John Kennedy Asks Trump Judicial Nominee About Section 230 Covering Facebook

[0:01] senator kennedy judge this is not what i want to talk about but and this is not directed toward my [0:20] good friend senator blumenthal um he served honorably and he's a clever fella but one of the [0:30] tricks up here is to try to muddy the water to make it look deep um president trump is in his [0:43] second term is that right that's right who was the president before president trump joe biden [0:53] that's what i thought i just wanted to clear that up um are you happy about what happened on january [1:07] 7th january 6th could you speak closer to the mic no i mean obviously that is a dark day as i said [1:17] there was violence and vandalism uh that i think every american would condemn so it wouldn't be fair [1:28] if someone concluded from your answers to my friend senator blumenthal that you somehow [1:35] approved of what happened on january 7th no i i don't believe that would be fair yeah you condemn [1:41] it don't you i do yeah and just to clear up any confusion i was here on january 7th it was a riot [1:52] and and uh it was it was it was very inappropriate but i i digress i just want to clear that up um i i [2:08] don't want to ask how you're going to rule on a case but i do want to understand how you think [2:13] tell me a little bit about section 230. i believe section 230 is part of the communications decency [2:23] act i think it uh is an immunity for service providers or like facebook for uh immunity from being sued for [2:33] um uh certain types of defamation that some others might post on their on their uh websites well i [2:42] mean it's let's take facebook i don't mean to pick on facebook millions and millions and millions of [2:48] people post on facebook and they say some deeply weird stuff um sometimes defamatory um section 230 just [2:59] says look facebook these social media platforms we're not going to hold them responsible under the [3:06] law for what somebody else posted right that's all it is right that's my understanding yes because [3:13] purportedly the social media companies don't have anything to do with the post [3:17] that you just open an account you post whatever you want to right right okay here's here's but the world's [3:29] this whole issue which has become more and more important um becomes clouded a bit at least it [3:37] does in my mind because these social media platforms are so powerful i mean i mean let me put it another [3:44] one social when when when uh uh facebook started it was it was this little group at harvard but today [3:53] today it's billions of people it has enormous power doesn't it it does i mean who do you think is more [4:00] powerful the state of louisiana or facebook that's something i i'm not sure i could say in certain [4:10] facebook i'll take your word for now should it make a difference if facebook through algorithms [4:23] makes a decision about what i see facebook can't show me all squillion posts out there so facebook decides [4:33] what it which posts it want me wants me to see that's a that's a an intentional act by facebook why [4:44] why doesn't that subject them to liability senator kennedy so i understand uh the question and i think um [4:53] without having the text of section 230 in front of me i'm not sure whether about it doesn't cover [4:59] okay well then i'm just asking how you how you analyze that so well my understanding as you [5:06] characterized it is that the rationale behind section 230 is that since these services facebook [5:13] and others don't actually edit it's not their speech but you do edit it if you decide what i see don't [5:19] you so some of that rationale at least some of the rationale then wouldn't apply in those circumstances [5:26] and and um but as you say if it doesn't cover it then that would that would lead potentially either [5:32] to a different result or perhaps be a reason for this body to consider amending the statute because [5:38] i agree with you the rationale behind it is different well i'm about to run out of time but [5:43] um let me give you a concrete example um my my my spouse my wife hates guns okay um she believes love is [5:54] the answer i believe loves the answer but i also own a handgun um suppose facebook decided that it [6:03] wanted to change my wife's mind and they started showing her video after video after video post after [6:10] post after post on facebook to convince her that guns aren't dangerous that shouldn't be covered by [6:17] section 230 should it well again i'm not sure whether i would say whether it should or shouldn't [6:25] but i will say i i agree with the sentiment that the rationale behind it would not seem to apply in [6:31] the same way that it would if facebook or others were truly neutral i'm almost done mr chairman i promise [6:39] i swear to god um just to check i don't i don't remember if i brought this up who was the president [6:45] before president trump the this last time it was joe biden okay we get that cleared up thank you all right [6:53] thank you