Cruz: Is It Time to Reform Section 230

WASHINGTON, D.C.- In his opening statement during today's Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing, Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) criticized Big Tech for too often misusing Section 230 to silence Americans. Chairman Cruz pointed to his TERMS Act and forthcoming JAWBONE Act as potential ways to protect online speech from arbitrary censorship by Big Tech and secretive censorship by the federal government short of full repeal of section 230.

Chairman Cruz's remarks, as prepared for delivery, are as follows:

"Within my lifetime, the Internet has impacted nearly every aspect of the world and our daily lives-especially how we communicate. It was only a short time ago that speech and newsworthiness was controlled by a handful of TV networks and newspaper publishers. And if you held a position they didn't want to print or wasn't consistent with their political views, it didn't get said.

"The Internet changed that, allowing anyone to bypass these gatekeepers and shape public opinion with their own views. The Internet also created a new way to communicate anonymously and at greater scale, through blogs, message boards, and comment sections.

"But with opportunity came legal questions. The law wasn't written for the Internet's ease and anonymity. Holding a platform liable for the illegal speech of another person threatened to overwhelm early Internet companies with ruinous lawsuits that would predictably result in less online speech.

"So, Washington explicitly adopted a light-touch regulatory approach with enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Congress included Section 230 to ensure online platforms would not be liable for the illegal speech of another person. It did so to preserve a competitive free market, and the text of Section 230 expressly recognized that the Internet provided a 'forum for a true diversity of political discourse.'

"But thirty years later, it seems Big Tech is the new gatekeeper, the new speech police. If you disagree with a particular view, Big Tech doesn't answer it with more speech. They do not persuade. They do not debate. They simply make it disappear and silence you. That should scare everyone.

"What's even more concerning is how the government hijacks Big Tech's powers to shape online discourse to suppress dissenting views and undermine free speech. This isn't fiction. As I detailed in my report and hearings last year, the Biden administration weaponized the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to bully Big Tech to censor lawful speech on COVID and elections, disproportionately muzzling conservative voices.

"We should recognize and celebrate how the free market can cause a course correction against Big Tech censorship. Elon Musk's purchase of X was one of the most important steps for free speech in decades. It showed that the censorship regime is not inevitable and it can be challenged in the marketplace and shifted to allow the kind of diverse viewpoints Section 230 envisioned.

"Congress must also consider every constitutional tool it has to ensure we prevent social media from harming Americans, especially children, while not incentivizing Big Tech censorship.

"The Take It Down Act, which I led with Sen. Klobuchar, demonstrates that Congress can pass targeted legislation to protect children and adults online. The law prohibits non-consensual intimate images, including such images created with AI, and creates a process to provide notice and takedown for victims - all without amending section 230 or chilling lawful speech protected by the First Amendment.

"I have also introduced several other legislative reforms to actively support free speech online, including my TERMS Act, which stops online platforms from weaponizing their terms of service to silence Americans and deny them access to essential products and services. And I will introduce the JAWBONE Act to stop government agencies from bullying platforms into silencing the American people.

"The same reasons why Congress enacted Section 230-to prevent liability for another person's speech-are still relevant, and I'm concerned that a full repeal or sunset would lead platforms to engage in more censorship to protect themselves from litigation. I also don't believe, as some of my colleagues have suggested, that we should use Section 230 reform to silence more lawful speech or make the government the arbiter of truth.

"But we should consider whether reform of Section 230 is needed to encourage more speech online and stop Big Tech censorship.

"No government official, regardless of party, should have the power to silence lawful speech. I agree with John Stuart Mill that the best solution for bad ideas or for bad speech is better ideas and more speech. We don't need to use brute force because the truth is far more powerful."

###