Skip to main content

tv   Sen. Josh Hawley R-MO The Tyranny of Big Tech  CSPAN  July 9, 2021 6:41am-7:13am EDT

6:41 am
welcome to washington both light. i'm a tech policy reporter and author of the technology later the technology lit up in my guest today is senators josh hawley a republican from missouri. senator welcome to the "washington post." >> thank you. >> senator i'm looking forward to talking to you a bit about your proposal to break up big
6:42 am
tech companies in your new book but we want to start with events at january 6. senator you were the first senator to object to the certification of joe biden's electoral college victory writing your book quote my -- was to raise the objection of one state during the certification process. senator what responsibility do you feel for the cascading events that resulted on january january 6? >> listen i did what i said i was going to do on jenner's six was to voice my concerns about election integrity misses something by the way the process that i used to do that the democrats have used in three of the last presidential elections and in fact every time a republican president is elected since the year 2000 democrats have -- over those presidential
6:43 am
elections or the law provides for that as well as the rules of the house and senate provide during the electoral certification process objections in debate if there's an enough objection and debate and then a vote which is what i did joined by a number of my colleagues. specifically the objection ifalpa i felt was in the state of pennsylvania and others filed an objection of the state of arizona so we had debate on both of those in my view is this, we need to have a debate on election integrity. i think it was appropriate to have it done by the way democrats debate was appropriate and certainly within their right to raise these issues and i promise promised my constituents that i wouldn't so i did. that's why raise the issue on that day and that i wasn't going to let the action of a lawless criminal mob who came to this capital and try to stop the certification process and tried to stop the debate that we were in the middle of i wouldn't allow their actions interfere with my application with my
6:44 am
constituents and doing what i said i was going to do. those who committed acts of violence and those who committed acts of crime on the day of them -- january 6 they need to go to prison and i'll pay with their justification is. it's wrong it's violent it's lawless and criminal. i don't care if you are doing it because you run a writer on the left are those folks who came to the capitol admitted criminal violence just as the writers across different cities across the country the past year and it was the deranged individual who killed a police officer a few weeks ago at the capitol and service to his ideology in that case the nation of islam. regardless of what your ideology is to be commit acts of violence if you break the law you got to do the time for that but having a debate about election integrity i promise my constituents i would than i did on it don't regret that at all. that's my job. semi- senator members of your own party warned that it could
6:45 am
be damaging for democracy freedom move forward without objection and in the state of pennsylvania supreme court had already the pencil -- pennsylvania supreme court are dismissed in lawsuit challenging those results but i want to ask about comments he made in a local interview about the attack said biden was newly-elected. you believe that biden is a legitimately elected president of the united states? >> i do and let me go back to the second century bring it up. that was at the heart of my objection the objection that i file than it in fact the pennsylvania supreme court did not hear the merits of the claim of the constitutional claim that pennsylvania had violated its own state constitution in allowing universal mail-in balloting to the supreme court specifically declined to hear it. they dismissed the on the ground on the procedural grounds and they violated their own dr. doctrine in doing so. that's not the only strange
6:46 am
thing out of step with élan pennsylvania. the state of pennsylvania supreme court which is part of the court. they elect their justices in pennsylvania on that court interfered -- >> senator i'm going to challenge you on saying they didn't hear the merits of the case because there was a lot that ruled that the case -- it's difficult for a court to rule on a discipline that doesn't exist. >> you can't have it both ways. you can't say they heard the merits. that's wrong. .. that is in violation of our
6:47 am
president so they never heard the case, the only adjudication on the merits of the constitutional claim for lower court judges who found there was a constitutional violation in pennsylvania, my view of the pizza under people of pennsylvania can get their own supreme court to hear the case and if the pennsylvania constitution says mail-in balloting is not constitutional in a happens anyways, then there is a problem that is a subject for debate in the united states congress and if democrats can object to 11 different states, surely republicans can object to one. >> were gonna move on i want to ask you again about president biden you say you believe he was old elected what your message to americans who don't believe he was elected president. >> is a duly elected president of the united states this is why we have the certification
6:48 am
process, we have that process i raise my objection another senators raise their objection we have the debate which was interrupted by the violence which is being prosecuted now and condemned i condemned it at the time and do it again now that's why this is over the electoral votes have been counted in joe biden's president, if you're like me on the people of my state and you deeply disagree with the direction that president biden is trained to take this country, if you disagree with his policies and lawlessness of the border and is selling out to china, if you disagree with that then we have to take her stand with the democratic process in the legislature and will have more elections coming up next year november 2022 and we can go back as a country then but the thing now if you disagree as i do then we continue to stand on principle, we try to present an alternative vision and in congress it succumbed upon people like me representing my state to oppose this agenda.
6:49 am
>> senator on that point a prosecuting i want to talk to you a little bit about the investigation that are going on into the capital rights you support 9/11 style commission to look into those events. >> i agree with my senators a commission would be useful but it has to be bipartisan and done on the framework in the pattern of the 9/11 commission which is not what the democrats have proposed, not what nancy pelosi is proposed she wanted to be partisan commission to wyatt's blog down there is no reason to introduce partisan politics into this we had have a clear look at the security failings, we had several rounds of hearings in the senate on the security failings on the day, those are pretty significant, we know for instance there was major controversy about activating the national guard, we know that some did not want the guard activated on the day because they thought it looked too much like president trump activation
6:50 am
against the rioters in d.c. earlier in the summer, i think that was a mistake to not activate the guard earlier, there was a lot of controversy to ask for when it was activated et cetera, we should have a full accounting of all of that making sure the various law enforcement agencies record needing and figure out how we can improve and i had a couple of police officers that said is anything going to be done proactively or is it going to be a blame game looking back, i think he had exactly right something a commission could do, nonpartisan commission they get about proactively, what we gotta do to make sure security failings all happened in the future and take a look at the physical security of the capital and someone. >> senator there is a massive fbi investigation underway as well, have you been interviewed by the fbi? >> i have not.
6:51 am
>> you mention the capital police, i wanted to talk to you about an interview on cnn last week, d.c. police officer was beaten ferociously, suffered a heart attack and concussion and had to bake for his life, he spoke out about the experience, let's play the clip. >> i'm happy i got the opportunity to speak out, talk about the events of that day, it's been very difficult seeing elected officials and other individuals to whitewash that event to downplay what happened, some of the terminology that was used of xoxox in very fine people in very different from what i experienced in what my coworkers experienced on the sixth. i express most brutal savage hand-to-hand combat of my entire
6:52 am
life let alone my policing career which spans almost two decades. >> senator what is your response to michael. >> i certainly don't think we should downplay the violence and the rhetoric he appointed to about hugs and kisses and whatever that was, it's certainly not language i would use, criminal rioters are to be treated as criminals, that is true whether the writing at the capital or writing up federal buildings in portland and elsewhere or whether it's rioters who identify with the left or the right like the deranged individual who killed the capital police officer just a few weeks ago, i certainly hope that officers story will be told and he will be properly honored and hundreds of officers who have been attacked across this country over the past year by criminal rioters. >> i wanted to ask you many americans first got to know you
6:53 am
from the photo on the sixth, who was not directed to? >> i was entering the house chamber the morning of the sixth to go in for the beginning of the electoral count the electoral counting process and those are demonstrators out there on the plaza on the far into the plaza on the east side stand behind barricades, waving american flags, summing them were calling, they had every right to be there, they had every right to demonstrate under the first amendment, every right to make their views known, nobody has a right to do so violently, when i walk by that particular group of folks were standing there peacefully behind police. kate will offer the plaza and i waved to them and thank them for being there, they had every right to do that. >> after what happened to regret that at all? >> i don't know which of those
6:54 am
protesters if any of them participated in the criminal ryan's and on the thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of people who came to the capital that day to demonstrate peacefully to lump them in with a metal breyers saying is bake it until basically the same thing, throughout last summer we heard over and over it's important to distinguish the peaceful protesters in the blm protest in the rioters, i agree with that then, i said then i think the same is true of those on january 6 the tens of thousands of folks who came to d.c. the overwhelmingly majority were peaceful and came to demonstrate peacefully, that's their first amendment right, i will support and defend them in doing that and support and defend other people have disagreed with politically and doing the same thing. >> i want to turn to a big decision related to facebook, we find out president trump can return to facebook, the company's new oversight will
6:55 am
announce the decision, what do you think of this board. >> it is sad right now in our country the free speech that americans enjoy depends on the monopoly corporation, i have no idea how this board operates, nobody does, this is the facebook supreme court that facebook has called it, i don't think anyone company should have this power over speech, over data, over news and information, facebook has tremendous power and i have no idea what the decision of the oversight board will be and i think what it is is less important than the sheer amount of power that the exercise and the total lack of transparency, this is why my view we need to break them up facebook is a monopoly, google is a monopoly, the power of these monopolies is unlike anything we've seen in this country in a century ever actually and i think the decision of this board really underscores and amplifies that.
6:56 am
>> senator i want to get to those points that you made about breaking a big tech but first i want to ask you what would trump's returned to facebook mean for the future of the republican party. >> i don't know the answer to that, my view the former president is very significant force in the party as it is and that's good to be true no matter what, i don't know that his return to a platform is really going to affect his standing of the party one way or another i can tell you in my state among the republicans he remains overwhelmingly popular that doesn't have to do whether he's on facebook or not, the issue about facebook and other social media platforms is an issue about ordinary americans in the control of normal everyday americans by these platforms in speech, that is important but also the data in their access to news and sharing of information and that's what i think is so
6:57 am
vital and so key about the power of the monopoly accents. >> on the issue of speech, the book takes aim at section 230 which is a legal shield that protects internet companies from lawsuits, where do you think you can find an agreement from your fellow senators to make changes to that shield. >> here's an idea i mentioned this in the book and when it comes to section 230 i think this is an important way forward, i think section 230 ought to be withdrawn for any platform that engages in behavioral advertising, you reported on this, behavioral advertising where they collected data which all these companies do without her consent, they track us around the web, collected data and then they use that sometimes they basically sell it as a third party without our consent or they use it by constructing profiles which they sell to advertisers and the advertisers try to use a form of
6:58 am
ads that a behavioral tabulation not dislike using new product, based on all of your previous history were gonna put in front of you images, words and so forth that we know have a great chance or has a great chance of changing your mind that is behavioral advertising based on your personal characteristic that form of advertising is so destructive and the surveillance that goes into it we added draw section 230 immunity for any company that permits behavioral advertising or engages in the algorithmic amplification behind it. >> i would hope to answer your question directly i would hope i could get bipartisan support, i would say to my democrat friends across the aisle we ought to be able to agree on this, behavioral advertising encourages mass surveillance, mass tracking, mass taking of data, that would be a place to propose to start. >> senator have you had any
6:59 am
discussions with any specific lawmakers in the democratic party about the proposal? >> i have and here's what i'll say about my friends across the aisle, i hope the fact that these companies have immense influence with the current administration, i hope that want to term them from being tough on these companies in a meaningful way, one of the things i'm concerned about no right about this in the book the incredible amount of influence they have on both sides of the aisle unfortunately and we saw them try to leverage that influence in the last election with the incredible amount of money, the ceos gave to the biden here's campaign, i just hope that my democrat colleagues in congress will remain vigilant on this and not give these companies a past or let up the pressure, we gotta do something meaningful, we ought to break the companies up and we'll talk about that soon but section 230 can be a step but i think we need to break
7:00 am
them up. >> senator on that point about breaking the companies up, i wanted to ask you about two bills you recently introduced the trust busting for the 21st century act in the big tech act, on the point of working with democrats, how are you going to get these to congress? >> these are the most aggressive bills that a been introduced in years and years, the most aggressive bill in congress now i think we'll find out where people really are, how they respond to these bills, i think there is room to get some work done across the aisle, you see this in the antitrust committee, the subcommittee that i'm a part of an amy klobuchar hazard antitrust proposals, you can find some good common ground between the two of us on these issues, i propose to go further than senator klobuchar, i think we ought to have a hard band of mergers and acquisitions for making corporations that have a
7:01 am
market cap of a hundred billion or more, we added change the standard the court used to evaluate antitrust cases, i think we ought to make up anti-promoting competition that ought to be the standard called the consumer welfare standard which i think ends up being too deferential and practice to monopolies, we had a change the standard and i highlight those because the two major areas where my bill is tougher and stronger than other proposals out there but i think that is good and we need to have a debate about how we are enforcing the law and we need to have a debate on how we can cut the monopoly corporations down the side not just in the tech sector although the big tech corporations are the most pressing but were seen economic concentration across multiple industries and i think we need to confront that. >> senator you mentioned changing the standard for antitrust litigation, are you
7:02 am
going to be able to bring other conservatives around to that idea because members of your own party, top leaders on antitrust committees had said that's a nonstarter for that. >> it certainly is a bold and move but i would just say as i talked to my fellow conservatives, some of us traditionally upper principle of conservatism is belief in the free markets and competition, you ask the most conservatives especially those who define themselves as economic conservatives, what is important to you, competition will come near the top of that list, my argument the current standard the courts have used for decades, the cube summa welfare only get halfway there, that basically asks does a business practice in question cause higher prices to consumers, that is a fine question, an important question but that's not the only question when it comes to competition. take the tech companies, they argue frequently that our
7:03 am
services are free, our service is free, google, our services are free but the problem without they may be free in terms of the consumer facing product, but the company extract monopoly rents in other ways, take data collection, you don't have a choice if you want your data collected if you use facebook, google or twitter, they're gonna track you all over the web without your consent and without your knowledge to good extract your data, that is a monopoly, you cannot opt out of it, there is no other place you can go no other. competitor to them where you can go and say on this platform my data will be protected, facebook used to pledge that they would protect data, that's when they have real competition, myspace over a decade ago but as soon as they got rid of the competition they collected the data, that is to get out why the reason the consumer welfare standard isn't enough, you can have services that are technically free but in fact still have all the
7:04 am
characteristic of monopoly and burden consumers and cost them something tangible in control of their data, that's why we need a new standard that gives back competition, that's a standard i would propose, protecting and promoting competition, that ought to be the standard records used to evaluate, that would be my conservative case for adopting it. >> the a lot of ideas sound like ideas that we've heard from biden's nominee, do you plan to support her nomination? >> i haven't made my mind up yet, i haven't gotten the chance to talk with her much yet but i will say this i'm impressed with her and her background and her work in this area, i think she does very serious about monopoly problems, her record demonstrates that, i think the kind of voice that she has broader these issues is an important one. >> senator i want to push gears
7:05 am
a little bit, you are the only senator to vote against the bill targeting hate crimes against asian americans, you said it was too broad but what do you think should be done to target hate crimes. >> my issue without bill section 4, this is an anti-free-speech bill, as the first amendment guy this doesn't create hate crimes or create hate crimes on the book, they must be clear and already barred, if you commit a crime against somebody and federal law punishes you for that, my issue with this bill shouldn't change any of that, what it did do in section 4, gave to the department of justice the power to track and monitor into define what it called hate incidents, those art attacks or violence of that
7:06 am
speech, those are speech acts in the department of justice says this could include speech, i think it's a mistake to give the government the power to define defensive speech into track and monitor it and collected, i think that's a big problem in the civil libertarian in me and with the patriot act we look at 20 years ago where we have government and all kinds of power to monitor speech to track it to criminalize it, that was supposed to be temporary were still living with it, it's best to be limited and we got broader and broader and what i cannot support in defining defensive speech, tracking and monitoring. >> i have to say someone who's been covering your position on tech issues it does seemed like on the area more power over speech when you talk about having companies proved to the ftc whether the politically neutral to get section 230
7:07 am
immunity, it just seems like some of these positions are bit inconsistent, i want to move on. >> let me respond to that that's an important point i don't think the government should regulate the speech of the tech companies, we need more free speech, not less, the problem with the tech companies they center on the basis of political viewpoints, that's why i've come, i think we ought to break them up because the real issue is there monopoly power and we ought to withdraw section 230 immunity if they engage in behavioral advertising or if they center on the basis of political viewpoints. i am against more government regulation of the company, i don't think that that works at the end of the day, i think what
7:08 am
happened somewhere the government regulates these companies and tries to fine-tune their business model, tries to fine-tune their speech regulation, the more the regulators get captured by the industry, there's a big difference between myself and my democratic colleagues if you listen to my democrat colleagues and what you increasingly hear from them they want the tech companies to censor more, they want them to further define what is defense of the speech and whatnot, they want the tech companies to become wings of the democrat party, i am a poster that weathers right or left. >> i want to be clear the companies have denied that they center, moving on to the future of the republican party i want to ask you the falsehood that the election was stolen, is not bad for the party. >> my purpose under perspective or proposal that we automate their own terms and service enforceable against them, you are right they do say tech companies do say that they don't discriminate on the basis of political viewpoint, they say that over and over under oath, i say that's fine let's make that
7:09 am
enforceable, right now if you're the normal person and you get the platform did you say wait a minute i think that you google violated your terms of service and discriminated against me on the basis of political speech, there's nothing that you do about it my view take the tech companies own view of service and make those enforceable in court and if they are applying them evenhanded in a fairway there won't be any problem and i think we ought to get people to ability to go into court, what was your second question ? >> i wanted to ask about the future of the republican party, there is reports that there is a move from the caucus to remove liz cheney from leadership, do you support those efforts. >> she's in the house and i leave that to my house colleagues, i don't have a vote in that process, i will just say this there's been a lot taken up that you've expended on the republican civil war and i read
7:10 am
that from time to time in the press, i tell you voters in my state and all republican voters that i talked to but for sure voters in the state of missouri have 0 interest in republican civil war, there is such thing they do not want to go back, they want to go forward and they want to continue with the policies of former president trump put in place, they want the border secured, they want trade to be fair and bring jobs back from overseas, they want to bring manufacturing back. >> were running out of time, were really short on time i want to ask you one more time do you think that lease cheney should be removed from leadership. >> my answer is a saying that the decision for the house conference i don't have a vote on that i'm not a member of the house. >> looking forward would you
7:11 am
support former president trump running for office in 2024. >> i get asked is a lot and every time i've asked they said it to him that the decision for him, i don't ever give him advice and i would not advise him what to do i will say i believe if he runs and will be the nominee but as to whether he will run i have no idea but if he should run i leave that up to him, we will have to see. >> if he runs would you run against him? >> no i'm not planning to run either way, in 2024 evan election of my own in the state of missouri and i hope the state of missouri ♪ ♪
7:12 am
♪ >> tonight on booktv, craig shirley, author of the book, "reagan rising," and we'll talk with former congresswoman jane harman about her book arguing that the united states is failing to confront difficult national security problems. also a conversation with the author of the book "breaking the news" exposing the establishment media's hidden deals and secret corruption. booktv tonight starting at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> weekends on c-span2 brings you the best in american history and nonfiction books. on saturdays, american history tv explores the nation's past. coming up saturdayt

10 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on