On the recordMarch 8, 2023
This is yet another redundant and unnecessary amendment. It is already presumably included in the exception for child pornography and child exploitation. I suppose if it is adding obscenity to those exceptions, then perhaps there is something there to it. What really strikes me here is that there was a bipartisan amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee last night that would include an exception for sexual assault, and that was not passed through to the House floor. If the chairman would indulge me for a moment and I could yield to him, can the gentleman explain why he opposed the bipartisan amendment that would prohibit sexual assault and yet he allowed through this amendment on basic obscenity? Apparently, the chairman doesn't know what I am referring to. There was a bipartisan amendment offered last night in the Rules Committee between Congresswoman Houlahan and Congresswoman Mace that would have added to the specified list of exceptions to law enforcement coordinating with social media companies in the event of information related to sexual assault. That amendment was not passed through to the House, and we are not considering it today. Yet, here we are considering the gentleman from Virginia's amendment including as an exception, in the same way, issues related to obscenity and obscene matters. Now, if my Republican colleagues believe that basic obscenity on the internet is worse than sexual assault, then they should say so.…





