announcer: we are waiting for the start of the heritage foundation discussion on the supreme court's most recent term with reporters and legal experts including gregory gar. that is expected to start in just a few minutes. until then, a look at former president donald trump's newly filed lawsuits against facebook, google, and twitter from this morning's washington journal. host: the paper this morning talking about the former president going before cameras announcing this lawsuit, particularly aiming it at social media companies and their practices here is a bit from yesterday. trump: today, in conjunction with the america first policy institute, i'm filing at the lee class representative a major class-action lawsuit against the big tech giants including facebook, google and twitter, as

well as their ceos, mark zuckerberg, dash, and jack dorsey. three real nice guys. [applause] trump: we are asking the u.s. district court and the seven district of florida to issue an immediate halt to social media companies illegal, shameful censorship of the american people, and that's exactly what they are doing. we are demanding an end to the shadow manning, a stop to the silencing, and a stop to the blacklisting, vanishing, and canceling that you know so well. our case will prove this censorship is unlawful, it's unconstitutional, and it is completely un-american. we all know that. we all know that very, very well. our filing also seeks relief to

allow prompt restitution and restoration and you can name about 20 other things, and it has to be prompt, because it is destroying our country. of my accounts, in addition, we are asking the court to impose punitive damages on these social media giants. we are going to hold big tech very accountable. this is the first of the motions that will follow, but 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 am confident that we will achieve a historic victory for american freedom and at the same time, freedom of speech. host: that the president from yesterday talking about a lawsuit filed against these

major tech companies, particularly over issues of content and moderation. during us now to elaborate on the lawsuit and the larger issues involved, sarah fisher reports for axios. thanks for joining us. >> thank you so much. host: can you elaborate a little bit more on the legal basis that the president is facing this suit on? guest: what he is alleging is that tech companies like states, -- facebook, google and youtube are so big that we should be treating them as state actors and if we are going to treat them as state actors, they would be protected by the first amendment. that is a tough case to make because they are not state actors, they are publicly-traded companies and because they are private companies, they can make all the rules they want when it comes to who is allowed to use their services. that is one argument he is making. the other thing he suggests in the lawsuit is that section 230 of the communications decency act, which is a law that was passed by congress 25 years ago,

should be deemed unconstitutional. the reason that matters is you and i both know you can't just deem a law unconstitutional, congress would have to pass something else. it doesn't really apply here and i wouldn't expect the defendants in this case to even reference it, quite frankly. host: could you elaborate on section 230 and how social media companies are governed by that? guest: section 230 is a law that says internet platforms are not liable for the content that third parties post. and that matters because we wouldn't have a modern internet if we didn't have section 230. people with the two afraid to have anything being posted on their sites because they would be worried that they would be constantly hit with losses. it will allow a lot of problems. if you think about anything you use as a website, it could be a new site, whatever, it wouldn't be allowed to really succeed. so we have built our modern

internet around this law. a lot of people have challenged it, saying it needs to be updated, but it is not something that would be updated through the courts, which is why trump mentioning it is completely a moot point. host: the stories you have posted this morning in talking to the experts, taking a look at the lawsuit itself, just to give you the headlines, they say that it is likely doomed. can you elaborate on that? guest: a lot of people that try lawsuits of a similar nature against social media giants allege that they have been censored. some have found class-action lawsuits and none of them have ever done well. there was one x-ray spoke to who evaluated 61 similar lawsuit that have been brought up in the past three years and he said the defendants, the tech platforms, have won in every single instance. even if the trump does go forward with this, history is not on his side here. it doesn't look like he has got a really strong case to make.

host: if the average tech company were able to respond in real time, what defense when they offer as far as what they do with content and have a moderate content currently? guest: they would say they are not state actors, they are private companies and so the people that want to use their platforms can do so by choice and are bound to their rules and their service terms. they would argument donald trump was banned because he violated their community service terms by inciting violence around january 6 c. they would say they've done nothing unlawful or unconstitutional and trying to say that they should have acted otherwise is, in fact, unconstitutional it dealt. trying to force the hand of a private company when it comes to free speech. that is going to be their defense, but honestly, i don't expect them to stay up at night around this. this is something that they know they have pretty much got in the bag. really, what this shows is that donald trump sees censorship as a really strong campaign issue. immediately, he started fundraising after he made that speech.

i think that the bigger picture here. this is not really meant to legally challenge tech platforms, it is just meant throughout boost his campaign. host: to the larger issues, this is something that members of congress on both sides of the aisle have concerned themselves with and focused on. can you at least briefly get at what is both sides have wanted as far as potential changes to the section? guest: totally. people who are very progressive say you should abolish these losses. people who are conservative say they should stay the same. most people fall in the middle. we can't abolish the law, the web as we know it would collapse, what it definitely needs reform. the challenge is we don't know what those reforms are going to look like. some people have said ok, maybe the middle ground is forcing tech companies to be more transparent about what they take down. you are starting to see some companies get ahead of us by issuing things like reports. another suggestion is maybe we start to regulate algorithms a little bit better. it's not necessarily whether or

not you keep content up or down, but you regulate how else you are distributing it. these are all things that congress is considering right now, but i personally don't think we are going to have any movement for a long time because it is such a tough, tough issue to crack. host: you can see her work at axios.com. thanks for your time and your explanations of these issues this morning, really appreciate it. guest: thank you so much, have a good one. host: the issues of moderating content, especially going into the lawsuit filed by former president trump yesterday, we are asking you to give your thoughts on your ability to trust companies to moderate content. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003.

our social media platforms themselves are open to this. paul in virginia saying that he does not trust big tech to actually enforce their agreements. if they did they would have to ban or remove 75% of their users. another texter saying some companies are better than others at moderating content. they could do it better than government ever could. we should embrace the choices we have and then wayne miller off of our facebook page this morning, many of you posting this morning before the show, big tech shouldn't be moderating anything. georgia, republican line, on the capability of big tech to moderate content. go ahead. caller: thank you, c-span, and calling your great network for 30 years. i just want to say that i'm a strong donald trump supporter and i think every american ought to have the right -- i teach a leadership class and i teach our young leaders to call in and express their conservative thoughts but with no malice, to be positive.

in other words, i think the democrats are spending too much money but i don't attack them personally. host: the ability of expressing content or thoughts on social media, the possibility of moderation, what do you think of back? caller: i think it ought to be, i think 230 ought to be eliminated where every american can speak out and give their thoughts. i'm a conservative, but the liberals ought to be able to speak bears, too, but don't do it with any malice, no hatred. i tell my young people to preach love, and so i do think that it ought to be eliminated so that everybody in america can call in and give their opinion. therefore, and i think that's very important. you all do a great job at c-span, it is a great network. host: we will go to tommy in massachusetts.

caller: -- host: tommy, hello? caller: you get rid of 230, the internet is gone and everybody will have an opportunity to sue. secondly, the guy who was just on talking about the first amendment, i think what you guys ought to do is make him say -- whoever said the first amendment is being against the first amendment -- 230 or whatever -- just put them -- [no audi