South Carolina Senator Vows To Not Override Trump Defense Act Veto Without Section Reform

“House’s Refusal To Wind Down Section 230 For Big Tech Shows They Care More About Big Tech Than Working Americans.”

Photo – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina

The Center Square [By Vivian Jones]-

South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said he will not cast a veto-override vote in favor of an appropriations bill to fund military operations unless the act is amended to include a reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act on Wednesday morning, citing several objections to the act, including that it lacked Section 230 reform.

Section 230 stipulates internet platforms or interactive computer services may not be treated as publishers or speakers, and, therefore, may not be held liable for information or behavior on those platforms. Under the provision, social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook may not be held responsible for exercising editorial control over what may or may not be posted on their sites.

In a memo to Congress explaining his veto, Trump called the act “a gift to China and Russia.”

“The Act fails even to make any meaningful changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, despite bipartisan calls for repealing that provision,” Trump wrote. “Section 230 facilitates the spread of foreign disinformation online, which is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity. It must be repealed.”

The NDAA passed both houses of Congress by veto-proof majorities. Graham, who did not cast a vote on the act when it passed earlier this month, said Wednesday he will not cast a veto-override vote supporting the act without including Section 230 reform.

“House’s refusal to wind down Section 230 for Big Tech shows they care more about Big Tech than working Americans,” Graham said in a tweet.

“Congress should vote to Repeal Section 230 as requested by President [Trump],” Graham added. “I will not vote to override presidential veto unless effort is made to wind down Section 230.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *