Ashley Baker, director of public policy at the Committee for Justice, meanwhile argued that antitrust “shouldn’t be weaponized to correct problems that have nothing to do with competition law.” “Very little of the hearing was focused on antitrust, but was rather a mishmash of unrelated concerns about technology and tech companies,” Baker told The Epoch Times. “That’s not to say that all of these concerns are invalid, but they are not antitrust problems.” In a letter for the record on the hearing, Baker and other conservative and free-market leaders argued that “weaponizing antitrust for broader socioeconomic purposes would fundamentally alter the primary goal of antitrust, undermine the rule of law, and negatively impact consumers.”
Several conservative groups are concerned that the right’s fury at Big Tech was channeled improperly toward support for antitrust enforcement and want to steer it toward different policy goals. More than a dozen conservative groups formed a new “Alliance on Antitrust” to dampen the populist antitrust movement’s momentum.
The Alliance on Antitrust officially launches today, the same day the CEOs of Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook are set to testify in a major antitrust hearing. The new group brings together more than a dozen right-of-center groups and individuals and is spearheaded by the Committee for Justice, a Republican group that promotes conservative judicial nominees.
Curt Levey, who heads the conservative Committee for Justice, said Monday’s decision in the LGBT case firmly establishes Roberts as “a moderate at best.” One silver lining of the fact that both Gorsuch and Roberts joined the liberals, he said, is that it works against Democrats who might in the future claim “this is a right-wing court.”
Only Congress can remove 230, so the EO empowers the administrative state, said Committee for Justice Director-Public Policy Ashley Baker. “It’s also notable that it does so by asking the NTIA to direct the FCC to make rules,” she said. “Since the FCC is an independent agency, the president cannot directly order it to do this.”
Curt Levey, president of the limited government nonprofit Committee for Justice, said fact-checking becomes a “no-win situation” for social media companies if they face legal challenges for their decisions. “We don’t know what the 230 landscape is going to look like years from now,” he said. “The safest thing to do would be to stop fact-checking. No one is going to sue you for not fact-checking...”
Curt Levey — president of the Committee for Justice, a nonprofit group promoting limited government and judicial nominations — said that the executive order itself has 'limited teeth' regarding Section 230, since it requests the independent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adjust their interpretations of Section 230. Still, if the FTC were to take some action at Trump’s request, that would “surely be challenged” in the courts, he said.
On Thursday, May 21, at 1:00 p.m. EDT, the Committee for Justice will host a virtual panel on Justice Clarence Thomas and the interplay between his early life and judicial philosophy, in time for this week’s national TV release of the documentary “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words.” Committee for Justice President Curt Levey will moderate the discussion, led by Erik Jaffe of Schaerr Jaffe, Ralph Rossum of Claremont McKenna College and Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network.