>> the papers this morning talking about the former president going before cameras announcing this lawsuit inning it at social media companies and their practices. here's a bit from president trump yesterday. >> today, in conjunction with the america first policy institute, i'm filing as the lead class representative a major class action lawsuit against the big tech giants including facebook, google and twitter. as well as their ceos mark zuckerberg, siddhartha j and jack dorsey. three real nice guys. [applause] >> asking the us district court for the southern district of florida to order an immediate halt to social media companies illegal, shameful censorship of the american people and that's

exactly what they're doing. we're demanding an end to the shadow banning. a stop to the silencing and a stop to the blacklisting, managing and canceling that you know so well. our case will prove this censorship is unlawful. it's unconstitutional and it'scompletely un-american . we all know that. we all know that very well. our filing also seeks injunctive relief to allow prompt restitution. really, restoration and you can name about 20 other things that it has to be prompt as it's destroying our country . by my accounts in addition we . are asking the court to impose punitive damages on these social media giants. we're going to hold big tech very accountable. this is the first of numerous

other lawsuits i assume that would follow but these is this is the lead and i think it's going to be a very very important game changer for our country. it will be a pivotal battle in the defense of the first amendment and in the end i'm confident that we will achieve a historic icvictory for american freedom. and at the same time,freedom of speech . >> that's the president from yesterday, former president trump talking about this lawsuit itfiled against the major tech companies over issues of content and moderation. joining us now to elaborate on the lawsuit and larger issues involved, fisher with the report on the media for axioms, mister fisher. can you elaborate a little bit more on the legal basis the president is basing this suit on denmark.

>> essentially what he alleging is tech companies like facebook, google and youtube are so big we should be treating them like state actors and if we were to treat them like state actors they would be bound by the first amendment . you and i both know that's a tough case to make their not state actors, their publicly traded companies and because they are publicly traded private companies they can make all the rules they want when it comes to who can use their services. x1 argumentthe thing he's making . the other he suggests is section 230 of the communications decency act which is a law passed by congress 25 years ago should be deemed unconstitutional. the reason that matters is you and i both know you can't just demon a law unconstitutional. congress would have to back the law and something else so it doesn't apply here and i wouldn't expect the defendants to reference it.

>> could you elaborate on section 230 and how social media companies are governed by that third parties and that matters because we wouldn't have a moderate internet if we didn't have section 230. people would be too afraid to have anything posted on their site because they would be worried about lawsuits but section 230 is what allowed a lot of big web platforms, not just social media but you think about everything you use as comments . it could be news sites, angie's or whatever, they wouldn't be allowed to succeed so we are modern internet around this law. people say he is to be updated but it's not something that would be updated through the courts which is why it's called mentioning it is missing. >> the site posted on the axios site just give you the headline, they say it'slikely do. itcan you elaborate on that ? >> a lot of people have tried lawsuits against social media

giants claiming they've been censored . the problem is not of them have ever done well. there is one expert to evaluated 61 similar lawsuits that have been brought up in the past few years and he said the defendant, the tech platforms have one in every instance so even if donald trump does go forward with this with it looks like he is a history is not on his side here. he's got a strong case to h make. >> if the average tech company were able to respond in real-time, what defense would they offer as far as what they do tand how they moderate contentcorrectly ? >> they say they're not state actors, their private companies so the people that want to use their platform and do so by choice but are bound to their rules and community service terms. they argue donald trump was banned because he violated their community service terms by inciting violence around the january 6 c so they would

say they've done nothing unlawful or unconstitutional and trying to say they should have acted otherwise is in fact unconstitutional itself. trying to force the hand of a private company when it comes to free speech so that's going to be there defense but honestly i don't expect them to say stay up at night around this. this is something they know they've got in the bag in terms of having a legal precedent on their side . what really just choses donald trump sees censorship as a strong campaign issue and immediately he started fundraising after he made a speech. of the bigger picture here is this is not meant to legally challenge tech platforms, it just is pimeant to help boost donald trump's campaign. >> to the larger issues this is something members of congress on both sides of the aisle have to concern o themselves with and focused attention on area can you briefly give what these both sides want as far as potential changes to section? >> gupeople who are very progressive say we should all the law completely.

i think most people fall somewhere in the middle which is you can't abolish the law, the web would collapse but we needreform. we just don't know what those reforms are going to look like . as some people have suggested , maybe a middleground is forcing tech companies to be more transparent about what they do take down and you're starting to see tech companies get ahead by issuing things like reports and other middleground suggestion is maybe we start to regulate the way algorithms work a little bit better is not necessarily whether or not you see content up or down what you regulate how much you're discrediting into your user. these are things progress is considering but i personally don't think we're going to have any movement on section 230 in a long time because it's just such a tough issue to crack. >> sarah fisher reports. you can see her work at axios.com. thank you for your explanation, i appreciate it.

>> have a good one to you as far as the ability of these companies as you heard our guests talk about the issues of moderating content, especially going to the lawsuit filed by former president trump, asking you to give your thoughts on your ability to trust companies to moderate content. 202748 8004 democrats, 8001 four republicans and independents 202-748-8000 two. text us at 202 748-8000 three and our social media platforms itself areopen to this . our all in virginia, texting us this morning saying he doesnot trust big tech . they would have to ban or remove 75 percent of their users and also another text message, rate in colorado saying some tech companies are better than others big tech can do it better than government ever should. we should embrace the choices we have and thenwayne miller, also on our facebook page this morning , our site as

many of you are posting before the show area big tech shouldn't be moderating anything. george republican line on the capability of detecting moderate content . go ahead. >> i've been calling your great network for 30 years and i want to say i'm a strong donald trump supporter and i think every american ought to have the right. itt leadership class at boone springs barbecue and teach our young leaders to call in and express theirconservative thoughts what to do it with t no malice , to be positive. in other words, i think the democrats arebuspending too much money but i don't attack them personally . i do think s. >> to the ability of pr expressing content or thoughts on social media, the e possibility of moderation there, what do you think of that ? >> i think it ought to be where 230 ought to be eliminated where every american can speak up and give their thoughts. i'm conservative but the

liberals ought to be able oto do there's two. don't doit with any malice . i tell them my young people at those barbecues to preach love and so but i do think that it want to be done, at 230 ought to be eliminated and so that everybody in america can call in the first amendment rights, get their opinion who therefore and i think that's very important but you all do a great job at c-span and it's a great network. >> host: to tommy in massachusetts, independent line tommy in massachusetts, hello. one more time for tommy. let's go to ray. ray in homestead pennsylvania, democrats line. you are next a. >> good morning. number one, i agree totally with the girl who was on a few minutes ago. she got rid of 230 the

internet is going to be gone because everybody will have the opportunity to sue then and they will have millions of lawsuits for everything and they can't go. secondly the guy was just on talking about first amendment . what you guys ought to do is put up the first amendment or make them say whoever says the first amendment is being against the first amendment, this is 230 or whatever it is . put up a copy of the first amendment with regards to the freedom of speech and let them see what the first amendment says. >> host: as far as the moderation policies of companies do youtrust them generally ? >> caller: who are you going to trust? are you going to trust the trumpers to regulate it? it's going to be happy done be done over time. they will tmoderate 230 or fix

it some way but it's not going to happen because the trumpers don't have their first amendment rights. they can tell you what the first amendment is. they know the second amendment my heart. >> host: james in aberdeen dakota, republican line . >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to say this is great. it's something to watch. it's a little early for me but i want to say this is a free country and we need to keep it that way. >> host: so when it comes to social media companies practices on moderating content what are you thinking as far as how much you trust it ? >> caller: i think it's a little construed. there's a lot of divisiveness on both sides but i think that we just need to do the

right thing in the right way. according to you know, just common sense. i think that there's a lot of things that there's a lot of battling going on. and i hope it goes the right way.for me i'm a christian area and i believe that it's a battle. and a lot of people have a lot of different opinions. i love everybody. i'm not a racist, even though i'm a white guy. >> when it comes to the section 230 that you heard our guest reference earlier, just to give you some of the language provided under subsection c one, saying no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by other information content providers . also goes on to say no provider or user of an

interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access or availability of material to that provider or user considered to be obscene , lewd, lascivious, excessively violent or harassing or otherwise objectionable whether or not such material is constitutionally protected . again, that's about the debate going on on capitol hill which you heard our guest reference earlier about seeing possible changes to that section with the idea of larger issues of this level of trust and these companies when it comes towhat they do with content and how they moderate content . we're asking you this first hour jeffrey in mechanicsburg pennsylvania, independent line . >> yes sir, i fully trust these companies to do the rightthing . i do not believe that they are a force of the government and therefore the first amendment does not apply. and therefore i feel that any action against this is an

action against the country, not for the country.>> as far as the companies themselves what do you base that trust on ? >> the knowledge that these people have a right to do as they please. and that that's, i trust them to control hate speech. and other forms of fascism that i do not believe in. ni>> that's jeffrey in mechanicsburg pennsylvania next from charlie in california, democrats line . good morning . >> are you doing, thank you for taking my call. i don't trust big tech because they're trying to limit freedom of speech.

it's the opposite of what you know, the issue is. >> host: what do you mean by that western mark. >> caller: we are limiting certain people. i'm ademocrat, go figure . everybody should be heard within reason upon this or not. becoming violent and invasive, plain and simple. your question is do we trust them to moderate content, no we don't. because their silencing one side. everybody should be heard as long as they act in a civil way. it's pretty cut and dry your guest earlier , she talks like she was a eplawyer and in the end, i believe that you show clips of donald

trump you will prevail. that would be like shutting down joebiden or anybody else . as long as you're being civil and i appreciate your time. it's all about civility. we need to get back to where there's respect, common courtesy is lost in this country and until we get back to that, i'm in my late 60s. i've been around a day or two and it saddens me that we are dividing this way and it does get back to fremont freedom of speech and big tech should not be able to control people to be heard. >> that's charlie in california making his thoughts known on the moderation of speech and the ability of big tech companies , much like the president said in his beach against these companies and your ability to trust them when it

comes to content moderation and in north carolina can republican line, this is terry . >> good morning. you're a democrat but i appreciate that. pedro. big tech for four years, character assassinated and lied about asitting president of the united states of america . hold him a puppet of who did. they live area we as a business owner, what they're doing it looks to me that if i looked out there and i decided that i don't want you pedro in my business dbecause of the collar of your skin i'm able to do that now. that's what is going on. it's called reverse racism . marxist democrats is what the problem is in this country. >> guest: you're talking about the companies or the

people who post on the site ? >> caller: i'm talking about the companies themselves. did they coordinate not run a campaign against the president of the united states? they shut him out and said you do not have the right to speak. the first amendment, the first amendment is to protect speech that you disagree with . that's why the first amendment is there and when you say that one side of the country cannot say nothing while we have the right to character assassinate you, your family and your children because of the color of your skin , that's called racism. >> we will move on to another color, independent line. >> good morning. i'm 86 years old, i'm a political junkie and have been watching c-span since 1980 and laws in anycountry including in the united it's , you cannot, the supreme

court is behind in technology. even facebook is behind. things are happening so fast the horse is out of the barn. section 230, everything there we need to revisit. they would never have thought of cell phones. first of all we have to pledge allegiance not to the party. to the country. i. [inaudible] >> host: to boil it down to your level of trust. >> it's volunteering, you cannot stop the hackers or workers but we have to start with mom and dad. you have to see civil liberties and stand in line. the law is not just for one person.

>> host: but to the ability of your level oftrust in the companies themselves when it comes to content moderation, how would you describe that ? >> caller: it takes time and thelaw will never catch up with technology . it's high time. >> host: that's john in ohio, let's hear from wake forest, republican line. j in wake forest. >>. >> caller: i'm ashamed to call myself an american. when you have a media like you pedro and c-span and all of the rest of bubble crap media, ofon tv lying about donald trump every single day . now you are you have whatever you call that lady on axios coming in on tv. everybody says the samething .ys alan dershowitz and justice thomas said that he doesn't stand a chance. >> host: was focus on the companies themselves, how would you describe that ?

>> i've never used a single one of them . >> you had your chance to make a statement and were focusing on the question here, why you avoid them ? >> because their trash like the media in this country . >> daniel in houston texas, democrats line. >>. >> trump used social media for five years to attack edpeople. disparage people. divide this country more. facebook, trump helped them with the help of russia with all the disinformation targeting g people. and then another thing, i'm very disappointed with you all. you continue to cover him like you did the sitting president, this man is irrelevant. this man is a divider. >> this social media

companies prompted us to ask this question about moderating content but you called us to talk about that. how much trust do you have? >> caller: in the media? >> host: in social media companies, how much trust you have in them ? >> caller: i don't know sometimes so i tried to research and to the best of my ability but there's a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of it coming from he's continuing his big lie and you all are continuing to give him a platform . >> when you go to the site and you see something that concerns you as far as information you cross-reference that ? >> w by trying to read. that's kind of a hard question to answer because sometimes i don't know. i look at the person writing it. who is writing the article.

and you know, what the person is legitimate. there's a lot of wack jobs out there that's atthrowing things out there and see what sticks to the wall so you have to be carefulbecause you can't take every bit of information . there's a saying that you take in is what you get. yougot to be careful . and then i think you know where i'm coming. >> .. ng three senators, democratic senators, mazie of hawaii, amy corporate chart of minnesota proposed changes to the section of the communications decency

act, the current version as it currently stands, the provider or user treated as a publisher speaker of information speech provided by under content provider, here is changes they proposed to the language adding onto the language initially single provider or user or computer service shall be treated as a speaker of any speech provided by another contentny provider and i at, except to the extent provider or user t except payments to make this available or created or funded creation of the speech and language adding an affirmative defense alleging a computer service provider publisher speaker with respect to speech provided by another information contento provider d interactive computer service every evidence. this act but these spenders have been looking at, republicans to

highlighted by the washington examiner this morning single targets led by jim jordan set the agenda strengthen antitrust enforcement and hold accountable for censorship and increased transparency around the content moderation decision, proposals would be introduced in the coming weeks by republicans after the consult with minority leader kevin mccarthy and big tech targeted conservatives for too long. jordan told the washington examiner he believes this will serve as were have a good platform to take on big tech going forward and unitego our party to reject the text cancel cultural practices. the larger picture when it comes to ability and trust companies to moderate content, henderson cap south carolina, hello. >> how are you doing?

>> good i want to thank you guys, i've been a loyal c-span junkie about 80. i miss met him, i think you are what you o guys do. i appreciate your putting the question out there, it's a serious matter. obviously big tech companies have enormous influence and i have problems with any censorship myself but the reality is, donald trump is invited to the events that wound up there in the capitol, you can't get away with the things

he's done repeatedly, suicide fact in a supreme court justice and these are private companies after all. i personally saw should have been permanently banned for his inflammatory irresponsible words long before he was. >> that content you talked about, what you think the level of burden should be on the companies themselves, particularly at content or other content on social media? >> i wish i knew, i actually don't. i'm interested to see the details and the devils in the details, one of my cries i voted for physical famously said curious to see what the legislation will propose, probably antitrust maybe entities should be broken up, i'm sure there are some measures

that could be taken but are responsible but the idea of adding donald trump's bed spread poison and fox news round them all the time, news max, those outlets, nobody is stopping each but personally i think he ought to be in jail for what he's done. >> will go on bob on the republican line. >> good morning, thank you very much. the problem with 230 of the legislatures and these companies is they haven't been educated and they don't know the purpose of u.s. government of the first

three of these laws that the constitution cannot entrench by 13 years so -- >> how does that apply to section 230 them? >> the purpose of government, and you should notice for supreme court justices but they did not know, the purpose of government to protect our rights, one of the first three sentences, the businesses operate the government that is to protect those rights so they are not exempt following those first laws on page one on hundreds of thousands so you go

to the county courthouse, go to the library, or to the first page and read the first three. >> aside from section 230 itself, is a need updating particularly when -- you think an update to 230 is needed? >> 2358 the purpose of u.s. law, if you read the first page. >> will leave it there, democrat line. >> hello. i think facebook should concentrate not with their content, the veracity of the