Discussion · Senate
Marsha Blackburn Republican
“I want the Senate to pass this bill. It stops people from using your voice, face, or name online to scam or trick others, just like the law already does in the real world. We put in the free speech rules Senator Cruz asked for, and the bill still protects the news, parody, and political commentary. He should support it now.”
“Mr. President, it has been disappointing that the Senator’s staff chose not to accept the very language that he was wanting to see. We accepted that into the bill. May I read to you: So, if he thinks that he wants a candidate to be able to use certain images in political commentary in a nonharmful way, that is in there: That is language that is there. So, if he is wanting to do that, that language has been offered. He can solve this right now by putting his John Henry right there on that language. I would also remind my colleagues that there are laws against impersonation. If it is the physical world, you are not allowed to impersonate somebody to defraud them; with the intent to defraud or defame; with the intent to deceive people; with the intent to create a false identity. It is a felony. It is a felony. The problem is that it is not applied to the virtual space. There is a difference there. But you try to protect people in the virtual space and, all of a sudden, people want to say ``free speech.’’ So I would ask my colleagues: Are you opposed to any of the State laws that make it a felony offense to impersonate a person? Go to the bank. Drain their account. Show up at a place of employment, impersonating them. Try to grab their retirement account. Oh, there are laws for that. But, no, you can scam somebody all day long online and get by with it. You can actually show people, as my colleague from Delaware said, in different situations, doing different things, and they have no right-- no right--to protect their name, their image, their voice in the virtual space. I will contend that I disagree with my colleague from Texas. We have tried to work with his staff. We have tried to work with him. The NO FAKES Act does not chill First Amendment protected speech. We have worked with First Amendment legal experts in drafting the bill, and we are confident that it is First Amendment compliant. We have even doubled down on this language. Now there are States, including Tennessee, that already provide statutory protection against the misappropriation of a person’s name, voice, or likeness, and those statutes have been upheld. In addition, the stated goal of our bill is for courts--the courts-- to make decisions regarding First Amendment jurisprudence, not platforms. The platforms, thus, are not the arbiters for making First Amendment decisions. This is really helpful in preventing censorship of conservative speech online. This bill contains the necessary, broad exceptions for entire categories of speech--including news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, documentaries, biopics, commentary, including political commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, and parody. This protects more than the First Amendment and much more than the only Supreme Court case on this subject, Zacchini v. Scripps. If someone believes their content that was removed from this bill was protected speech, they can submit a counternotice triggering judicial review within 14 days if the victim wants the material to stay down; otherwise, the content can go right back up. This ensures that any protected speech that is removed based on a notice stays down for a very short time while preventing platforms from engaging in censorship. As my colleague said, we have worked with groups for years to get this right. We have gotten it right. The protections that my colleague from Texas wanted to see included in the bill are there. This is legislation that should pass and make its way to the President’s desk to make certain that every American knows their name, their image, their likeness, their voice cannot be used in the virtual space for deception, for fraud, for personal harm. I yield the floor.”
-
Speech in the House
Reasoning 100 of 100
This statement drew 9 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis
Mr. President, it has been disappointing that the Senator’s staff chose not to accept the very language that he was wanting to see. We accepted that into the bill. May I read to you: So, if he thinks that he wants a candidate to be able to use certain images in political commentary in a nonharmful way, that is in there: That is language that is there. So, if he is wanting to do that, that language has been offered. He can solve this right now by putting his John Henry right there on that language. I would also remind my colleagues that there are laws against impersonation. If it is the physical world, you are not allowed to impersonate somebody to defraud them; with the intent to defraud or defame; with the intent to deceive people; with the intent to create a false identity. It is a felony. It is a felony. The problem is that it is not applied to the virtual space. There is a difference there. But you try to protect people in the virtual space and, all of a sudden, people want to say ``free speech.’’ So I would ask my colleagues: Are you opposed to any of the State laws that make it a felony offense to impersonate a person? Go to the bank. Drain their account. Show up at a place of employment, impersonating them. Try to grab their retirement account. Oh, there are laws for that. But, no, you can scam somebody all day long online and get by with it. You can actually show people, as my colleague from Delaware said, in different situations, doing different things, and they have no right-- no right--to protect their name, their image, their voice in the virtual space. I will contend that I disagree with my colleague from Texas. We have tried to work with his staff. We have tried to work with him. The NO FAKES Act does not chill First Amendment protected speech. We have worked with First Amendment legal experts in drafting the bill, and we are confident that it is First Amendment compliant. We have even doubled down on this language. Now there are States, including Tennessee, that already provide statutory protection against the misappropriation of a person’s name, voice, or likeness, and those statutes have been upheld. In addition, the stated goal of our bill is for courts--the courts-- to make decisions regarding First Amendment jurisprudence, not platforms. The platforms, thus, are not the arbiters for making First Amendment decisions. This is really helpful in preventing censorship of conservative speech online. This bill contains the necessary, broad exceptions for entire categories of speech--including news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, documentaries, biopics, commentary, including political commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, and parody. This protects more than the First Amendment and much more than the only Supreme Court case on this subject, Zacchini v. Scripps. If someone believes their content that was removed from this bill was protected speech, they can submit a counternotice triggering judicial review within 14 days if the victim wants the material to stay down; otherwise, the content can go right back up. This ensures that any protected speech that is removed based on a notice stays down for a very short time while preventing platforms from engaging in censorship. As my colleague said, we have worked with groups for years to get this right. We have gotten it right. The protections that my colleague from Texas wanted to see included in the bill are there. This is legislation that should pass and make its way to the President’s desk to make certain that every American knows their name, their image, their likeness, their voice cannot be used in the virtual space for deception, for fraud, for personal harm. I yield the floor.