Sen. Mike Lee is fighting back against Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s claims that he would rather be on the good graces of tech companies rather than protect the rights of his constituents.
A “chairman’s note” on Lee’s website rebutted Carlson’s assertion that the Utah Republican was not concerned about Silicon Valley’s influence over the First Amendment.
“Sen. Lee does share Tucker’s concern about liberal progressive bias at Google, Facebook, Twitter, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and National Public Radio,” the page reads. “What the NBC News’ “Verification Unit” tried to do to The Federalist is absolutely a threat to honest and open speech in the United States. Conservatives should speak out against progressive attempts to silence conservative voices. And Sen. Lee did exactly that.”
NBC News’s reporting this week led Google to threaten the demonetization of the Federalist on its ad platform, prompting the conservative outlet to remove its comments section, which apparently contained “dangerous or derogatory content.”
Lee called it an “Orwellian sting operation” to demonetize outlets for the way they cover an issue.
Carlson said during his Tuesday monologue that Lee would be the lawmaker who could protect people from Google’s influence because of his role as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy, and consumer rights. But, Carlson suggested, Google bought the senator’s loyalty to oppose antitrust investigations. He also claimed the senator was invited onto the show but declined.
Lee’s office highlighted that legal protections for tech companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act fall under telecommunications law and not antitrust law.
“The Communications Decency Act is under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee, not the Senate Judiciary Committee or the Antitrust Subcommittee,” the page on Lee’s website reads. “If people believe Section 230 is the key to protecting the American people from Google then they should look to amend communications law, not antitrust law.”
