>> Reilly: TONIGHT ON "GREATER BOSTON": I'M ADAM REILLY, IN FOR JIM BRAUDE.

THE REPUBLICAN PUSH TO CHANGE ELECTION LAWS IN THE WAKE OF TRUMP'S LOSS IS COMING TO MASSACHUSETTS.

TOM MOUNTAIN, THE VICE CHAIR OF THE MASS G.O.P., AND RAHSAAN HALL, THE DIRECTOR OF THE RACIAL JUSTICE PROGRAM AT THE ACLU OF MASSACHUSETTS, JOIN ME.

THEN, LATER, THE FORMER PRESIDENT IS SUING SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES FOR CENSORING CONSERVATIVES.

BUT ARE THEY?

I'LL TALK TO THE HARVARD SHORENSTEIN CENTER'S JOAN DONOVAN AND THE EDITOR IN CHIEF OF NORTHEASTERN'S "EXPERIENCE" MAGAZINE, JOANNA WEISS.

♪♪ >> Reilly: EVER SINCE DONALD TRUMP LOST THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, THERE'S BEEN A BIG PUSH IN REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED STATES TO CHANGE THE RULES AROUND VOTING AND ELECTION CERTIFICATION.

CASE IN POINT, GEORGIA, WHICH ELECTED TWO DEMOCRATIC SENATORS LAST NOVEMBER.

UNDER A NEW LAW IN THAT STATE, THERE ARE NEW I.D.

REQUIREMENTS FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS, THE LEGISLATURE CAN EFFECTIVELY TAKE OVER LOCAL ELECTION BOARDS.

AND IF YOU OFFER FOOD OR WATER TO VOTERS WAITING IN LINE, YOU COULD BE CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR.

THE BIDEN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS GONE TO COURT TO OVERTURN THE GEORGIA LAW, BUT YESTERDAY A FEDERAL JUDGE DENIED A MOTION TO DELAY THE LAW'S IMPLEMENTATION AHEAD OF TWO STATE LEGISLATIVE RUNOFF ELECTIONS NEXT WEEK.

SINCE THE MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE IS CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS, YOU MIGHT THINK THAT NOTHING SIMILAR COULD HAPPEN HERE, BUT YOU'D BE WRONG.

THIS WEEK THE MASSACHUSETTS G.O.P.

LAUNCHED A NEW CAMPAIGN TO CHANGE VOTER I.D.

REQUIREMENTS IN THIS STATE, SO ANYONE VOTING HAS TO PRESENT IDENTIFICATION AT THEIR POLLING PLACE.

THE DETAILS OF A POSSIBLE BALLOT QUESTION STILL HAVEN'T BEEN HAMMERED OUT, BUT THE PLAN IS TO PUT IT BEFORE VOTERS NEXT FALL.

SECRETARY OF STATE BILL GALVIN HAS ALREADY WEIGHED IN AGAINST THE IDEA, TELLING boston.com, "MANY VOTERS, SUCH AS SENIOR CITIZENS WHO GIVE UP THEIR DRIVERS LICENSES, DO NOT TYPICALLY CARRY PHOTO IDENTIFICATION."

SO HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT VOTER I.D.

WILL BECOME A REALITY HERE?

AND WHAT'S THE BEST CASE TO BE MADE FOR THE IDEA, AND AGAINST IT?

I'M JOINED NOW BY TOM MOUNTAIN, THE VICE CHAIR OF THE MASS G.O.P., AND RAHSAAN HALL, THE DIRECTOR OF THE RACIAL JUSTICE PROGRAM AT THE ACLU OF MASSACHUSETTS.

>> Reilly: THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

>> MY PLEASURE.

>> Reilly: TOM, LET ME STARTER WITH YOU.

AS YOU SEE IT, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WAY VOTING WORKS RIGHT NOW IN MASSACHUSETTS?

>> WELL, THE WAY VOTING WORKS RIGHT NOW IS FLAWED.

WE HAVE TOO MANY ABSENTEE BALLOTS COMING IN, AND THOSE ARE NOT BEING REGULATED.

THOSE ARE SUBJECT TO MASSIVE FRAUD, MASSIVE IND IN INDREGS.

WE'RE AIMING FOR VOTER I.D.

FOR ANY CITIZEN WHO WISHES TO VOTE.

NOW, YOU NEED AN IDENTIFICATION IN ORDER TO PICK UP THE PRESCRIPTION TO VOTE AT AN AIRLINE, TO CASH A CHECK, TO BUY ALCOHOL.

YOU NEED A IDENTIFICATION FOR ALL OF THE BASIC NECESSITIES IN LIFE, THAT IS COMMON SENSE.

NOW -- BUT FOR SOME REASON WE DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT IN THIS STATE FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT CIVIC DUTY, WHICH IS TO VOTE, TO SHOW A VOTER I.D.

SO, IN OTHER WORDS, ANYONE CAN COME INTO MY PRECINCT AND SAY THEY ARE ME, WITH MY ADDRESS AND SAY THEY ARE ME, AND THEY CAN PULL A BALLOT AND VOTE AS ME.

HOWEVER, IF THEY HAVE A PHOTO I.D., THEY CAN'T DO THAT.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO PREVENT IN THE STATE.

WE WANT TO PREVENT ANY TYPE OF VOTER FRAUD.

>> Reilly: LET ME JUMP IN AND ASK YOU -- YOU USE THE PHRASE "MASSIVE FRAUD" WHEN YOU WERE MAKING THE CASE WHY WE SHOULD DO BUSINESS HERE.

DO YOU HAVE NUMBERS ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE VOTED IN A FRAUDULENT WAY WHO WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO VOTE THAT WAY IF THEY HAD I.D.s?

>> WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC NUMBERS.

AND WE WILL ADMIT THAT OUR RESOURCES ARE LIMITED IN TERMS OF, SHALL WE SAY COMING UP WITH EXACT NUMBERS.

BUT TO US, IT IS REALLY COMMON SENSE, THAT IF YOU CAN JUST SHOW UP AND DECLARE YOURSELF TO BE A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AND THERE IS NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM THAT YOU NEED TO VALIDATE YOUR TRUE IDENTITY, THEN THAT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR VOTER FRAUD AND THAT CAN HAPPEN.

>> Reilly: RAHSAAN, LET ME GO TO YOU.

YOU HEARD TOM IDENTIFY THE VARIOUS THINGS WE USE I.D.s FOR -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU MENTION DRIVING, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE A PHOT PHOTO I.D.

IF YEAR DRIVING.

I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T SEEN A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FROM THE MASS G.O.P.

TO RESPOND TO, BUT WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT TO BE MADE AGAINST REQUIRING A PHOTO I.D.

WHEN PEOPLE VOTE?

WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF MASSIVE FRAUD, AS TOM CLAIMS, IF WE USE PHOTO I.D.

FOR ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS, WHY NOT FOR VOTING.

>> LET ME SAY CLEARLY THE ACLU IS A NON-PARTISAN ORGANIZATION THAT IS DEDICATED TO DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS TO VOTE IN THE SPIRIT OF PROTECTING DEMOCRACY AND RACIAL EQUITY.

THIS IS NOTHING KNEW NEW THAN OLD POISON IN DIFFERENT BODIES,BOTTLES.

THE STATISTICS SHOW THE PEOPLE LESS LIKELY TO HAVE FORMS OF PHOTO IDENTIFICATION ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR, SENIOR CITIZENS, YOUNGER PEOPLE, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE NON-BINARY OR TRANSGENDER.

TO PUT FORWARD AN INITIATIVE LIKE THIS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE VOTE, WHEN THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD, IS LUDICROUS.

THEY'VE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

WHEN THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH SAYS IN THIS LAST ELECTION AND THE ELECTION BEFORE THAT, THAT THEY HAVEN'T SEEN A PROBLEM WITH VOTER FRAUD.

WHEN ANY OF THE 11 DISTRICTS OR THE ATTORNEY GENERALS HAVE NO CASES THAT THEY'VE PROSECUTED, OR FEW, IF ANY, CASES TO MR. MOUNTAIN'S CONCERN OF RESOURCES OF VOTER FRAUD, THAT SUGGESTS THAT THIS PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST.

PEOPLE HAVE A GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTNING THAN THEY HAVE OF SOMEONE SHOWING UP TO A POLLING LOCATION AND IMPERSONATING THEM TO STEAL THEIR VOTE.

WHAT A RIDICULOUS AND LABORIOUS WAY TO SAY YOU'RE SOMEONE YOU ARE NOT.

>> Reilly: TO PARAPHRASE YOU, RAHSAAN, NO EVIDENCE THAT VOTER FRAUD IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING, AND VOTER REQUIREMENT WOULD DISENFRANCHISE THE SPECIFIC GROUPS THAT HE MENTIONED, WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THOSE CONCERNS?

>> WELL, JUST IN TERMS OF DISENFRANCHISING GROUPS, ACTUALLY, WE WANT TO DO THE OPPOSITE.

WE WANT TO ENFRANCHISE EVERYONE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE NEED PEOPLE TO BE CERTIFIED THAT THEY ARE WHO THEY ARE WHEN THEY GO IN TO VOTE.

NOW, THOSE PEOPLE THAT YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, YES, THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED AND MINORITIES, NOW, SURELY THEY MUST AT SOME POINT HAVE TO PICK UP PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE, THEY HAVE TO AT SOME POINT CASH CHECKS, IN WHICH HAY NEED AN IDENTIFICATION.

SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN I.D.

FOR THOSE PERSONAL THINGS, THEN WHY NOT HAVE AN I.D.

FOR VOTING?

WHEN YOU GET ON A PLANE, YOU NEED TO SHOW AN I.D.

WHEN YOU SHOW UP -- OR WHEN YOU DRIVE A CAR, YOU NEED AN I.D.

>> BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THOSE THINGS.

VOTING IS A RIGHT.

SO WE SHOULDN'T PUT AN I.D.

REQUIREMENT ON TOP OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

>> VOTING IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF IT.

>> AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE INTEGRITY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED.

>> Reilly: JUST TO ADDRESS THAT POINT, TOM, IF YOU CAN, YOU AND I TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT THIS A MOMENT AGO, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO RAHSAAN SAYING THIS IS ALUTION TO ATHISIS A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE?

>> I WILL GET BACK TO THE ANALOGY OF THOSE WHO GO INTO A BANK AND DON'T HAVE AN I.D., HOW DO WE KNOW THEY'RE THE PERSON WHO IS CASHING A CHECK?

SOMETHING LIKE THAT PROHIBITS OR PROTECTS BANK FRAUD.

AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO PROTECT VOTER FRAUD.

WHILE WE CAN'T CITE STATISTICS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO IT, WE'RE ADDRESSING IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF COMMON SENSE.

WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO SHOW AN IDENTIFICATION WHEN THEY GO INTO VOTE.

36 STATES ALREADY HAVE IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

SOME OF THOSE STATES DO NOT HAVE PHOTO I.D., BUT WE, IN FACT, IN OUR STATE, WANT TO HAVE A PHOT OWE PHOTO I.D.

REQUIREMENT.

THIS WILL ELIMINATE ANY POTENTIAL FRAUD THAT COULD COME OR WAY.

>> Reilly: LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THIS PROPOSAL.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT IS STILL FLUID.

YOU GUYS ARE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT TO GET ON THE BALLOT.

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, YOU TOLD boston.com YOU ENVISIONED WHAT YOU TERMED A NON-STRICT LAW.

IF IT WOULD TO PASS, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GO TO A POLLING PLACE AND IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN I.D., YOU COULD VOTE AS LONG AS YOU SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT SAYING YOU WERE WHO YOU ARE.

AND YOU TALKED ABOUT GETTING PEOPLE I.D.

FOR FREE, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> Reilly: NO CHARGE?

>> YES.

THAT WOULD BE FROM EITHER THE STATE OR THE MUNICIPAL AGENCY OR THE CITY OR TOWN IN WHICH YOU LIVE, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU AN I.D., WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE.

IF YOU'RE IN AN ACCIDENT AND YOU FALL ON YOUR FACE ON A SIDEWALK AND YOU DON'T HAVE AN I.D., HOW IN THE WORLD ARE PEOPLE GOING TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE?

YOU NEED AN I.D.

IN ORDER TO VOTE, TO GET IN THE VOTING BOOTH.

AND YES, UNDER THE RAREST OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WOULD HAVE PEOPLE SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE LYING, YOU'RE GOING TO GET IN A LOT OF TROUBLE, AND HOPEFULLY END UP IN JAIL.

>> YEAH, THAT'S CURRENTLY THE STATE OF THE LAW IN MASSACHUSETTS, ACCEPT THERE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.

BUT WE HAVE A IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS WHERE THEY HAVE TO SHOW A PHONE BILL OR UTILITY BILL IN THE ADDRESS WHERE THEY VOTE.

AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE THAT, THEY SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT OF CURRENT AND CONTINUOUS RESIDENCE.

LET'S NOT CREATE A SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS THAT DON'T EXIST.

>> Reilly: RAHSAAN, LET ME TALK ABOUT THAT.

IN MY EXPERIENCE, I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WALK INTO A VOTING PLACE AND SAY, I'M ADAM REILLY, FROM THIS PARTICULAR ADDRESS, AND IN I GO, WITHOUT HAVING A PHONE BILL OR SOMETHING.

IS IT NOT SUPPOSED TO WORK THAT WAY?

>> IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK THAT WAY.

PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO THEIR POLLING LOCATION AND CAST A BALLOT.

IN AN INSTANCE WHERE SOMEBODY'S NAME IS ON THE INACTIVE LIST, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE STEPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN WHERE THERE IS A REQUEST TO SIGN THIS TYPE OF AFFIDAVIT.

>> Reilly: I'M GLAD I DIDN'T JUST RAT OUT OVERLY GENEROUS POLL WORKERS IN MY HOME TOWN.

THANK YOU.

>> THAT IS RELYING ON THE HONOR SYSTEM, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

BRINGING IN A UTILITY BILL OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT IS ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT THERE COULD BE SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE HOUSEHOLD, AND BRINGING IN A UTILITY BILL FROM A PARTICULAR ADDRESS IS, FRANKLY, NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

WE NEED EXACT VALIDATION THAT THE PERSON WHO SAYS THEY ARE THE PERSON VOTING IS THE PERSON WHO IS VOTING.

WHICH IS WHY WE NEED A VALID, PREFERABLY GOVERNMENT-ISSUED I.D.

IN THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COLLEGE KIDS COMING IN FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE WOULD ACCEPT THAT, OR AN EMPLOYEE I.D., BUT, STILL, THE IDEAL ONE IS TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT-ISSUED I.D., AND AS A REPUBLICAN, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT ISSUING ANYTHING, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE WOULD MAKE THE EXCEPTION AND STRESS A GOVERNMENT PICTURE I.D.

FOR THE PERSON WHO IS VOTING IN THAT PARTICULAR ELECTION.

>> Reilly: MANY OF OUR VIEWERS WILL BE AWARE OF THIS ALREADY, BUT THIS DISCUSSION IS UNFOLDING AT A TIME WHEN THE LEGISLATURE IS CONSIDERING MAKING PERMANENT SOME OF THE COVID-RELATED CHANGES, UNIVERSAL MAIL-IN VOTING, EXPANDED EARLY VOTING.

RAHSAAN, AS THE ACLU TAKEN A POSITION ON WHETHER IT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO, TO MAKE THOSE PROVISIONS PERMANENT?

>> YES, WE ARE A BIG PROPONENT OF THE VOTES ACT THAT WOULD MAKE PERMANENT THOSE CHANGES BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT DEMOCRACY WORKS BETTER WHEN EVERYONE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN CAN PARTICIPATE IN IT.

AND IT APPEARS THAT CERTAIN PARTIES WANT TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEIR VICTORY.

AND SO THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT THE MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE ENGAGED, THE BROADER THE EXPANSION THAT IS MADE FOR VOTING ACCESS, TO GET MORE PEOPLE OF COLOR, MORE HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED GROUPS, POOR PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO HAVE RECENTLY MOVED, YOUNGER PEOPLE, SENIORS, DISABLED -- IT IS BETTER THAT WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN OUR DEMOCRACY WHO WANT TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.

AND PUTTING THESE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE ONLY SERVES TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR DEMOCRACY.

>> Reilly: TOM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE MASS G.O.P.

IS NOT KEEN ON SEEING THOSE CHANGES MADE PERMANENT, CORRECT?

>> WE DON'T WANT ANY OF THOSE CHANGES IMPLEMENTED.

THAT WOULD ENTAIL MASSIVE MAIL-IN VOTING.

WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IS WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE 1780, WHEN JOHN ADAMS WROTE THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION, THAT INCLUDED TO HAVE IN-PERSON VOTING ON THE DAY YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO VOTE, WHICH IS USUALLY THE FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER.

YOU SHOW UP AT THE POLLS AND YOU VOTE AT THE POLLS.

BUT WE WANT IT TO BE DONE WITH AN I.D., NO MAIL-IN VOTING, ACCEPT IN THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU NEED AN ABSENTEE BALLOT, WHERE YOU'RE SERVING OVERSEAS OR ARE IN THE MILITARY.

WE WANT IT TO BE THE WAY IT HAS BEEN FOR OVER TWO AND A HALF CENTURIES IN THE COMMONWEALTH.

>> AS A BLACK MAN IN MASSACHUSETTS, I'M NOT LOOKING TO GO BACK 200 CENTURIES.

IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE THE POLL THAT SUPPORTS THIS INITIATIVE, THAT MORE AMERICANS ARE IN SUPPORT OF VOTER I.D., THAT SAME POLL SAYS MORE AMERICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF MAKING IT EASIER TO VOTE IN PERSON EARLY, BUT I DON'T SEE AN INITIATIVE COMING FROM THIS GROUP FOR THAT VOTING REFORM, EITHER.

SO IT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT WHAT THE TRUE INTENTIONS ARE.

>> Reilly: TOM, LET ME ASK YOU A CLOSING QUESTION.

I THINK WE HAVE A IMAGE OF THE MASS G.O.P.

FOR THIS VOTER I.D.

INITIATIVE: SECURE OUR ELECTIONS, SAVE AMERICA, DEMAND VOTER I.D.

AS YOU SEE IT AND YOUR COLLEAGUES AT THE MASS G.O.P., WHO WOULD THIS SAVE -- OR WHAT WOULD THIS SAVE AMERICA FROM?

>> IT WOULD ENSURE VOTER INTEGRITY.

IT WOULD SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY IN TERMS OF ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.

THERE WOULD BE NO DEBATE, OR RATHER ARGUMENT, THAT THERE WAS ANY TYPE OF FRAUDULENT VOTER OR VOTER INDISCRETIONS.

AND IT WOULD PUT THE MATTER TO REST THAT THERE COULD BE FRAUD IN CURRENT OR FUTURE ELECTIONS BECAUSE EVERYONE WOULD HAVE AN I.D.

>> Reilly: GOTCHA.

>> AND WE COULD VALIDATE THEY ARE THE PERSON THEY SAY THEY ARE.

>> Reilly: TOM MOUNTAIN, RAHSAAN HALL, THANK YOU BOTH FOR MAKING THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Reilly: NEXT UP, WHILE HIS SUPPORTERS TARGET THE ELECTORIAL SYSTEM IN HIS NAME, DONALD TRUMP IS GOING AFTER BIG TECH AND SOCIAL MEDIA IN THEIRS.

THE FORMER PRESIDENT JUST FILED CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS AGAINST Facebook, GOOGLE, AND TWITTER, CLAIMING THE SITES DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CONSERVATIVES.

>> WE'RE DEMANDING AN END TO THE SHADOW-BANNING, A STOP TO THE SILENCING, AND A STOP TO THE BLACKLISTING, BANISHING, AND CANCELING THAT YOU KNOW SO WELL.

OUR CASE WILL PROVE THIS CENSORSHIP IS UNLAWFUL, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND IT'S COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN.

>> Reilly: THOUGH TRUMP AND SOME OF HIS SUPPORTERS HAVE BEEN BANNED OR SUSPENDED FOR VIOLATING THE TERMS OF SITES LIKE Facebook AND TWITTER, SEVERAL STUDIES, INCLUDING A RECENT ONE FROM N.Y.U., HAVE FOUND THAT NOT ONLY IS THE CLAIM THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSOR CONSERVATIVES UNFOUNDED, BUT RIGHT-LEANING SITES LIKE FOX NEWS AND BREITBART CONSISTENTLY OUTPERFORM MAINSTREAM NEWS OUTLETS ON Facebook.

SO DOES THIS SUIT ACTUALLY STAND A CHANCE?

AND HOW MUCH WORK DO GOOGLE, Facebook, AND TWITTER STILL HAVE TO DO WHEN IT COMES TO EFFECTIVELY REGULATING DANGEROUS SPEECH?

I'M JOINED NOW BY JOAN DONOVAN, THE RESEARCH DIRECTOR OF HARVARD'S SHORENSTEIN CENTER ON MEDIA, POLITICS, AND PUBLIC POLICY AND THE HEAD OF THE GROUP'S TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL CHANGE PROJECT, AND JOANNA WEISS, EDITOR IN CHIEF OF NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY'S "EXPERIENCE" MAGAZINE.

>> Reilly: THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Reilly: JOANNA, AS YOU SEE IT, IS THIS SERIOUS LITIGATION FROM THE PRESIDENT OR A POLITICAL STUNT?

>> YOU KNOW, EVERY COMMENT I'VE READ BY ANYONE WHO IS A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER SAYS NO.

SAYS, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED SPEECH.

THESE ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES, AND ANY TIME YOU SIGN UP FOR A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM, YOU HAVE TO CHECK OFF THAT VERY, VERY LONG LIST OF TERMS OF SERVICE THAT NOBODY READS BUT THEY GRANT THESE COMPANIES THE RIGHT TO MODERATE THE CONTENT ON THEIR WEBSITES AS THEY SEE FIT.

SO THERE IS JUST NO LEGAL CASE FOR -- THAT THIS LAWSUIT SERVES.

HOWEVER, IT IS AN AMAZING PUBLIC RELATIONS STRATEGY BECAUSE ONCE DONALD TRUMP GOT OFF TWITTER, HE WAS LARGELY SILENCED.

THAT WAS THE METHOD HE USED TO BYPASS THE PRESS.

NOW HE HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PRESS.

AND WHEN YOU FILE A LAWSUIT, LO AND BEHOLD, THE PRESS PAYS ATTENTION TO YOU.

>> Reilly: VERY CRAFTY.

JOAN, PRESIDENT TRUMP CLEARLY LOVES TO PLAY THE VICTIM CARD.

HE TALKED ALL OF THE TIME DURING HIS PRESIDENCY, AFTER HIS PRECEDES PRESIDENCY HOW HORRIBLY HE HAS BEEN TREATED, HOW NO ONE HAS BEEN OR EVER WILL BE TREATED AS BADLY AS HE HAS BEEN.

ETC.

DO YOU THINK THERE IS EVEN A KERNEL OF MERIT TO HIS CRITIQUE?

>> SUBSTANTIVELY, NOBODY WANTS THESE COMPANIES TO HAVE THIS MUCH CONTROL.

NOBODY WANTS THEM TO HAVE SUCH CONSOLIDATED POWER THAT, LET'S TAKE FOR INSTANCE, MAYBE THEY WEREN'T BENEVOLENT.

MAYBE THEY WERE THE C.E.O.

OF WHAT WE CALL OTHER FRINGE PLATFORMS THAT BOTH ALLOW EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING TO GO THROUGH, AND ALSO PROMOTE HATE SPEECH, WHITE SUPREMACIST CONTENT.

SO THERE IS A VERY SINCERE PROBLEM THAT LIES AT THE HEART OF THE ISSUE, WHICH IS THAT THESE COMPANIES SCALED VERY QUICKLY.

THEY HAVE ENORMOUS POWER.

AND THEY DO CONTROL, BY AND LARGE, THE FLOW OF INFORMATION.

AND WHAT'S ASTOUNDING IS ESSENTIALLY THAT SOMEONE WITH SO MUCH POWER, LIKE THE FORMER PRESIDENT, THAT THEY WOULD -- THAT THESE COMPANIES WOULD HAVE TO, BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE CAPITOL INSURRECTION PLAYED OUT -- THAT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO SHUT OFF HIS ACCOUNT.

SO, NO, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT BEING VICTIMIZED, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR SOCIAL MEDIA, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF THE WAY IN WHICH THEY CONTROL MUCH OF WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE LATES CIRCULATES ONLINE.

>> Reilly: DO ANY OF THE BIG-TECH COMPANIES DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES BY DOING A RELATIVELY ENLIGHTENED JOB OF MODERATING CONTENT, EXERCISING RESTRAINT WHILE AT THE SAME TIME WEEDING OUT BAD SPEECH?

I FELT LIKE TWITTER LAST FALL WAS MAKING UP AS THEY WENT ALONG.

I STILL MARVEL AT MARX MARK ZUCKERBERG SAYING HE DIDN'T THINK HOLOCAUST DENIERS DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE WRONG.

BIKERS SOME OF>> YOU DON'T SEE AS MUCH OF THIS STUFF ON TWITCH OR PINTEREST BECAUSE THEY THINK ABOUT -- IF YOU'RE A GAMER AND YOU'RE ON TWITCH, THERE IS A CERTAIN SET OF RULES, AND YOU KNOW WHAT IS TO ONE SIDE AND WHAT IS TO THE OTHER.

PINTEREST MADE A VERY CLEAR LINE ABOUT VACCINE INFORMATION, EVEN INFORMATION ABOUT VACCINES YOU DON'T GET A SEARCH RETURN IF YOU TYPE IN THE WORD "VACCINE" BECAUSE THEY HAD TARGETED BY ANTI-VACCINATION ACTIVISTS EVEN BEFORE COVID.

SO IT IS POSSIBLE -- REDDIT, AS WELL, HAS PUT TOGETHER A BUNCH OF COMMUNITY MODERATION SYSTEMS, BUT THE PROBLEM IS NONE OF THOSE SYSTEMS SCALE.

AND Facebook, YouTube, AND TWITTER ARE OBSESSED WITH SCALE.

AND AS A RESULT, MANY, MANY THINGS FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS.

AND IT TAKES SOMETIMES RESEARCHERS, JOURNALISTS, ADVOCATES, EVERY ONE OF US RINGING THE ALARM BELL TRYING TO GET SOMETHING TO HAPPEN.

AND IN SOME CASES NOTHING DOES, AND THAT REALLY IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE CASE OF THE CAPITOL INSURRECTION.

WE WERE ALL SAYING THERE IS BLATENT CALLS TO VIOLENCE ACROSS THESE PLATFORMS.

EVEN PARLOR TRIED TO NOTIFY THE GOVERNMENT THAT THEY WERE SEEING VIOLENT CALLS TO ACTION.

BUT THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON WHERE WE DON'T ACTUALLY TAKE SERIOUSLY THINGS THAT ARE SAID ONLINE.

IT IS SEEN AS AN INFERIOR FORM OF SPEECH, LOW CULTURE, POSSIBLY -- >> Reilly: AS OPPOSED TO A GENUINE INDICATOR OF WHAT PEOPLE, IN FACT, ARE THINKING AND PLANNING TO DO?

>> YEAH.

>> Reilly: SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING.

LET ME GO TO JOANNA AND COME BACK TO YOU.

I WANT TO HEAR FROM BOTH OF YOU ON THIS.

THE AD OR THE VIDEO THAT ACCOMPANIED THE PRESIDENT'S LAWSUIT ANNOUNCEMENT, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT.

I WANT YOU TO SIZE IT UP, JOANNA, AND THEN YOU, JOAN.

>> WE'RE AT A CROSSROADS IN THIS NATION, EITHER WE ACCEPT OUR NEW FATE, IN WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS TO BE AMENDED, OR WE STAND FIRM.

BIG GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR SPEECH.

OUR CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE DEFENDED, AND NOW IT WILL BE.

IT IS TIME TO PUT AMERICA FIRST ONCE AGAIN.

>> U.S.A.!

U.S.A.!

U.S.A.!

>> Reilly: JOANNA, WHAT STRIKES YOU ABOUT THAT SPOT?

>> WELL, TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT JOAN SAID EARLIER, IT IS A BIPARTISAN ISSUE THAT THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT THE POWER THAT THESE TECH COMPANIES HAVE AND THE DECISION-MAKING POWER THAT RESTS WITH SUCH A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

HOWEVER, THIS HAS BEEN EXPLOITED VERY MUCH AS A PARTISAN ISSUE.

IN ADDITION TO BEING ABLE TO GET ATTENTION FOR THIS LAWSUIT, DONALD TRUMP IS USING THIS AS A FUNDRAISING OPPORTUNITY.

THE FUNDRAISING CALLS WENT OUT AS SOON AS THE PRESS CONFERENCE WAS OVER.

IT IS A R & R VERY ROBUST WAY TO TAP INTO A G.O.P.

BASE THAT HAS BEEN VERY MUCH AGGRIEVED.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA, IT IS FULL OF CONCERNS ABOUT CANCEL CULTURE.

IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS PEOPLE FROM THE LEFT CONTROLLING THE MEDIA, TRYING TO SILENCE RIGHT-WING THOUGHT OF ANY KIND.

AND SO YOU'RE TAPPING -- THAT VIDEO TAPS INTO A FEELING THAT IS OUT THERE THAT PEOPLE'S SPEECH ON EVERY LEVEL IS BEING SUPPRESSED IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH AN ORTHODOXY THAT IS CONTROLLED BY THE LEFT.

THAT'S THE NARRATIVE THAT THIS FEEDS INTO.

>> Reilly: JOAN DONOVAN, DO YOU MAKE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL OF THAT VIDEO, OR IS IT PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, LET'S TAKE A GENUINE ISSUE OF BIPARTISAN CONCERN AND TURN IT INTO A NARROW WAR, PARTISAN CALL TO ACTION?

>> IT IS A CALL TO ACTION.

IT IS CERTAINLY A FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN, AND IT IS TYPICAL OF CONSERVATIVES OF THIS DAY TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW THESE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES ARE TAKING ACTION ON THEM.

BUT THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE CONTENT AND THE SUBSTANCE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BECOMES CONCERNING ABOUT US GETTING WRAPPED UP IN THIS CONVERSATION IS WE ALSO HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE ELECTION USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO BYPASS PRESS AND OTHER KINDS OF LEGITIMATE FORMS OF CRITICISM AND GATE KEEPING THAT WE'VE COME TO KNOW AND RESPECT FROM YOUR INSTITUTIONS.

AND BY IGNORING THAT, WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONS -- 70 SOME ODD MILLION PEOPLE THAT HE WAS TRYING TO TAKE THE ELECTION AWAY FROM, RIGHT?

AND WHAT THEY'RE REALLY, YOU KNOW, AT THIS STAGE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT, NOT JUST CANCEL CULTURE AND CRITICAL RACE THEORY, BUT THE RISE OF A MULTI-RACIAL DEMOCRACY.

THE U.S. IS CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICALLY, IT IS CHANGING IN TERMS OF ITS SET OF CORE VALUES.

AND THE WAY IN WHICH FREE SPEECH IS USED AS A COGJIL, IF WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY'S CONTEXT, WE WOULD BE SAYING THAT PRESIDENT IN THAT OTHER COUNTRY TRIED TO OVER THROW AN ELECTION BY CALLING FOR A VERY WILD PROTEST ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

AND AS PEOPLE WERE STORMING THE CAPITOL DURING THE ELECTION CERTIFICATION AND BEATING TO DEATH OFFICERS, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE CALLED OPPRESSION, RIGHT?

SO THIS CAMPAIGN AND THIS STUNT OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES I THINK IS INDICATIVE OF A LONG-TERM STRATEGY THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHERE ONE OF THE MAIN OUTCOMES OF THIS IS WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT HOW DO THESE TECH COMPANIES ADAPT?

HOW DO THEY ANSWER?

DO THEY, IN FACT -- Facebook MAY, IN FACT, REINSTATE PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THEY STILL HAVEN'T REALLY DEFINITIVELY SAID THEY WEREN'T GOING TO.

IT MIGHT HAVE OTHER KINDS OF EFFECTS IN THE LONG RUN.

>> Reilly: GO AHEAD, JOANNA.

>> READING THAT VIDEO, IT IS REALLY INTERESTING THE WAY IT TRIES TO CO OPT PATRIOTISM, ALL OF THAT FLAG WAVING AND THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE CONSTITUTION COULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM US -- IT IS CO-OPTING THE WHOLE IDEA OF PATRIOTISM FOR THIS VERY PARTISAN PURPOSE, AND THAT'S, AGAIN, PART OF THE VERY CLEVER MESSAGING BEHIND THIS STRATEGY, WELL BEYOND THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OF THE LAWSUIT.

>> Reilly: DOWN TO THE CHANTS OF U.S.A. AS THE SPOT CLOSES.

THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Reilly: THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT.

WE'LL BE BACK NEXT WEEK.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

♪♪ Captioned by Media Access Group at WGBH access.wgbh.org