The Heartland Institute
July 12, 2021
Chairman Hughes and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for holding a hearing on Senate Bill 24, legislation intended to challenge Big Tech when it comes to Texan’s rights to political and religious free speech.
My name is Samantha Fillmore, and I am a State Government Relations Manager at The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is a 37-year-old independent, national, nonprofit organization and our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Heartland is headquartered in Illinois and focuses on providing elected officials on all levels reliable and timely research on important policy issues such as big tech censorship.
This year we have around 70 pieces of legislation in 30 states all attempting to challenge big tech censorship. The volume of bills across the nation is indicative of the fact that many Americans recognize we are entering into a dangerous period for political free speech.
In the blink of an eye, the emergence of social media platforms has elevated the national conversation and political discourse to a size and scope nearly unimaginable a decade ago. The associated emerging technologies and mediums promised democratization of free speech in a way never dreamed of. Free speech and political activism, once the realm of partisans and professional pundits, was accessible such that people who were once spectators were now engaged.
However, this mass communication network is managed by a handful of powerful tech titans, who are protected from liability and operate as monopolies. The consolidation of this power to these titans has now effectively erased the empowerment of millions of Americans and their newfound voices.
Where it has empowered voices and people across the political spectrum, it has also empowered the voices that seek to divide us, misinform us, and manipulate us. I would like to tell you that the very platforms on which those messages are spread have been fair and impartial, yet the truth is that they haven’t been.
The number of social network users worldwide reached 3.6 billion in 2020 and is projected to increase to 4.41 billion by 2025. This phenomenon was further exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. The Harris Poll conducted in the spring of 2020 found that between 46 and 51 percent of U.S. adults were using social media at higher rates than pre-pandemic. In addition, U.S. social network ad spending is projected to rise 21.3 percent from the already staggering $40 billion spent in 2020.
All of these astounding statistics provide ample evidence that social networks have become so much more than a host for expression, memes, and life updates among friends and family. In today’s world, the social network has become a major sector of the United States economy, influencing corporate successes and failures.
Opponents of this legislation would argue that such censorship is appropriate because “market forces” have allowed these titans to rise to power. To that, I submit to you that these instances are not the product of a healthy free market but rather the result of a corrupted market.
Big Tech enjoys monopoly-like protections from the federal government at SB 24 would fix this corruption in the market for Texans. When Big Tech argues for absolute free-market purity, they conveniently forget to mention that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act is itself an intrusion on the free market.
When Big Tech argues for absolute free-market purity, they conveniently forget to mention that government laws establishing limited liability and other special protections and advantages for corporations are also a government intrusion at the expense of common law and free markets. If they want to argue with a straight face for free-market purity and freedom from oversight, then they should first renounce their government-bestowed corporate protections and government favoritism.
Moreover, private corporations have no more of a right to suppress American’s Free Speech than does the government. Texans would never stand for a neighbor breaking into our houses to forcibly take our possessions, just as the same would not stand for a rogue policeman. In this case one is a private entity while one is a government entity. Similarly, Big Tech corporations have no more right to suppress your free speech rights than does government. Government exists to defend our unalienable rights – and especially our unalienable free speech rights – from being suppressed by third parties.
This legislation would inject autonomy back into the state level for Texas lawmakers and constituents alike.
So here we are today, challenging the behavior of Big Tech for Texans. It is evident that big tech has been less than transparent and lacks respect for the moral responsibilities that it has as a primary outlet for political discourse in our nation and the dissemination of information of public import.
Government should not be picking winners and losers among businesses competing with one another. However, government can and must protect Americans’ unalienable free speech rights when a private corporation seeks to destroy them. The “private” status of a rights-destroying corporation does not shield it from being subject to legal consequences for its actions.
Senate Bill 24 is good legislation, utilizing Texas’ power of the purse to spur a state-based and national debate on the role of Big Tech in our civic conversations. This bill sends the message to Texans that clear and robust public debate is sacred and any action or failure to act to ensure a robust debate will be met with hard questions, and if necessary, enabling policies.
Finally, I would like to submit to you that on the issue of Freedom of Speech, more speech is always the answer, never less.
Thank you for your time today.
For more information about The Heartland Institute’s work, please visit our websites at www.heartland.org or http:/news.heartland.org, or call Samantha Fillmore at 312/377-4000. You can reach Samantha Fillmore by email at [email protected].
Samantha Fillmore is a State Government Relations Manager for The Heartland Institute.
