair competitive advantage
02:45for European and Chinese firms at the expense of American companies?
02:50Well, I think the primary problem with the way that the EU has set up the gatekeeper requirements is
02:56it's driving the largest companies to essentially pull back on the tools they build for my members
03:03from the frameworks that they build for the small businesses.
03:07Ironically, oftentimes, these small guys are the ones that are going to compete with them
03:11because it allows them to say, well, in order to comply with the DMA, we need to remove various functions.
03:17And this isn't a hypothetical.
03:19What we've seen so far in our discussions is they want to remove link-throughs.
03:23They want to remove other elements that they see as essentially keeping power in a few of the big companies.
03:28The irony is, of course, the small guy, not the medium-sized guy, not the billionaire,
03:33but the truly small guys actually need that foothold to step up.
03:38And so what it creates is an environment where, sure, there'll be some billionaire companies that will do well out of the DMA,
03:44but the thousandaires, those of us who are trying to get to that next level, are the ones who get crushed between the two giants.
03:51Thank you. I yield the balance of my time to the chairman.
Be the first to comment