Disclose Government Censorship Act

Mr. President, just last week, a Federal judge ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the Biden administration from colluding with Big Tech to censor Americans' speech. So the court ordered Biden administration officials and Agencies not to coordinate with Big Tech platforms in order to suppress American speakers and Americans' viewpoints that they disagree with.

This seems obvious. The First Amendment would mean little if government simply used Big Tech to get around it. Who disagrees with this basic principle that government-directed censorship is un-American and unconstitutional? Well, I can tell you who disagrees with that. The Biden administration disagrees with it. The Justice Department, almost immediately, asked the court of appeals to stay this ruling to allow it to continue to censor Americans while it appeals.

In recent years, increasing evidence has emerged regarding a disturbing alliance in which Big Government and Big Tech work together to censor speech that they don't want Americans to see nor to hear. Published emails among Twitter executives reveal the extent to which the company worked to prevent Americans from seeing a New York Post news story just weeks before the 2020 election. The extent of the suppression was breathtaking. Indeed, the Twitter executives locked the Twitter account of the White House Press Secretary simply for mentioning this New York Post story.

Facebook admits that it, likewise, limited the spread of the story based on a general warning from the FBI about it being propaganda. This is even though the FBI had verified the authenticity of the laptop in question.

This censorship activity has carried over into the Biden administration. In 2021, then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated that the government is ``in regular touch with social media platforms'' and ``flagging'' problematic posts for Facebook that spread what she called ``disinformation.''

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, disclosed that it had communicated with more than 30 Federal officials about content moderation on its platform, including senior employees at the FDA, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and, of course, the White House. YouTube, which is owned by Google, disclosed that it had such communications with 11 Federal officials.

The disturbing truth is that when Biden administration officials don't like what Americans are saying, they simply reach out to their allies at Big Tech to silence it. Government using its power to coerce censorship of disfavored information is what the Chinese Communist Party or the North Korean regime would do. It is not only fundamentally un-American; most often, it is unconstitutional.

The other day, a Federal court confirmed that the government cannot use Big Tech as a tool to end-run the First Amendment. The judge wrote that the case ``arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history.''

Americans deserve to know when their government and Big Tech platforms are trying to manipulate what they can say or what they can read. I introduced legislation last Congress and again this past May to require this transparency. The Disclose Government Censorship Act would require that government officials publicly disclose communications with Big Tech regarding actions to restrict speech. The act contains appropriate exceptions to protect legitimate law enforcement or national security activity.

Our Nation was founded on the idea that protecting citizens' speech from government censorship under the First Amendment would protect the people's right to govern themselves by preventing government from controlling information and ideas. Americans deserve to know when their government is covertly trying to accomplish what the First Amendment prohibits.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1672 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate the sentiments my Democratic colleague expressed, and I very much appreciate his work and his concerns with respect to Big Tech. I share those concerns.

And I share some optimism today that we will find common ground to work together. The legislation I have put forward simply allows Americans to see when the government is trying to censor them. My colleague suggests that this is because of concern over protections for law enforcement and national security work.

I would like to say this. My legislation contains appropriate exceptions to protect legitimate law enforcement or national security activity and preserve the confidentiality of those communications. But in assuming that the details of those protections are my colleague's only concern, I am happy to work with my colleague to address those concerns and ensure that the core of this legislation, which requires disclosure of government censorship efforts, is quickly enacted.

I hope that Senator Peters and I can work together and do this because it is too significant to ignore. Our government, at the end of the day, works for the American people, and to ensure that this continues, the First Amendment prohibits the government from controlling what Americans can say or read. But now government is using Big Tech to accomplish such censorship, and without disclosure of such communications, Americans' free speech rights become a dead letter because there is no way to address improper government efforts to ban speech.

My legislation would preserve these rights by allowing Americans to see when government is trying to silence them. It is a basic element of self-government. I look forward to working with Senator Peters and his committee to try to make this something that can be acceptable to all.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I certainly appreciate Senator Hagerty's concerns. The freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of the press are all very foundations of our Nation.

But I am also concerned about the power of large tech companies, which we must--must--hold accountable. The Homeland Security Committee, which I chair, has held a series of bipartisan

oversight hearings on social media, including bringing in top executives to testify and to answer tough questions.

I am deeply concerned, however, that the legislation that we are discussing today could have serious unintended consequences, including undermining our national security. This bill could damage our national intelligence and law enforcement operations by requiring Agencies to disclose every interaction with a social media platform about the activity of a terrorist or a criminal on their platform. This can involve sensitive ongoing investigations and enforcement action, including the terrorist use of social media to recruit Americans to carry out attacks against our homeland.

The bill could also chill effects by executive and legislative branch employees who are working to address online threats and hate speech directed at Americans and communities all across our Nation. In addition to creating new redtape for staff trying to address these very difficult issues, it threatens them with a year in jail for not meeting paperwork deadlines.

Certainly, we must all protect our Nation's First Amendment and the right to speak freely. However, this bill will not accomplish that goal, while potentially undermining our national security.

Mr. President, therefore, I object.