tv Father of Slain Journalist on Internet Service Provider Immunity... CSPAN August 12, 2019 4:08pm-5:06pm EDT
our coverage includes author interviews with justice ruth bader ginsburg and her book my own word. david troyer, his book is a heartbeat of wounded knee. sharon robinson talk about her book child of the dream. henson, author of the british arecoming and thomas malone , founding director of the mit answer for collective intelligence discusses his book supervised. the national book festival, live saturday, august 31 at 10 am eastern on book tv on cspan2. >> next, andy parker, father of slain roanoke virginia tv reporter allison parker on his concerns over immunity protections or internet service providers. after his daughter's death was posted and reposted online, mister parker has spoken publicly about gun violence and work on legislation regarding the communications decency .
>> good afternoon national press club, i'm angela greiling keane, managing editor at politico and a technology team editor, past president of the national press club and journalism institute. for today's headliners event we are pleased to welcome andy parker and hopefully joining us by phone, anderson francoise whose the director of georgetown university's civil rights clinic and the voting rights institute. they're here to discuss andy's campaign to get google take video of his daughter allison's murder off of its platform and to take your questions. during the q&a, i will take as many questions as time permits. wait for the handheld microphone will be brought to you and when i call on you, your name and affiliation prior to asking a question. andy's daughter allison
parker was an award-winning virginia television journalist who was tragically murdered along with her colleague photojournalist adam ward while reporting the morning news on a live location in roanoke virginia on august 26, 2015. her husband has been advocating for changes in gun laws and tech policy. advocacy can be found in his book for allison and in offense, tv appearances, testimony before congress and statehouses. he's here today to tell us where things stand in his battle with google and what future steps he believes must be taken. please join me in welcoming andy parker to the national press club. [applause] >> back to angela. i'm allison's dad. and i find myself standing at the confluence of guns and google. they have a symbiotic relationship and i've been profoundlyaffected by both .
as all of you know, as angela mentioned, your fellow journalist and my daughter allison was murdered. you probably also know about my fight for sensible gun legislation that has been awarded by republican lawmakers in the pockets of the nra. even in the face of seemingly nonstop mass shootings, two of which we just witnessed this past weekend, these cowards can only offer us thought and prayers area most disturbing is the perpetrators of these acts are being spurred on by the racist rhetoric comingfrom the white house . as you've heard many times over the last couple of days, word consequences . from foam ended a climate where domestic terror is occurring with alarming regularity and while i'm sure that 99.9 percent of trump supporters would never carry out the kind of atrocities
that we've witnessed, there is that one percent that like the el paso shooter feels that the president is calling him to act. these pieces of human garbage are encouraged by trump and enabled by social media. the republican leadership's response came from congressman kevin mccarthy who said the problem is with violent video games. i'm sorry, kevin, but we don't have a monopoly on violent video games or mental illness, for that matter. what we have isunlawfully on guns with more guns than people in this country . these republicans are grasping at straws and will do everything they can place blame everywhere but where it belongs. perhaps one day soon, this will be a partisanissue. but i'm not holding my breath .
which brings us to why we're here. as bad as facebook and twitter have been, google has been worse in flaunting their immunity protection under action 230 of the communications decency . they have refused to sell police their own terms of service with regard to violence and harassing content on its platforms, especially youtube. the el paso shooter, a trump depot today also said he was inspired by the christchurch massacre in new zealand. point of view videos from that shooter still in that space on youtube despite what the executives have said. the video of allison's murder has inspired other malevolent characters to do evil including the shooter in the umpqua community college in oregon who professed his admiration for allison's killer.
and who said he was acting in retaliation for the charleston shooting read google just perpetuates, helps perpetuate this evil change. on may 1 of this year, in a company of the georgetown university civilrights law clinic in anderson francoise who hopefully will be able to join us , i had a videoconference with lance cavanaugh, youtube's counsel. juniper downs, chief of google global strategy and alexandriawalden, google director of global human rights ,whatever that is , regarding specific content and our attempts to have it removed. their response was we are really trying. lance cavanaugh swore up and down that google's algorithms and block this stuff. further proof of their deception and indifference. it hasn't been blocked. the videos were blatantly obvious with titles stating raw video and or w dv j
murder. it wasn't as if they were buried in some obscure way, they were rightthere in plain sight . since that meeting, there have been, there have been nothing but silence until the morning of my senate judiciary committee testimony . walden reached out to us. a person francoise responded and i quote, my plans as reach the point where he does not believe is productive to continue this conversation when google has not only failed to take meaningful steps in addressing his concern but also failed to timely respond to communications from georgetown. in short, until and unless google tells us the concrete steps it intends to take to make certain that the videos are automatically taken down in the matter of videos that violate the rights of copyright holders, my client does not see the point of continuing a conversation that is now lasted for years
with no resolution. i stated in my testimony three weeks ago before the senate judiciary committee as a company with a virtual monopoly on internet search and online video hosting, google has a duty to make sure the information they make accessible to the world is based on facts and not harmful conspiracy theory. i implored both google and youtube to take down the footage of her murder and the related conspiratorial content. their response was to suggest that i view and flagged the content i foundoffensive . instead of self policing, they put the onus on me, in essence they wanted me to watch my daughter's murder and explain to a robot like it should be removed. i never have nor ever will watch any of it for obvious reasons so in 2017 i reached
out to lenny pozner whose son noah was work murdered at sandy hook and the honor network work long hours sliding videos that i was spared. although hundreds of videos have been taken down to due to their diligencethey are often stymied even with an enforceable copyright . the person who replaced susan molinari as google's vice president of government affairs and public policy proceeded my testimony. when senator carano asked him about related content and video of allison's murder, he replied that it had all been removed from the platforms with the exception of what theyconsidered newsworthy content . i contend that with that answer, he perjured himself . but sadly, it doesn't surprise me. ever since my first conversation with susan molinari two years ago and
subsequent communications with unit her downs and other google contact alex and danny sullivan, i've concluded that google executives lie as easily as they breed . the day after my testimony, senator hirono's office submitted 32 links to frannie wellings, google's liaison. all these videos i've been fighting to have removed for three yearswere taken down . not because of the flagging done by lenny pozner and the honor network or by eric feinberg, but because they were coerced through congressional scrutiny. if it falls to the senate staff to remove objectionable content as was the case here, that's a real problem but google could care less. and i'd like to introduce senator hirono's counsel jeff
hansen to summarize this discoursewith frannie wellings that will give you some insight on this . thanks andy. so andy was gracious enough to be a witness before our subcommittee on the constitution of the judiciary committee a few weeks back now. and through that relationship , i learned about the difficulty he's had in getting some of these videos down and we've had some back and forth since then with google and they've been willing when flagged by us to take some videos down and like andy said, we don't think that's the right approach and are trying to work with andy and others to put together a more efficient process so that google takes a little more ownership of this. we are continuing down that process, we've submitted questions for the record recently to google to explain
the process a little more and we're hoping to get a little more clarificationon that and better answers as to why they can't seem to solve this problem . click you will have a list of those questions and we will pass those out momentarily. as i said in my testimony, thanks to section 230 google has complete immunity and therefore has no incentive to respond. that's why they send back, lie and otherwise obfuscate the truth. at that may videoconference we had, i was trying to put my finger on what i was witnessing and it came to me the next day. the basis of lance cavanaugh, juniper downs and alexandria walden had this look of seeming innocent you will permit, either feigned or ingrained. they were all a modern-day version of stepford wives or more appropriately in this case, androids . it was as if they'd watched mark zuckerberg's testimony
and while back and said we need to be like this guy. their demeanor and their responses were completely offputting and totally disingenuous. as i told senator cruise in my testimony, there's not much you and i can philosophically agree on but we can agree that google must be regulated. after my testimony i got the sense that there is common ground here to craft legislation that both parties can agree on and i think the coverage from, in the aftermath from some conservative outlets such as fox news and even the daily caller would confirm that observation. google should not be allowed to publish much less profit from targeted harassment and murder videos. they are far too many new members of this club that no one wants to join after this weekend and unless we have congressional action, they will find themselves re-victimized at the hands of other socialmedia platforms
and in particular google . the solution is simple. not long ago, section 230 of the cda was amended to respect online sex trafficking andchild pornography . restricting targeted harassment incitement and murder videos should be an extension to this amendment. and i want to put a face on it. i want to call thisallison's law . for the san diego families, for all of us who been affected and for those yet to be, i heard legislators from both sides of the aisle to adopt and pass allison's law. and i want to thank jeff and senator hirono's office for being a good shepherd and on that note, we have that list of follow-up questions that jeff was referring to. these were prepared by jeff in his office and sent to
kiran batia. i encourage everyone of you to reach out to those google executives to see what kind of response you get. thank you very much and i will turn it over to angela. >> stay here and i'll take questions. section 230 is back in the news now. with the discussion of the host of 8chan. tech companies google included but other tech companies that way as well say section 230 is what they need so they are able to voluntarily police some of the most violent or objectionable content that's out there. how do you respond to this topic? >> it would be great if they did police but they don't. it's my understanding and working with lenny pozner, he said that facebook which had been one of the most egregious offenders has been
very helpful in removing content. when he block something, it comesdown immediately . google, he has much more difficulty with google. with youtube, with their platform called blogger, he can't even get a response and the honor network is set up as a quote unquote google trusted slider and they just basically again, they make decisions on an ad hoc and arbitrary basis. >> there are pieces of legislation as well as discussions that would target section 230, either broadly or specifically making some of the amendments you're asking for. have you endorse any of the particular pieces of legislation that are out there. >> i haven't seen a lot other than i know there was, there's a push and i think the original premise of this subcommittee hearing was to address bias by social media
companies and google in particular , against conservative viewpoints and it was clear to me that they talk about it, but i think thanks to senator hirono, she pointed out that the real issue here and the real victim is people like me and david hogg and the parkland families, sandy hook, you name it so i think that what they're trying to do, senator cruz and holly, they want to make this bill a lot harder than i think it will , that will necessitate or facilitate its passage. i believe that if we take the narrow approach, with what i've suggested with allison's law, common ground and i think you get that done and then you address the other stufflater . >> you alluded to the fact
that there are legislators who have legislation introduced to target section 230 are republicans looking at different lens and you're approaching the sametopic . there are lawmakers tend to be in against increasing control measures as you also asked for. how do you align your two interests working with the people who are addressing the section 230 topic on capitol hill? >> i think that those two issues are not mutually exclusive. i think as i say, there's common ground here and as i mentioned to senator cruz, i know he's not where i am on gun control but i think he is where i am on removing this kind of content that no human being or no person with any decency would want to see so i think that again, if we can
narrow the focus and just make that bill happen, that law happen, i think there's common ground there. >> and his youtube the soul platform where the video of allison is currently posted or are you aware of other platforms also? >> the other platform and again, as i mentioned earlier i've never seen this video, i don't want to see it and i have to rely on friends like eric and lenny and volunteers to monitor this stuff and they shouldn't have to be doing this. the onus shouldn't be on me or them or any of these, anybody. the onus shouldbe on google . and there's a point there. >> whether the video was on any other platforms . >> blogger is one of the google platforms that i mentioned, that it's rampant.
they won't do anything about it. again, i don't visit that but that according to lenny. he says they are, there's nothing that can be done. >> and introduced me before, i eric feinberg. on with the cyber intelligence company called. probably over the last five years, we heard probably tens of millions of dollars in earned media because we have exposed facebook, youtube, google, instagram for this nefarious content. my firm was responsible back in 2017 or the youtube ad boycott, look that up . what andy saying and coming back to, all you have to do in addition to youtube is basically do a google search and you'll see that because it lives on other platforms, not only on youtube but it also exists when you do a web search. finally and i want to give you this, where doing this
with andy and nobody in any physician or anybody's position would be in the situation. my lineup section 230 and it uses constantly is that section 230 protecting big tech but leaving citizens vulnerable. one sidebar, i'm responsible for around the world alerting media and other government christchurch videos. as of today and as of saturday on the el paso, you can still find dozens of these videos, even though like i said we received word media around the world hence exposing this, google, facebook tell us, meaning me, i have to tell them in the case of allison videos how to take these down. i think it's enough and why? they have 230 protection. >> follow up with danny sullivan who i mentioned
earlier, one of the google content contacts that i have, he is at least last year he was head ofgoogle search . and another instance of the communications i had was we taking this all down and that's just a lie. again, they just lie. >> i want to let you and our audience know that we do have peterson francoise with georgetown law center on the phone now so is connected by audio area and one question again before audience questions, your daughter obviously was a journalist, we're here at the national press club. journalists and the national press club and access to information how do you address that very tough issue of drawing a line between access to information and doing what you're asking, taking objectionable content on the internet question mark . >> i don't know that there's a conflict there. i think that's, i don't think
that showing a murder and having that up is, violates the first amendment -mark i don't think that's, or continuing to have it up there is you know, that if you said if you take it down, going to violate the first amendment, i don't think that that would be the case. for multiple reasons. again, it's just human decency. >> start here in front and get a microphone. >> thank you for being here, my name is victoria gaither and i moved back home from new zealand, i've been working there for five years as a journalist so i was in new zealand when the christchurch massacre happen and it's something that was different there in new zealand about that video. versus how we respond to
things like that in america. so in new zealand, immediately everybody whether you were a citizen or a government official, everybody made an all out effort to get rid of that video and whether it was on facebook, i remember somebody sending it to me and i immediately got rid of it but one thing that was different was the threat of prosecution and new zealand did prosecute people over that so i'm wondering what are your thoughts about that here in america and what is it that's no different about us here at we don't sort of jump to that call for like lucy new zealand did -mark. >> my understanding and i think eric will act this up is that our laws, us laws supersede anythingbecause it's an american company . our laws are the laws of the international community so just because they wanted it taken down did not mean that google had to do it because they're going by our laws
instead of their area. >> and it's a shame. yes sir. >> my name is roger the chatty and i was the ibm executive during the 1990s who was responsible for our endorsement of section 230 and are lobbying it through the congress and through other countries around the world. and it may be of some interest to you or others who are concerned about this that i've recently posted an op-ed in the hill which explains what the world look like in 1995 and what we thought we were doing and most importantly, the title of the article is these are the four big things we miss when we wrote section 230 and a number of other internet laws but i guess i would just, my question and comment is that it's worth spending some time understanding how the world look 30 years ago when that
walk law was written because this was decades before youtube, decades before google and there were four big things we miss. check out the hill article and you'll see what they were . >> i use the analogy of when the framers of the constitution wrote the second amendment. they were dealing with muskets and they could not envision automatic weapons that have you know, taking over so it's the same thing. the purpose of section 230 back in the 90s was going to have free exchange of information, isn't this great and everybody said this is perfect and they couldn't foresee the dark side of it that would take place and it reminds me of the founders of google, the two guys that originally founded it and i
said that in my testimony. there original motto was to be evil and then i guess about four or five years ago they changed it to do the right thing and that was my final piece of the testimony. they don't do i do now. >> you think that to keep the memory of your daughter alive and constituting, most of the events or news, they lastonly two or three days . is it a good idea to have a document so that people can see what has been happening and rather than taking it out of the public? >> i don't think that removing the video of her murder and execution, that's not going to -- if that's
left up, i don't think that's going to help preserve her memory. there are other ways, obviously it's been reported but it's unique. not unlike christchurch, is unique in that it's there. is there in perpetuity. so that's not, keeping that up, that video is not going to preserve her legacy. >> thanks for being late, my name is perry and i run cyber safety charities. and several of us were around in the olden days, how can we help? >> at this point, once jeff and his compatriots craft some legislation, call your, just like with anything else. just like with the gun issue area and call your congressman.
call your legislators and help get this past. thank you. >> that leads to a follow-up question i'd like to ask. you talk about the work with senator hirono's office, some of the conversations you had with tech company executives. what are your next steps? are you looking to broaden the coalition like the sex trafficking advocates did successfully a couple years ago -mark. >> i'm going to lean on jeff and derek. i'm going to keep doing this. and i'm going to rely heavily on my friends in congress to craft this legislation and once we get it up and running, and i told them i'll be roaming the halls of capitol hill which you guys can do to. as soon as we get something about there, as soon as thousands law comes part of the dialogue in congress, then we need to roam the
halls and knock on doors to supported question mark. >> what andy said and harry just came here, we are part of this coalition coming together and of course what happens to annie's daughter allison, but it's not only what we see as far as these violent videos, i've been responsible for exposing opioid sales and other forms of legal drugs on the social media companies and what we're working on over the next few months is bringing andy again and survivors or people who have died from opioid drug overdoses, last year it was reported first page of the washington post on histogram, you could buy opioid type drugs. it was not for our findings and the recording of the washington post, it would not have come out there but there are other illegal forms of drugs that from china , it's
still available on any social media platform and if it's not for companies like myself and by the way, for a fee, i consider it a vaccine for these companies to license our software. a turn it down because in order to do it, i get inside the body. it will allow us access to the body but by doing it, we can prevent these videos or this horrific content from going but because of 230, there's no incentive for them to license software because they're not responsible for the content. that's why in this sense i'm advocating for 230 i with my software , we can save lives. >> can a person hear us? >> i can a anderson. i just wanted to, i'll ask you a quick question. anything you'd like to add and if anyone has any questions for pederson. >> on the phone we have anderson trent lott who is
with georgetown university's civil rights and voting rights institute. >> good afternoon. i have essentially three points, the first is that the reason we do on the case is because we understand it to be a cyber event and indeed, it's so active in advocacy for gun control. i've never met anybody who is more fierce defender of these protections so i don't understand andy side against google to be in any way impactful. the second point to make is that section 230 was never meant to be unlimited. to begin with section 230 as
built-in, it's the specific identification, one, federal criminalization and four, intellectual property. what we're asking folks to consider is the human rights aspect of action 230. that should we give google complete immunity, even when they're acting in such a way that essentiallyviolates somebody's human rights ? the last point i want to make is that video such as showing allison's murder violates google's own terms of service. their own terms of service in the case that moment of death videos should not be printed on their platform. and yet, their seeming inability or unwillingness to police anything they own in terms of service would seem to indicate section 230 immunity.
>> well said. they violate their own terms of service. >> prager, can you describe allison's law, what would change, what are the penalties, what exactly would do -mark . >> i'm going to give it to you from 3000 feet because i don't know the nuts and bolts of it at this point and i'm going to leave that to jack and his office and he's also going to be coordinating with senator warner and kane but essentially is going to remove the immunity for any kind of targeted harassment and hate speech and moment of death. just simply put, it's a fairly narrow focus. and again, that's kind of
what i would like to see generally speaking but i'm going to leave it to the experts to craft the exact language of it essentially, that's what i'd like to see. >> what are the penalties for its violation? what are the things that companies have to do to demonstratetheir conforming with the intent of the law ? >> as senator cruz said to me, it's a blockbuster set you that you do it to them for everythingthere were . it's an anachronistic there but essentially that was the just of it. it would enable someone like me to take them to court and litigate them without that protection that they currently have. >> and i would think again, i don't know.
i haven't seen it yet but i would think there would be, there needs to be some criminal penalty as well. i'd like to see that. i'd really like tosee that . >> president trump obviously did sign into law the section 230 exemption for sex trafficking last year. have you had conversations with anybody at the administration about this law in concept? >> know, this is sort of the unveiling of the idea of it. so we have not. i'd welcome that opportunity. >> any more questions from the audience? >> from a customer service standpoint, we were talking about this before. it's not the 230 solution necessarily but you think there's a two, three person team, five person team at google could respond to people whose families content
is on the platform and they know how to go in there and remove it and come back and issue a report. it's not a very expensive solution. there is no solution being offered. so just thinking about how this could be done practically, when they're saying there's nothing that could be done. there's a bunch of things that could be done that wouldn't necessarily be universal or comprehensive but it would certainly help families. >> and again, i go back to the onus should not be on the families to do it but that's where we stand now and you are the one that led me to susan molinari who then threw senator kane's office led me to a conversation with jennifer downs, molinari was listening, frannie wellings was listening, did not participate but they heard that conversation so and before that, when the way
this whole thing came up, we did a search related to the foundation that we had for allison and all of a sudden, the first thing that came up was a thumbnail that said youtube thumbnail that said andy parker's for allison foundation is a scam for him to make money and i was like, here we go. that's kind of where i went down this rabbit hole and i went to you to and i typed in allison parker and there were pages and pages. thankfully there was no autoplay going that it was a thumbnail of her holding the mic. that's all i've seen of that. and you know, so i knew with these titles were just related, look at the angle. i could go on, but that's how i discovered it in the first place and when i called, again.
like bill says it's not like you can call google customer service and go i need help here. they're as transparent as that wall right there i was able to do it but before that, when i saw all these videos, we had a gmail account tied to the foundation and i called customer service for the gmail account. i said i know this isn't in your purview but here's what i've got and the guy said let me get back with you. some customer service, literally some customer service rep overseas and he was the one that said we have this moment of death certificate you can apply and they will be taken down. and then i learned, he said you have to apply it to each one and that's how i ended up contacting lenny posner and i said i can't do this, they
want me to fly each video and explain to them what this moment of death certificate, why it should be taken down. , they should have a hell of a lot more handful of people monitoring this and that's one of the questions that jeff posed to kiran batia and a follow-up. what is your process? who monitors this stuff and adjudicates it? so hopefully we will find out the question there. it's not like they can't afford to hire a few people to monitor. >> again from georgetown, let me add one thing to the point he just made. to compare and contrast what andy has done through years with respect toalanson's murder , to copyrighted material or copyright content , that makes its way onto our google's youtube platform,
google has gotten extraordinarily good and efficient at automatically removing these materials in part because they're not subject to medium energy and it is in youtube's economic interestto make sure that these things never make its way onto this platform . and the onus is never for the copyright owner who coded every single inch of where the videos,. youtube already has a system to call content where it cites those videos and the onus now is transferred onto the person who came to upload the video onto the platform to justify what that video should be in there. so it's interesting that youtube has never tried even in the very specific and limited instance of moment of death videos, we're not talking about any and all
videos that you have objections to, will talk about videos that show a moment ofdeath . that youtube is using to adopt the sort of specific technology to remove these videos as it does on a daily basis, on an hourly basis, minute by minute basis for those copyrighted videos.>> and the reason in my opinion is a monetize. they say we don't monetize these videos, we don't monetize death butthe reality is they do . every time you click on a video, and one of these videos had over 100,000 views on it,that makes money for google .at one point, and i think eric noticed it early on, they were running banner ads on that murder video. unsuspecting advertisers were having their ads run on an execution.
they said we quit doing that. that's great. but that's the reason they won't do it because it's a profit center for them. >> thank you very much for bringing this to the forefront. i knowthere's a new charity being plucked right now, cyber safety.org that this will fall in the purview of . it's terrific but that this is still happening and i appreciate that you are stepping up the way you are after everything you've gone through so thankyou very much . >> i've said it over and over, i won't accept it. i'm not going to tolerate it and i'm not going to stop until we fix it. because otherwise, thank you. because otherwise, she would bepissed . >> question in the back. >> i'm wondering what impact
you think allison's law would have besides the immediate obviously of the videos being removed. what other societal or larger scale impact would implementing allison's law half? >> unfortunately since we don't have any sensible gun laws on the books yet, it's coming. there are going to be tragedies. and as we've seen this weekend, they keep coming ata horrific case . so every time one of these things happen, somebody's going to throw some conspiracy, this whole thing is a hoax, all of this and for me, the thing that bothered memost was google making money off my daughter's murder . that's what bothered me the most was there are parents with kids that go online and
ultimately, they're going to see this kind of garbage out there. david hogg who is the leader of the parkland kids, he gets death threats. he gets harassed constantly. so this would take care of a lot of that. it's not i want to have allison as the face of it but i'm doing this not only for me and for her butforgives , the parkland kids. the people in virginia beach. it's on and on. they get harassed. so that would be the impact. i think there would be an immediate impact and that stuff. if google were forced to control its content and have some kind of editorial control that mandatory control overthis, i think we would have a benefit .
>> i want to just ask if you had a chance to speak about the issue outside the us because clearly it's not only an issue here. it's a global problem . and after the christchurch massacre, there what summits with some of these issues. you have all you think about bringing this to the man for example or just enough about it. >> i have not. i've spoken to some foreign press about this. but again, it hasn't been i want to take formalized butit hasn't, we haven't brought it to this point until today . but i think that's or launched this notion for this idea. so it's something that i think that's a great idea. it's, but again, as long as the, google has protection . international protection from the law that we have in the
united states, they're going to continue to do what they're doing so have tostart here are . but i think that's certainly pressure from abroad would be greatly appreciated. >> any other audience questions? >> do you have any commitments from any congressional offices to introduce the bill? why did you mention one or entertain? >> i thought to their chief of staff, warner in particular and thisissue is near and dear to him . so they have indicated that they're going to start, everybody's gone but they're going to start working on and jeff is going to be partnering up with these guys come up with some, to craft legislation. i've asked peterson to the way in and help on that as well. so yeah, we hopefully have a
good team working on it and it can come up with the right language. that will pass. >> any last. >> i'm sorry. >> when you think the legislation will bedone . >> i don't know jeff, what do you think that the market putting you on the spot here. >> i think it's premature. >> i would say that premature right now to ask about the specifics. we talked to andy and he suggested we reach out to senator kane and senator warner's office to talk with them about what they're doing and we just need to start having those conversations. >> and jeff did provide me with a caveat that things tend to move slowly on the hill.
but we will get there eventually. >> in order to get his past, would you be willing to accept restrictions on partisan content on online platforms? >> you know, i think on this piece of it, i think the water it gets, the less likely it's going to see so as narrow as we could make it and exclude the partisan piece of it, i think you know, i think that's the greatest path to having it come to fruition. >> i run stop cyber bullying and stop cyber stalking and
i'm advising the united nations on cyber stalking ambassadors, etc. and what we can do on these issues . has anyone in your scope of this or, been reaching out to educate consumers? i don't think regular people understand what 230 is and the fact that the industry has absolute immunity and when they tried to report cyber bullying or morphing or extortion or all of these other things and they spoke comes back and says it doesn't violate our community standards when it does , people don't understand that. they just think they got it wrong . is there a way to get everybody incensed about this to understand what's truly going on? >> i think that's part of what i want to try to achieve. when i tell people, when people find out that i have been harassed, call the crisis actor, allison's death was a hoax, there in shock. they just don't believe it. so then when you tellthem that yes, this happened , that part of it is hard enough for them to believe
but they're not as deep in the weeds on section 230. nobody is. hopefully with what i'm trying to accomplish here, they will be soon educated. and i think again, it's easier to say this is allison's law and have i guess again, a face and a hook to it rather than talk about section 230 of the communications decency act but if you say allison's law, they're going what's that? then you can introduce here's what it is. >> we are nearly at the end of our time, we have time for one last question . >> may i make another couple of pointers, this is very important and that's possibly this advocacy of gun control. what we do know for a fact when we consider 230 is that no industry that has been
given immunity as responsibility. certainly true now. so that's one reason we need to think carefully about the extended immunity on any industry. second, when 230 was extended to the sex act law, there was an unspoken distinction that they would give us something back. >> .. >> .. how can we trust them to a lie any sense at all. because if you really thought about it with respect to ãit's a pretty low standard.
simply don't commit somebody to death to be used to make money or use for entertainment. it's a pretty low bar to have. >> thank you ater son. >> thank you.before we wrap up i would like to tell the audience about future speakers we have coming up with acute ã ãformer virginia governor terry mccullough. august 7 we have montana governor and presidential candidate steve bullock in the morning and representative elijah cummings from baltimore speaking at lunchtime. and on august 8 we have watched you, the wife of shu wong the chinese-american is been imprisoned in iran since 2016 for the conviction that espionage. thank you andy for being here, thank you edison for joining us on the phone. >> thank you. by the way, the questions that senator geraldo's office has
submitted to google is right there with bill. if you need lots of good questions. >> thank you for coming today. we are adjourned. [applause] tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span former cia director defense secretary robert gates, nbc news correspondent andrea mitchell and journalist robin wright talk about global challenges facing the united states. here is is a preview. >> the reality is the united states has done business with
some of history's greatest monsters. but frankly the roosevelt never pretended to be in love with joseph stall. in the real world we have to deal with these people. but we don't have to embrace them. and we can treat the leaders of authoritarian states we can do business with them but we don't need to embrace them in the same way we embraced the leaders of democratically elected governments. >> he mentioned the city on the hill which calls to mind when i travel to moscow with ronald reagan to meet with neil gorbachev. after the first couple summits after the 1985 summit and the mock summit. he went to to the ambassador's
residence. he gave a speech to the russian p people. ronald reagan did not mix his words. that did not prevent him from reaching landmarks on control and nuclear reduction treaties with gorbachev. there is a balancing act and i think values have to in some fundamental way be central to who we are as a country. >> you can watch the rest of this discussion on global challenges facing the u.s. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on the communicators. >> people come up to me and say, i can't get you, i can't follow you. they make it impossible. these are people that are really good at what they do. they say they make it absolutely impossible. >> will talk about the recent presidential social media summit. president trump discusses social ãsocial media
censorship by big tech firms and what should be done by it. with robert louis by the heritage foundation and patrick hedger from the competitive enterprise institute. >> i think as consumers we can certainly demand that as users of facebook and twitter and google that if we are going to be on that platform we expect they will respect our ability to communicate. if we don't like it we can quit. to me it seems hard to levy an accusation that big tech is a net negative in any way shape or form to conservative speech when somebody like dennis prager is getting a billion views on the products in the videos he's putting out. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> next to look at options for temporary and permanent nuclear waste storage. the senate energy and natural resources committee hearing is two