►
Description
House Business and Utilities Subcommittee - February 23, 2022 - House Hearing Room 3
A
A
A
Thank
you,
madam
clerk
members.
Before
we
get
started
today,
do
we
have
any
personal
orders?
I
would
like
to
welcome
the
tennessee
broadband
association.
I
see
a
lot
of
the
members
out
there
and
hope
you
guys
have
enjoyed
your
day
down
here
on
the
hill.
If
there's
no
other
personal
orders,
we
do
have
a
few
administrative
items.
Item
number
one
has
been
rolled
two
weeks.
A
B
A
C
B
Thank
you.
While,
following
in
the
footsteps
of
our
able
deputy
speaker,
this
is
a
very
similar
bill
that
would
allow
not-for-profits
to
have
the
same
latitude
as
he
just
described
again.
It's
the
same
thing
that
we
passed
legislation
last
year
for
far
for
for-profit
organizations.
This
would
just
apply
to
not-for-profits.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
house,
bill
2369
designated
social
media
platform,
is
a
common
carrier
and
requires
the
entities
to
obtain
a
certificate
of
public
insurance
and
cnn
from
the
tennessee
public
utility
commission.
Today.
What
I
would
like
to
do
chairman
your
request.
I
would
just
like
to
have
a
couple
people
here
from
the
heartland
institute
and
we've
sent
you
their
names
and
we'd
just
like
to
have
them
to
give
some
testimony
on
the
bill.
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
members
without
objection
we
will
go
out
of
session
okay
and
we
are
going
to
hear
from
james
taylor
and
carl
sasmo
are
oh
y'all,
okay,
we'll
just
listen,
we'll
hear
from
james
taylor
first
and
mr
taylor.
If
you
will
be
sure
to
turn
your
microphone
on
and
state
your
name
for
the
record.
E
E
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
applaud
this
committee
for
considering
this
bill
around
the
country.
Constituents
around
the
state
in
tennessee,
but
also
around
the
country,
people
are,
are
being
censored
and
they're
very
upset
about
the
fact
that
here
we
have
the
online
version.
The
modern
version
of
the
public
town
square
and
people
are
not
given
access
to
it,
in
fact,
they're
being
blocked
from
it
right
now.
E
We
have
three
corporations
that
between
the
three
of
them
control,
97
of
social
media
traffic,
and
yet
they
work
together
to
block
particular
points
of
view
that
they
object
to.
It
would
be
one
thing
if
there
were
many
opportunities,
many
platforms
for
people
to
share
their
views,
but
there
aren't-
and
this
is
something
that
threatens
the
very
nature
of
our
democracy.
E
We
are
told
that
we
cannot
question
the
centers
for
disease
control
and
their
ever-shifting
statements
about
covenant
and
covet
related
issues.
We
are
not
allowed
to
question.
Well,
I
guess
now
we
are,
but
before
we
weren't
allowed
to
question
whether
covet
originated
in
the
chinese
lab
or
whether
it
was
natural
and
all
sorts
of
other
topics-
political,
cultural,
scientific,
religious.
E
This
is
something
that
needs
to
be
addressed
by
state
legislatures,
because
without
free
speech
there
is
no
democracy.
Sometimes
it's
questioned.
Well.
Is
this
something
that's
appropriate
for
state
legislatures?
Is
it
appropriate
for
lawmakers
to
get
involved?
It
absolutely
is,
and
I
invite
you
to
go
back
to
first
principles.
E
In
the
declaration
of
independence,
thomas
jefferson
wrote
and
our
founding
fathers
approved
it
is
stated
in
in
the
very
second
paragraph.
We
hold
these
truths
to
be
self-evident,
that
all
men
are
created
equal
and
are
endowed
by
their
creator
with
certain
unalienable
rights.
Among
them
are
life
liberty
and
the
pursuit
of
happiness
that
to
secure
these
rights,
governments
are
instituted
among
men,
I
believe
in
limited
government.
I
don't
believe
in
anarchy.
Thomas
jefferson
put
it
plainly
that
governments
exist
to
secure
our
pre-existing
unalienable
rights
and
free
speech
is
certainly
one
of
them.
E
In
this
case,
we
have
again
three
corporations
that
control
97
percent
of
social
media
traffic,
they're
working
together
to
deprive
americans
of
their
basic
free
speech
rights.
This
isn't
the
first
amendment
issue.
The
first
amendment
is
a
small
subcategory
of
our
larger
universe
of
unalienable
rights.
We
have
free
speech
rights,
not
because
government
gave
them
to
us,
but
because
they
exist
as
a
part
of
our
natural
human
condition.
E
In
this
case,
we
have
legislation
that
would
protect
those
rights
and
it
is
definitely
beneficial
to
the
people
of
tennessee
that
action
is
taken
to
preserve
these
rights
against
the
threats
that
currently
exist
from
big
tech
censorship.
Again,
our
founding
father
said
that
the
threats
to
our
unalienable
rights
precede
the
existence
of
government
and
the
reason
why
we
have
a
limited
government
at
all
is
to
protect
these
unalienable
rights.
So,
thank
you
on
behalf
of
tennesseans
and
people
around
the
country
for
considering
such
legislation.
A
F
F
Ahead,
my
name
is
samantha
fillmore,
I'm
with
the
heartland
institute
as
well
thank
y'all
for
holding
this
hearing
today,
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
won't
belabor
you
with
points
that
my
colleague
just
told
you.
However,
I
want
to
go
into
some
specifics
about
this
legislation.
We've
seen
seven
well.
F
So
if
any
of
y'all
might
recall
or
remember,
there
was
a
big
texas,
anti-big
tech
censorship
law
passed
in
texas
and
in
florida
last
year
they
both
were,
as
we
know,
struck
down
in
the
appellate
courts.
However,
I
would
like
to
draw
attention
to
the
fact,
as
I'm
sure
it
will
be
brought
up
by
others
to
speak
later,
that
they
were
struck
down
in
court.
That
is
not
the
same
legislation
that
is
before
you
today.
This
common
carriage
bill
is
very
thoughtful
and,
furthermore,
those
texas
is
in
the
circuit
court.
F
Furthermore,
I
believe
that
you
will
hear
that
states
can't
push
legislation
such
as
this
that
it's
a
federal
issue
and,
to
some
extent
section
230,
which
this
deals
with
is
federal
statute.
I
would
like
to
also
inform
you
all
that
under
section
230,
specifically
paragraph
3,
subsection
e,
it
is
an
exemption
for
state-based
legislation.
It
is
written
in
the
federal
statute
that
states
can
pass
and
hold
laws
so
long
as
it
comports
with
the
general
protections
of
lascivious
pornographic
in
nature.
You
all
know
all
of
the
synonyms
that
and
you've
heard
it
before.
F
I
know
so.
I
just
wanted
to
send
that
point
home.
You
will
also
hear
probably
that
this
is
unconstitutional
and
truly
for
that
to
be
correct.
It
would
have
to
be
heard
and
struck
down
by
the
supreme
court
to
be
unconstitutional
and
we
haven't
gotten
there
yet
to
claim
that
it's
premature
and
it's
speculative.
F
And
lastly,
you
you'll
hear
that
this
is
a
not
allowing
a
free
market
to
act.
The
way
that
free
markets
should
and
to
that
I
would
submit
to
you
that
what
we
see
with
big
tech
is
not
the
product
of
a
healthy
free
market.
Big
tech
enjoy
enjoys
liability
protections
through
section
230
and
in
that
way,
they've
been
able
to
unilaterally
control
free
speech
on
these
public
platforms.
So
this
law
this
bill
would
it
would
correct
the
corruption
in
the
market
for
tennessee
and
for
your
constituents.
F
We're
not
saying
that
any
of
these
companies
don't
have
the
right
to
free
speech.
They
can
say
what
they
want.
They
can
do
what
they
want.
They
can
put
the
tags
on
any.
You
know
any
of
the
posts
that
you
know
tell
you
that
it
might
be
misinformation
again
or
any
synonym.
You
might
think-
or
any
example
you
may
think
of,
but
as
my
colleague
james
likes
to
say,
free
speech
is
speaking
for
yourself.
Not
suppressing
others,
we
don't
have
a
free
speech
right
to
gag
our
neighbors,
because
we
don't
like
what
they're
saying
so.
F
A
G
F
G
E
It
yeah
if
you'll
allow
me
thank
you
for
the
question.
It's
a
good
question.
So
what
we
have
is
a
situation
where
you
have
three
corporations:
private
corporations
that
control
97
percent
of
social
media
traffic,
which,
in
and
of
itself,
isn't
necessarily
a
problem
except
that
they're
doing
so
to
take
away
our
unalienable
free
speech
rights
if
we're
talking
about
rules
by
which
they
compete
with
each
other.
E
So
if
I
can
give
you
an
analogy,
I
can
form
a
company
with
four
of
my
buddies
and
my
company
can
go
about
robbing
our
neighbors
homes.
The
fact
that
we're
a
company
doesn't
immunize
us
from
the
fact
that
we
are
depriving
people
of
their
unalienable
property
rights,
so
it
wouldn't
be
lawful
for
us
to
do
that,
and
it
would
be
proper
for
government
to
prevent
us
from
taking
away
our
neighbors
property
rights.
Same
applies
for
free
speech,
rights,
representative.
G
So
you
I
mean
what
what
I'm
I'm
just
wondering
the
you
know
you,
it
seems
like
we're.
Trying
to
tell
your
your
request
is
in
this
bill
is
to
tell
a
private
corporation
what
to
do,
which
I
think
most
you
know,
the
the
general
philosophy
in
the
state
government
is
to
stay
out
of
private
business,
but
but
I
understand
too
you're
saying
that
they
they
have
a
near
monopoly.
E
E
It's
a
fact
that
they
are
abusing
their
power
to
take
away
our
unalienable
free
speech
rights,
so
this
bill
by
focusing
not
on
the
fact
that
it's
a
few
corporations
that
some
would
say
need
to
be
broken
up,
but
instead
getting
right
to
the
heart
of
saying
you
cannot
discriminate,
censor
or
block
based
upon
political
or
viewpoint
discrimination,
so
that
would
apply
to
others
as
well.
And
your
point
is
a
very
good
one.
E
If
we
had
15
companies
doing
the
same
thing,
it's
harder
to
to
have
a
good
outcome
than
if
there
are
three
in
the
sense
that
we
can
identify
what
the
problem
is.
I
mean.
Ideally,
we
have
enough
social
media
platforms
where
people
have
choice,
but
they
don't
today,
and
it
doesn't
look
like
it's
going
to
happen
and
our
free
speech
rights.
Some
people
say
well,
we
should
wait.
The
market
will
come
up
with
an
answer.
A
Representative
thompson-
and
I
will
remind
you
representative,
if
you,
let's
not
have
too
much
of
an
ideological
debate
here
I
mean
we-
the
sponsor
is
still
going
to
run
his
bill.
So
some
of
these,
if
it's
on
the
merits
of
the
bill,
you
might
want
to
save
it
for
chairman
powers-
and
I
mean
this-
could
this
could
go
on
a
long
time
if
we
continue.
A
A
D
D
Thank
you,
I
just
want
to
mention,
and
it
came
up
during
the
testimony
there.
This
is
a
descending
opinion
from
justice
thomas
regarding
a
recent
lawsuit,
and
he
said,
there's
clear
historical
president
for
regulating
transportation
and
communication
networks
in
a
similar
manner
as
traditional
common
carriers.
D
He
also
went
on
to
say
the
analogy
to
common
care
is
even
clearer
for
digital
platforms
that
have
a
dominant
market
share
similar
to
utilities.
Today's
dominant
digital
platforms
derive
much
of
the
value
from
network
size.
The
internet,
of
course,
is
a
network,
but
these
digital
platforms
are
networked
within
that
network,
and
the
last
thing
he
said
was
regarding
common
carriers.
D
Unlike
a
cable
company,
so
a
regulation
restricting
a
digital
platform's
right
to
exclude
might
not
appreciably
employed.
I'm
sorry
impede
the
platform
from
speaking,
so
that
was
his
recommendation
and
his
descending
opinion
to
treat
him
as
common
carriers.
And
with
that
I
appreciate
the
and
I
would
like
to
request
to
roll
the
bill
for
two
weeks.
H
I
I
I'll
presume,
that's
on
yes,
thumbs
up
cool.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
carl
zabo,
I'm
vice
president
and
general
counsel
of
net
choice.
I'm
also
an
adjunct.
Professor
at
george
mason
antonin,
scalia
law,
school
net
choice
sits
on
the
board
of
alec,
and
I
am
co-chair
of
the
communications
and
technology
task
force
at
alec
and,
like
many
conservatives,
do
I
get
frustrated
with
what
I
see
on
social
media,
heck
yeah.
It
frustrates
me,
but
I
also
believe
in
limited
government,
free
markets
and
free
enterprise.
I
I
agree
with
decisions
like
hobby
lobby,
masterpiece,
cakes
and
citizens
united,
which
are
predicated
on
the
notion
that
private
businesses
can
decide
what's
best
for
their
users
and
their
customers,
and
I
get
worried
when
I
see
what
is
the
equivalent
of
government
compelled
speech.
And
yes,
I
could
talk
about
the
declaration
of
independence.
I
could
talk
about
the
articles
of
confederation,
but
there
is
a
document
that
supersedes
them
all.
It's
called
the
constitution
and
in
the
bill
of
rights
we
have
the
first
amendment
and
what
is
it
designed
to
do?
I
It's
designed
to
protect
us
against
government
compelled
speech,
and
that's
what
we're
talking
about
here
today.
That's
what
the
decisions
in
florida
and
texas,
both
centered
on
they
didn't
talk
about
section
230.
They
didn't
talk
about
supremacy
clause.
They
didn't
talk
about
the
dormant
commerce
clause
they
could
have.
Instead,
they
were
centered
on
the
first
amendment.
I
So
I
have
an
issue
with
this
legislation
as
as
much
as
I
might
love
to
tell
private
businesses
to
do
exactly
what
I
want
as
much
as
I
would
love
to
have
a
chick-fil-a
sandwich
on
sunday
and
have
the
government
force
them
to
stay
open.
I
don't
think
that's
the
role
of
government
so
from
a
policy
perspective,
we're
looking
at
essentially
government
intrusion,
but
what
does
this
also
mean?
It
means
that
we'll
have
a
lot
of
lawful
but
awful
content.
I
The
first
amendment
allows
a
lot
of
stuff
that
we
don't
want
to
see
in
our
social
media
sites.
Child
grooming.
We
don't
want
to
see
it's
constitutionally
allowed,
but
we
don't
want
it.
Nazi
propaganda-
that's
political
speech
to
some
this
bill
has
a
whole
exception
about
something
called
a
journalistic
enterprise.
I
So
we
heard
a
lot
about
monopolies,
everything's
controlled
by
three
businesses.
I
presume
the
suggestion
is
facebook,
youtube
and
twitter,
but
actually
the
most
popular
social
media
site
last
year
was
tick
tock.
Just
this
past
week
we
saw
a
new
social
media
site
launched
and
it
launched
so
well
that
actually
crashed
the
servers
and
that's
president
trump's
truth,
social,
it's
being
hosted
on
a
media
on
a
network
created
by
conservatives
for
conservatives
called
right,
forge
that's
the
market.
I
Solving
problems,
not
government,
solving
problems,
let's
assume
even
if
they
were
considered
to
be
a
monopoly
courts,
have
already
considered
this
and
dismissed
it.
Prager
prageru
vs
youtube
held
despite
youtube's
ubiquity
and
its
role
public
facing
forum.
It
remains
a
private
platform
and
not
subject
to
judicial
scrutiny.
I
Under
the
first
amendment,
let's
look
at
the
supreme
court
in
a
case
called
miami
herald
v
torneo,
where
the
government
was
trying
to
force
a
newspaper
to
carry
content
it
didn't
want
to
carry
miami
herald
was
basically
the
only
news
source
at
the
time
for
that
neighbor.
For
that
area,
the
supreme
court
said
even
though
they're
essentially
a
monopoly.
They
still
get
first
amendment
protections.
I
This
is
centered
around
the
idea
of
common
carrier
common
carrier.
I
I
will
run
out
of
time
if
I
go
through
all
the
reasons
why
government
can't
impose
common
carrier
status,
but
let's
jump
to
the
conclusion.
Let's
imagine
I
wave
a
magic
wand
and
somehow
my
members
were
common
carriers.
They
can't
be
because
they
don't
hold
themselves
out
to
be
open
to
everybody,
but
even
if
they
were
common
carriers
are
entitled
to
first
amendment
protections,
as
we
saw
in
a
case
against
pacific
gas
and
electric,
where
the
supreme
court
said.
I
Pg
e
was
entitled
to
first
amendment
protections
from
state,
compelled
speech.
We've
looked
at
this
a
lot.
We've
testified
on
these
bills
across
the
country.
I
get
it.
I
understand
the
frustration,
but
we
can't
do
an
end
run
around
the
first
amendment
and
we
don't
want
the
government
becoming
the
arbiter
of
what
becomes
allowed
or
disallowed
on
a
private
business's
site.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
market
is
solving
the
problem.
I
This
bill
is
not
a
good
step
from
a
policy
perspective.
It
is
not
legal
from
a
constitutional
perspective,
and
I
know
I'll
probably
be
back
here
in
two
weeks
and
I
thank
the
sponsor
for
for
the
upcoming
amendments,
but
as
of
right
now,
we're
probably
not
going
to
support
and
highly
unlikely
to
support
hb
2369.
A
D
Ju,
can
I
make
one
other
statement
absolutely
okay
by
the
way
we're
this
is,
has
nothing
to
do
with
government
compelled
speech
we're
not
compelling
or
limiting
the
speech
of
any
business.
That's
not
what
we're
trying
to
do
all
we're
trying
to
do
is
to
prevent
discriminatory,
I'm
sorry,
discriminatory
political
speech
or
viewpoints.
That's
all
we're
trying
to
do
we're
not
trying
to
compel
or
eliminate
any
speech
of
any
company.
A
J
J
I'm
very
grateful
for
working
with
the
road
builders
this
past
year
on
this
bill
and-
and
I
think
we've
come
up
with
a
really
nice
piece
of
legislation
chairman
this
bill
has
eight
sections:
it's
11
pages,
I'm
happy
to
give
a
brief
description
of
each
section
of
the
eight
sections,
or
I
can
go
straight
to
answering
members
questions
in
regard
to
these
questions.
I'll
leave
it
to
the
committee
and
the
chairman.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative.
I
support
your
bill.
My
comments
have
nothing
to
do
with
your
bill.
I've
spent
all
day
in
this
chair
and
with
all
sincerity,
it
provides
a
true
admiration
and
appreciation
for
you
and
the
model
that
you
are
for
those
who
are
wheelchair-bound
to
do
what
you
do
in
such
a
public
setting
in
the
chair
that
you're
in
and
I'm
and
I'm
darren.
I
mean
this
with
all
sincerity.
J
J
Life
with
a
disability
when
you're
separated
from
the
physical
world-
and
you
learn
your
activities
of
daily
living,
become
because
I'm
a
very
dependent
person,
I'm
100
dependent.
If
someone
did
not
help
me
assist
me
in
the
morning
and
at
night,
I'd
be
in
bed
all
day
long,
but
because
I
do
have
the
assistance
I'm
able
to
get
up.
I've
worked
most
of
my
life.
I
have
an
education.
J
J
It's
laws
like
the
ada
and
the
rehab
back
to
73
and
idea
and
the
fair
housing
act
and
the
air
carriers
act.
The
assistive
technology
act,
the
ada
all
these
meant
to
incorporate
people
into
society
with
disabilities,
so
they
can
be
productive
and
and
every
day
that
I'm
down
here
and
able
to
to
put
forth
legislation
to
help
the
disability
community,
because
I
won't
be
here
forever.
J
I'm
glad
that
you're
able
to
do
that
and
next
year
we'll
have
five
or
six
more
different
legislators
to
do
it
and
just
to
get
an
idea,
and-
and
so
I'm
grateful
that
you
participated,
I'm
thankful
for
your
comments.
I
take
them
as
genuine
and
I'm
appreciative
of
all
of
you
and
what
how
you
treat
me
as
an
equal,
how
you
sit
down.
Look
me
in
the
eye
and
bite
me
to
stuff
and
and
take
me
seriously
with
my
legislation,
and
I
I
feel
nothing
but
as
an
equal
in
this
body.
J
A
A
And
so
back
on
your
bill,
representative
jernigan,
I
I
won't,
have
you
go
through
it?
I'm
sure
it
has
been
vetted
and
people
have
been
about
to
talk
with
me
about
it.
I
do
want
for
the
record
to
to
state
that
the
the
colonial
pipeline
did
visit
with
me
and
they
are
supportive
of
your
bill,
but
they
do
want,
as
it
moves
to
full
committee,
to
to
take
a
look
with
with
you
and
the
road
builders
and
make
sure
that
it
it's
not
going
to
affect
them
in
any
way.
A
All
right
members
do
we
have
any
questions
on
the
bill
for
representative
jernigan.
If
not
members,
we
are
voting
to
send
house
bill
1698
to
full
commerce,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed,
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it
and
that
bill
is
on
its
way
to
full
commerce.
Representative
jernigan,
chairman
members.
Thank
you
item
number
seven
house
bill.
2618
has
been
rolled
two
weeks.
H
H
First
part
being
continuing
education
for
funeral
directors
or
embalmers.
Currently
in
tennessee
licensed
funeral
director
and
embalmers
are
required
to
complete
10
hours
of
continuing
education
every
two
years
for
license
renewal.
Five
of
the
ten
required
hours
must
be
live
in
person
hours
or
virtually
through
an
interactive
computers
program.
H
The
bill
clarifies
the
requirements
for
a
virtual
continuing
education
program
to
qualify
as
an
in-person
hours
and
follows
up
on
a
2017
legislation
that
was
passed
and
sponsored
by
representative
hicks
and
senator
crow.
That
did
the
same
thing.
The
second
part
of
the
bill
is
unlicensed.
Funeral
assistant
or
bada
actors,
which
we
have
had
in
this
state,
prohibits
a
person
who
has
voluntarily
surrendered
his
or
her
funeral
director
or
embalmer's
license
to
be
considered
as
an
unlicensed
funeral
assistant.
H
There
is
a
specific
bad
actor
in
tennessee,
which
the
department
of
commerce
and
insurance
has
asked
the
association
to
help,
try
and
limit
criminal
activity
with
this
bill.
The
third
part
is
for
pre-need
sales
agent
in
the
scope
of
offering
pre-need
funerals
to
the
public.
A
pre-need
sales
agent
and
a
licensed
funeral
director
are
essentially
the
same
licensed
funeral
directors
offering
pre-need
funerals
to
the
public
must
pay
for
both
a
funeral
director's
license
renewal
and
a
pre-need
agent
registration.
A
Thank
you
sponsor
for
that
explanation.
Committee
members.
Do
we
have
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
see?
None.
We
are
voting
to
send
house
bill
2103
to
full
commerce,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye,
all
opposed,
say
no
eyes
have
it
representative
alexander.
Your
bill
is
on
its
way
to
full
commerce.
Thank
you.
Next
up
is
item
number
10.
That's
house
bill
1958
by
representative
alexander.
H
Aurillo
certification
comes
at
a
large
expense
to
the
providers
on
top
of
the
already
required
approval
of
the
courses
by
the
tennessee
real
estate
commission.
This
law
change
would
treat
synchronous
courses
the
same
as
in-person
courses,
and
there
should
be
no
distinction,
since
the
instructor
can
see
the
students
and
monitor
the
student's
activity.
A
Thank
you
sponsor
for
that
explanation.
Members
do
we
have
any
question
for
the
sponsor,
if
not
members
were
voting
on
house
bill
1958
to
send
it
to
full
commerce,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed,
say
no
eyes
have
it
the
bill
passes.
Thank
you
committee.
Thank
you,
members.
That
concludes
our
business
for
today.