▶ 0:22:34And you guys are ready to go.
▶ 0:22:42Committee will come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Europe's threat to American speech and innovation. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama to lead us in the pledge of I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.
▶ 0:23:08One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. The chair is now recognized uh for an opening statement. Uh then we will move to our u uh to the ranking members opening statement. Then our witnesses will get five minutes. I want to just take an opportunity maybe before I even do an opening statement to welcome everyone back. Hope everyone had a good break. Uh the ranking member and I along with a few other members, Mr.
▶ 0:23:38Kylie, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Rehea, I think Mr. Mr. Swallwell and Miss Crockett all had a wonderful visit to and Mr. Cohen to uh to Europe where we talked about this issue and uh we learned some I think some valuable information then. So we look forward to today's hearing and hearing from our witnesses. But first you got to listen to the chairman of the ranking member uh talk. On August 12th of last year, Terry Bratton wrote Elon Musk a letter. Terry Bhan's the commissioner in charge of enforcement of the digital services act and the digital marketing act.
▶ 0:24:07In the very first the guy in charge of enforcing this legislation passed by the EU writes this. Dear Mr. Musk, I am writing to you in the context of recent events in the United Kingdom and in relation to the planned broadcast on your platform X of a live conversation between a US presidential candidate and yourself. So, think about it.
▶ 0:24:31The guy in Europe in charge of enforcing a European Union law writes an American about an American company about an American election. And he says the context for the letter, the reason for the letter are events that are happening in the UK, a non-European Union country. That's not Europe trying to influence what happens here. I don't know what is. He goes on throughout the letter and says this, measures need to be taken to combat disinformation. He said this to the to to Mr. Musk.
▶ 0:25:00We're concerned about any quote illegal content you may have. And he ends his letter, he ends his letter by saying, "My services and I," very last sentence, "my services and I will be extremely vigilant to any evidence that points to breaches of the digital services act and will not hesitate to make full use of our tool uh toolbox." So, he ends the letter with a threat.
▶ 0:25:22So before the interview even takes place, he's an American running an American company about an interview regarding the most important election we have, election of president of the United States. And again saying the reason for doing so are events that are happening in a non-European Union country, the UK. Comments about events happening in the UK. Concerned about this quote spillover effect. That is why we're having today's hearing. That's why we went to to Europe last month or actually in July to study this issue.
▶ 0:25:52Now here's what's interesting. Mr. Bratton after he sends this letter we the this committee sent him two letters and then he suddenly resigns. We asked him to come today but he refused to come. We asked him to send written testimony. He refused to do that. We asked him to pure he refused. He just wouldn't come. I think it's important to remember what the House Judiciary Committee did last Congress. We investigated our government, the Biden administration, their attacks on free expression here in the United States.
▶ 0:26:22What Michael Shelonburgger called, journalists called the censorship industrial complex. Big government, big tech, big media, big academia, all working together to censor Americans. And we learned all kinds of things in that investigation. We learned on April 27th of 2022 that the Biden administration had established a disinformation governance board. That's right.
▶ 0:26:46Bunch of bureaucrats going to get together and tell you what you can say, what you can tweet, what you can post, what you can read, what's misinformation, what's dis disinformation. And the new term they come up, what's malinformation. Thank goodness because many of us raised concerns about that. They disbanded that disinformation governance board. We no longer had that. We heard from like Mr. Shelonburgger, like Matt Taibbe regarding the Twitter files. We heard from Tulsi Gabbard. We heard from RFK Jr. all Democrats, frankly.
▶ 0:27:16In fact, I took some heat for that. What are you doing bringing Democrats in front of the district, we we brought him in because they care about the First Amendment. It was interesting when RFK Jr. came in to testify. The Democrats actually made a motion to go to executive session. Kick everyone out. No journalist, no one was allowed. They they wanted to kick everyone out, go to executive session so no one could hear what RFK Jr. was going to testify to in a hearing on You can't make this stuff up. We learned that on January 23rd.
▶ 0:27:47Oh, think about that, by the way. They Well, we learned on January 23rd, 2021. Maybe point this one out first. That there was an email. So, the third day of the Biden administration, there was an email sent from the White House to Twitter which said, "Take down this tweet ASAP." And who who had issued the tweet? Who had put out the tweet? RFK Jr.
▶ 0:28:09So you had the Biden administration trying to censor a fellow Democrat who was going to run against him in the Democrat I mean that is and everything in that tweet actually were were true So we learned all that last year and of course our investigation culminated with a letter from Mr. Zuckerberg on August 26, 2024 last year where he said, "Yes, the Biden administration pressured us to censor. We did it. we're sorry and we won't do it again.
▶ 0:28:38In meta, Facebook has now subsequently changed policy. They now go to the community notes policy instead of the quote independent fact checker approach that was being used before. We had one other witness last Congress, journalist from Canada, Rupa Zupramana, who I thought said something that was that was really important. She said, "Free speech is a core value of Western culture." And that is true. And that's what our concern is.
▶ 0:29:08We're concerned about the attacks on free expression in Europe, the censorship, the arrest for offensive post, the chilling effect it all has on speech. But we're more concerned, frankly, as Americans, about the limits the DSA, the online safety act in the UK put on Americans First Amendment rights and the shakeddown, and I think that's the appropriate term, the shakedown of American tech companies under the DSA, the OSA, and the Digital Marketing Act in
▶ 0:29:38uh digital markets act in in uh the European Union. These acts target our tech companies that provide the modern town square and they are the engines of innovation in our global economy. Since the turn of the century, European tech companies have languished behind their American counterparts. European governments have tried everything to change this except what might actually work. Deregulating their own economy and letting free enterp enter enterprise flourish.
▶ 0:30:07Instead of cutting red tape and allowing their own companies to innovate and grow, the EU and the UK are going after American companies that have grown to dominate the global tech landscape. Regulations like the EU's Digital Markets Act and the UK's Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act impose burdensome requirements on US tech companies while leaving their European counterparts untouched. But these attacks on American companies won't result in a so-called European champion.
▶ 0:30:36Instead, China wins as Europe hurts both itself and America. They make the user experience worse. They distort the digital marketplace by allowing less innovative and less efficient foreign companies uh foreign competitors to simply steal from US tech companies. In addition to attacking American tech companies, Europe is attacking free speech around the world, including here in America.
▶ 0:30:58Laws like the digital services act, the online safety act are the engines of global censorship regime targeting political speech disfavored by European bureaucrats. The censorship mechanism is simple. The DSA and the OSA effectively require social media platforms to change their terms of service to moderate more content.
▶ 0:31:19These companies have one set of standards that they apply globally because it's costly, impractical, and harmful to user privacy to change content moderation rules based on a user's location. So when platforms are for forced to change their terms of service to comply with European laws, it affects what we see, what we read, what we say online here in America, infringing on Americans First Amendment rights. And this is no accident.
▶ 0:31:46Even the New York Times, the Atlantic have acknowledged that these foreign censorship laws are intended to have global impact. And European actions have proven it. Again, just look at Mr. Bratton's letter. Supporters say these laws make the online environment safer for children, something that we all agree with. We all want to protect kids. But censorship laws are never about disinformation or child safety or anything else. They're always about censoring criticism of the government.
▶ 0:32:12Social media is a relatively new technology, but censorship is as old as time. Misinformation, disinformation, hate speech labels are always used by the people in power to censor their critics. In my experience has taught me that today's misinformation is tomorrow's truth. And we have seen it time and time again. I always like to point out everything the government told us about CO turned out to be wrong. Everything our government told us about CO, I'm not even talking about Europe here. everything.
▶ 0:32:42They told us that the virus didn't come from a lab. Sure looks like it did. They told us it wasn't gain of function research done at the lab. Yes, it was. They told us it wasn't our tax money used at the lab. Yes, it was. They told us vaccines uh they told us that the vaccinated can't get it. They told us the vaccinated can't transmit it. They told us mass work. They told us six feet social distance was based on science. And they told us this was the first virus in history where there's no such thing as natural immunity. They were 0 for8.
▶ 0:33:10And yet they're going to define with some disinformation governance board what we can say, what we can tweet, what we can read, what we can post. You got to be kidding me. As RFK Jr. testified before our never forgot what he said. He said, "When you look at history, when you look at history, it is never the good guys who are for censorship. It is always the bad guys." And that's our concern. We need debate. The best way to answer bad speech, wrong speech, stupid speech, crazy speech, even hate speech, is more speech. We need the first amendment.
▶ 0:33:40Our committee will continue to move legislation that protects free speech from threats, including threats from abroad. And with that, I now recognize our ranking member for his opening Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our witnesses.
▶ 0:33:54I imagine that in a hearing about threats to freedom of speech abroad, we might hear from a Russian dissident about Putin's massive violations of political freedom or the death of Alexi Noni in prison or perhaps a Chinese pro-democracy activist about President Xi's attacks on free speech in Hong Kong, Tibet, Shing Jang, or the persecution trial of Jimmy Lie.
▶ 0:34:17or maybe a journalist about the Saudi crown prince's assassination of Jamal Kosigible, the Washington Post writer who demanded freedom from religious persecution and oppression in Saudi Arabia. But no, the dictators of the world have got nothing to fear from this hearing. The Republicans called it to attack our democratic allies in Europe.
▶ 0:34:38The star witness is not a human rights leader like Navoni, but a far-right proPutin politician who leads the UK Reform Party, a party that is four members out of 650 members in the parliament. He calls England an authoritarian regime while saying that Vladimir Putin is the world leader he admires the most.
▶ 0:35:05Well, this hearing mimics Vice President JD Vance, who went to the Munich Security Conference in February, in the first two minutes of his speech, whitewashed the world's leading autocratic regimes, proclaiming that the threat that worries him is not Russia. It's not China, he said, but rather it's our European allies. Amazing.
▶ 0:35:23Republicans are promoting far-right parties in Europe like Alternative for Deutseland, Reform UK and Bllemon National France and ignoring massive repression in Russia, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and among all the autocrats of the world.
▶ 0:35:40Republicans are vilifying European liberal democracies simply for engaging in the kind of line drawing exercises that we Americans engage in under our First Amendment with respect to the epidemic of child pornography, protecting children from other harmful content, defamatory speech, online scams and false advertising, and speech inciting riots and imminent lawless action.
▶ 0:36:06all forms of speech that the First Amendment does not protect and whose tricky contours must still be drawn by law. We could have a meaningful hearing on this complicated subject, but this hearing is just a driveby hit against a strong Democratic ally to benefit a Donald Trump sickant and wannabe. But it's even worse than this.
▶ 0:36:28Not only are colleagues ignoring intensifying repression in the world's dictatorships, they're also ti trying to distract the world from the attack on freedom taking place right here in America every single day. Americans aren't worried about the EU or the online safety act in the UK. We're not worried about white nationalists not having enough license to incite lynch mobs to set immigrants on fire in their bedrooms.
▶ 0:36:55Americans are worried that Donald Trump is working to rewrite and whitewash American history in our museums, our textbooks, and our national parks. To destroy PBS, NPR, and public broadcasting, to ban books in our libraries, and to censor any news stories critical of him by installing political henchmen in private broadcast rooms.
▶ 0:37:19Americans know that academic freedom is in danger when the administration cancels and withholds billions of dollars in scientific and medical research funding from American universities, even for urgent life-saving studies about breast cancer or heart attacks, as a way to force schools to impose government orthodoxy on curriculum, hiring, admissions, and any student and faculty speech that MEGA considers politically incorrect.
▶ 0:37:47Americans see Trump trying to harass, intimidate, control, and shut down the press like ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and PBS. The Republican controlled FCC essentially blackmailed media companies Sky Dance and Paramount into agreeing to install a spy, a monitor, a minder, I think the Brits might say, to police CBS news programs to make sure that they are being sufficiently Trumpy in
▶ 0:38:18giving us the news in order to get approval of a merger from FCC. Meanwhile, Trump sued 60 Minutes and CBS personally for $20 billion for the frivolous cause of action that he thought an interview with Kla Harris was edited too favorably and then walked away with a cool $16 million in a shakedown settlement for his library. All part of a now familiar pattern.
▶ 0:38:45When Trump doesn't like the news, he sues the broadcaster and unleashes the FCC on them until they pay up and agree to a government spy stationed in their office. Free speech is so much in danger in the US today that if the government tries to violate our rights, we might not even be able to find a lawyer to defend ourselves because Trump is systematically exacting retribution against law firms that represent anyone on the other side of a case against him.
▶ 0:39:16Look, our country loves free speech. We fight for free speech. We fought for free speech. And we know it's in danger when students who are lawfully in the United States are taken off the street and and arrested without warrants by masked federal agents in unmarked cars for writing an article or attending a rally that Steven Miller doesn't like. Free speech is in danger when visitors to our country have their social media accounts screened at the border for any criticism of Donald Trump.
▶ 0:39:46Free speech is in danger when to kill a mockingb bird. The Handmaid's Tale, 1984, and The Kiterunner are banned from our schools and libraries across the country. And even families defending our freedom abroad have to fight for their kids' right to read freely in public schools run by the Department of Defense. Freedom's in danger when the administration tramples the civil service rights of hundreds of thousands of nonpartisan expert civil servants.
▶ 0:40:15These civil servants have been protected against political discrimination for more than a century to maintain the excellence and independence of our federal workforce. But they're now being fired simply for doing their jobs, like prosecuting violent criminals and insurrectionists who try to overthrow our government and attack our police officers or because they honestly gave honest economic information and labor statistics to the public.
▶ 0:40:41These honorable civil servants are being fired because they won't be the political hacks Trump demands that they be. When private comments made by federal employees are scrutinized for anti-Trump bias and they can lose their jobs because of it, then we've entered the realm not just of Vladimir Putin, but of Joseph Stalin. Now, Mr. Trump and Mr. Farage both claim they're protectors of free speech, but they only want to protect speech they agree with. In the UK, Mr.
▶ 0:41:08Farage is openly promoting the abolition of the human rights act of 1998 to be replaced with a British bill of rights that limits the right of speech. Free speech to British citizens and legally sanctioned residents. He complains that racist threats against immigrants are not protected free speech while he proposes to strip migrants, tourists, and perhaps even visiting American Congress people of any free speech rights at all. I had my own close encounter with that when Mr.
▶ 0:41:37Raj and his team presented for more than an hour in a conversation we had about free speech and after 3 minutes of talking uh he cut me off and terminated the meeting because he didn't like what I was saying. That's the kind of free speech he's committed to. There is a free speech crisis in America today. But there's no free speech crisis in Britain. UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer has not shut down GB News where Mr. Farage has his own show just because Mr.
▶ 0:42:03Faraj has used his airtime to call for banning peaceful protests that he disagrees with. No one has stopped him from going on Russian TV 17 times and saying also and repeating that the one world political leader he most admired was Vladimir Putin. Even though Vladimir Putin is a war criminal and a dictator who has regularly interfered in other countries democratic elections, no one has stopped Mr.
▶ 0:42:30Fraj from paring Putin's absurd talking points like when Farage claimed that NATO, the US and Britain provoked this war in Ukraine. For a man who fashions himself as some kind of a free speech martyr, Mr. Farage seems most at home with the autocrats and dictators of the world who are crushing freedom on earth. Mr. wants to get rid of the online safety act in his country.
▶ 0:42:54A law shepherded by the conservative party and implemented by the Labor Party which bans child pornography online, protects children from harmful content, forbids non-consensual pornography and other unlawful content. He should go and advance the positions he's taking here in Congress today in Parliament, which is meeting today if he's serious about it.
▶ 0:43:15To the people of UK who think this Putinloving free speech impostor and Trump's sickopant will protect freedom in your country, come on over to America and see what Trump and MAGA are doing to destroy our freedom.
▶ 0:43:29Kidnap college students off the street, ban books from our libraries, militarize our police and unleash them against our communities, take over our universities, wreck our professional civil service, and turn the government into a money-making machine for Trump and his family. You might twink think twice before you let Mr. Farage make Britain great again. I yield back.
▶ 0:43:55Uh the gentleman yields back. I I would just point out that uh the encounter that the ranking member had with Mr. Farage was a little different at my my recollection than than how it was described. And I would also point out that the the gentleman alleges there's no free speech in America under President Trump while his staff member is holding up countless number of articles criticizing the Trump administration. Uh I think that's uh a little bit of a well let's let's say that's not not how I think it actually goes. So uh we now will introduce today's witnesses.
▶ 0:44:23Uh we will start with the right honorable Nigel Farage. Mr. Fra is a member of parliament from Clactton and the leader of the reform UK party. He is also a television host and was a leading proponent of the Brexit uh campaign. Mr. Lurin Price is an attorney with the ADF International, a nonprofit organization that works to protect religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life before joining ADF International. He was an attorney in Ireland. Mr. Morgan Reid is the president of the App Association, a trade association comp uh comprised of app developers and connected device manufacturers.
▶ 0:44:54He routinely testifies before Congress on matters of interest to his members, including artificial intelligence, competition, and other issues. And we have Professor David Kay. Mr. Kay is a clinical professor of law at the UC Irvine School of Law. Professor Kay previously served as the United States special repured of opinion and expression. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing today. Will we begin by swearing you in? Would you all please rise and raise your right hand?
▶ 0:45:23Do you swear or affirm under penalty or of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief? So help you God. Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. You can uh Thank you. Please be seated. Uh please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. Uh I think we'll just go down the down the line and we will we will start with uh Mr. Reid, then Mr. Price, Mr.
▶ 0:45:52Farage, and then Professor K. So, um, Mr. Reid, you're recognized. Five minutes.
▶ 0:45:57My name is Morgan Reid, and I'm the president of ACT, the app association. Our members are small and medium-sized tech companies from your districts and around the world. We build and sell the apps and the products you love. If you're scheduling a haircut, tracking your productivity at work, or using online tools to train your employees, it's likely one of my members made that happen. I'm here to tell you that our European members are just as good, just as smart, and just as entrepreneurial as our American members.
▶ 0:46:23Whether it's Clement Savage in France, Mitchell Vulcring in the Netherlands, or Mark Thomas in the UK, their companies are busy trying to change the world. The difference between them and our American members can be seen in the ever growing wall of exanti-regulation and compliance requirements from an EU government that is constantly asking how government can be more involved rather than less. Unfortunately, the DMA is a perfect encapsulation of the problem. Ostensibly, it exists to make it easier for EU companies to compete with the US tech lead.
▶ 0:46:53Instead, it just creates leadership in red tape. Small companies find value in the bigger platforms for three boring and absolutely vital reasons. They need to offload overhead, have access to a global market, and have customer trust. Because small businesses are always overworked and under demand. For us, offloading overhead is critical. A small business is trying to ship a product, not learn about tax laws in 160 countries.
▶ 0:47:19We don't want to sign multiple contracts with middlemen to handle shipping or web storage or send bills to dozens of different platforms, each with their own PO system. Small businesses need to focus their time on serving the customer to compete. And of course, to grow your small business, you need customers. And that means access to a global market. If your product has fewer than 100 customers in your state, that's a hobby. But a 100,000 customers worldwide, that's a business.
▶ 0:47:48Nearly every one of the DMA's designated gatekeepers are actually gateways to a global market. But you might say, Morgan, the internet itself is a global market. And we would agree, but the internet lacks one key characteristic, trust. Today, many of us take for granted the measures of keeping malware and other harmful content off of our devices and offer shop off of our shopping sites. But DMA threatens to change this by forcing companies to roll out the red carpet for bad actors.
▶ 0:48:18As a result, consumers will rationally steer away from startups and small developers they've never heard of and towards larger, more established rivals that spend millions on marketing and buy Super Bowl ads to build their brand. Don't forget who's pushing the DMA. It's companies like Spotify, Yelp, DuckDuck Go, companies you've heard of. And just in case you think I'm exaggerating, the first business to take advantage of the DMA's requirements wasn't some brilliant startup being kept down by big tech.
▶ 0:48:45It was an app called Hot Tub, a porn aggregator that can now be sideloaded and could even operate without parental controls. This is the most damaging aspect of the DMA. By forcing the gatekeepers to remove features or capabilities that would keep bad actors off your smartphone and out of your wallet, the DMA demands the world adopt a flea market model where anybody with a plastic folding table in some boxes that fell off the back of the truck are given the same access to consumers as legitimate businesses.
▶ 0:49:14For small businesses, we want the platforms to provide us with everimproving tools, features, and pricing models to make it attractive. We don't love the big platforms. We do business with them. Because without our products, their platforms aren't worth very much. Without their tools, our overhead goes up, our speed goes down, and trust goes out the window. If we have any ask of the platforms, it's for them to do more, not less.
▶ 0:49:39We want them to do more to reduce overhead, more to protect our intellectual property and do more to maintain those trust relationships. And into this ve relatively straightforward business arrangement, Europe has injected regulatory walls like the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, the Online Safety Act, our old friend GDPR, and the newest edition, the AI Act. These laws aren't there to lower friction. They are, as Terresa Rivera at the European Commission puts it, focused on creating a culture of compliance.
▶ 0:50:10That's a quote. While an ever thickening wall of overlapping regulations is exactly what compliance lawyers want, it's not what innovators want. It's not what small businesses want, and it's not what customers want. We ask you to reject the European regulatory culture and instead focus on a culture of opportunity and innovation. Small businesses never succeed if we can't beat the red tape. Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:50:37Thank you, Mr. Reid. Uh Mr. Price, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you.
▶ 0:50:42Thank you very much. Good morning, uh, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Rascin, distinguished members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Loren Price. I am a barristister and legal council for ADF International. And I'm very happy to come here today to speak to you about the perilous situation for freedom of expression in Europe and why it matters for Americans. I do this on the basis of my experience litigating in speech and religious liberty cases before the European Court of Human Rights. However, today principally I wish to address the Digital Services Act of the European Union.
▶ 0:51:10But before I do that, I'd like to set the scene briefly by telling you how bad things have become in Europe and the United Kingdom. Um, and very much building on on the remarks of the chairman because when I met some of members of the committee in Europe recently, I think that there was a genuine element of surprise and disbelief about the state of affairs in Europe. I'll give you some examples. In Finland, our client PY Raznan, a member of Parliament, is now in year five of a prosecution for simply posting a verse from scripture on Twitter.
▶ 0:51:38Our client Rose Dherty in Scotland, a 74 year old grandmother, was arrested by offering to have consensual conversations for people. Adam Smith Connor, an army veteran, was prosecuted for praying silently in his head in England. And just yesterday, you'll have seen that uh the UK police arrested a comedian and fellow Irishman, Graeme Lahan, a person I know well, for tweets about gender German pensioners are having their homes raided and are being prosecuted for insulting politicians.
▶ 0:52:07Indeed, one member of the Green Party in Germany has over 700 criminal complaints outstanding for insult. What's happening in Europe is, as Vice President Vance said on St. Valentine's Day in Munich, a serious retreat from a fundamental value, that of free speech. It's a sign that our European political elite has lost control of the narrative. And the Digital Services Act is the response to that, an increasingly desperate attempt to suppress growing public discontent. Why should this matter for Americans? Why should you be concerned?
▶ 0:52:35Because of the worldwide reach of European law, the so-called Brussels effect changes regulation in every area that thei or the European Union chooses to regulate. And now they've entered the business of regulating speech and they're very proud of the Brussels or the so-called Brussels effect when you ask them about it.
▶ 0:52:51This new EU law is essentially an anti-spech law and when you read the case law of the European Court of Justice, statements from senior officials and the provisions of the digital services act, you can see everything is there to create a digital censorship industrial complex. We see a whole structure of trusted flaggers, codes of conduct on so-called hate speech and misinformation, content moderation for so-called systemic risks.
▶ 0:53:18Much of this is hidden in bland technocratic language in the DSA, and our written submissions go into some of the problems associated with it. But it constitutes nothing more than an attempt to bring Brussels regulation of speech onto a global stage. Furthermore, when the European Union is now negotiating trade deals, including with your neighbors to the north and Canada, they insist that the digital services act is part of that. So, it's very clearly a global intent. It means that the European Union will set the global standard when it comes to speech.
▶ 0:53:46And because of the laws that I just outlined in Europe, the type of prosecutions we're seeing, it's an extremely low standard. It draws, I would suggest to you, a digital curtain where once there was an iron curtain. And US companies bear the brunt disproportionately of this. They're hijacked by the DSA to become essentially the EU's global global censorship police.
▶ 0:54:06Whether they like it or not, the DSA contains expansive powers of investigation, huge compliance costs, and crippling fines if they're fined to be non-compliant for removing so-called illegal content. Indeed, I commend your committee's report recently on showing the bias at the heart of the system. As we speak, companies are having to make a decision, an invidious decision between whether or not they defend German pensioners criticizing politicians or they comply with the European Commission and with national laws.
▶ 0:54:35We know from co censorship which is the most likely route they take. Compliance is easier and cheaper, but it is not good for speech. Indeed, yesterday I was just informed by a senior lawyer for a major US company that the Germans are prosecuting a 14-year-old boy for a mild online post. They want the identity of another post outside Germany. And they've launched criminal proceedings against US employees of this company for refusing to pass over the identity information. That's the attitude we're dealing with.
▶ 0:55:02We've seen it from Thierry Breton, from others in the European Commission. They want this censorship power and they want it globally. The digital square is one of the great gifts from the United States to the world. It has been transformative for our political discussion. But the EU wants to make itself the sheriff of the square and it's armed itself with powerful tools and there more to come unfortunately including the democracy shield.
▶ 0:55:25I agree with chair or with ranking member Rascin that it is sad when close allies and democracies do this kind of thing and we must call them out for it. We must take a stand against this new censorship wave. Democracy requires free speech. I'm looking forward to our discussion and any questions you may have.
▶ 0:55:43Thank you, Mr. Price. Uh the right honorable member of parliament Mr. Farage is recognized.
▶ 0:55:48Well, thank you very much indeed. Good morning everybody. Thank you Chairman Jordan for inviting me here today and it turns out with news in the last 48 hours to been really rather timely. I'm delighted to reacquaint with the charming Mr. Rascin. Um that was delightful testimony you gave me earlier on uh with your speech. But hey, that's fine. You can say what you like. I don't care because that's what free speech is. And in a sense, this has all been going wrong now for a couple of decades.
▶ 0:56:18We've kind of forgotten the Voltarian principles that we'll fight and defend to the death. You're right to say something that we fundamentally disagree with. That is the absolute foundation, if you think about it, of free speech, of democracy, of living in freedom. It's kind of why we fought two world wars at massive massive cost to defend that very principle for ourselves and for many many others around the country. And I I first became worried about all this with cancel culture.
▶ 0:56:47You know, the idea that we can't have this speaker go to a university because some people might be offended by what he or she have to say. It is important to note that there is not a parent in the United Kingdom, and I would guess it's the same for America too, that is not concerned about content their children as minors can find on the internet. Not a single parent that is not concerned about this.
▶ 0:57:15But at the moment, we're not finding the right solutions. I do myself begin to think that hardware might be one of the solutions that hand that laptops that handsets could be could be programmed so that many many apps and many many services simply aren't available from these devices. But what we've done is to go down the legislative route. Um and it's extraordinary that you know I come from the land of Magna Carta.
▶ 0:57:44I come from a land that gave us the mother of parliaments and it doesn't give me any great joy to be sitting in America uh and describing the really awful authoritarian situation that we have now sunk into. JD Vance did us all a service at the Munich Security Conference back in February this year. He really got this debate up and running and it's a vital one. We've run on since then. The online safety act was put in place by the last Conservative government.
▶ 0:58:13I don't doubt for a minute they're good intentions, but sometimes the road to hell is paved with those good intentions. And we are now where we are. We have a couple of very famous cases. We of course have Lucy Connelly who put out an inmperate tweet after the savage murder of those three beautiful young girls. She herself, a mother who had lost a child. It was inmperate. It was wrong. but she removed it three and a half hours later.
▶ 0:58:41Sentenced to 31 months in prison, she's now out having served 40% of the time. I wanted to bring her with me today as living proof of what can go wrong. Sadly, the restrictions that have been put on her banned her from making the trip, which is a very, very great shame.
▶ 0:58:59Uh, and we of course have the extraordinary events uh that that that we understood yesterday of uh Graeme Lin, the comedy writer, comedic writer, and he put out some tweets months ago when he was in Arizona. And months later, he arrives at Heathrow Airport to be met by five armed police. Armed police, not a big deal in the USA, a very big deal um in the United Kingdom. Five of them.
▶ 0:59:28and he was arrested and taken away for questioning. He's not even a British citizen. He's an Irish citizen. This could happen to any American man or woman that goes to Heathrow that has said things online that the British government and British police don't like. It is a potentially big threat to tech bosses, to many, many others.
▶ 0:59:51This legislation we've got will damage trade between our countries, threaten free speech across the West because of the knock-on rollout effects of this legislation from us or from the European Union. So I've come today as well to be a claxon to say to you, don't allow piece by piece this to happen here in America.
▶ 1:00:15And you would be doing us and yourselves and all freedom loving people a favor if your politicians and your businesses said to the British government, "You've simply got this wrong." At what point did we become North Korea? Well, I think the Irish comedy writer found that out two days ago at Heathrow Airport. This is a genuinely worrying, concerning and shocking situation and I thank you for the opportunity to come here today.
▶ 1:00:45Thank you, Mr. Well, well said. Thank you, Mr. Fraud. Uh, Professor K, you're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:00:50Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Rascin, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you. I ask that my written statement be entered into the record. My name is David Kay. I'm a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, where I research and teach in international law. I know something about censorship. From 2014 to 2020, I was the United Nations special reperator on freedom of opinion and expression.
▶ 1:01:19In that role, I monitored a growing global assault on free speech. Among other things, I led a landmark effort to call out China's attacks on civil society. I detailed repression of media and criticism in Putin's Russia. I condemned Iran's suppression of disscent. And I even criticized democratic governments when they sought to force platforms to take down lawful speech. That is censorship.
▶ 1:01:50violations of the human right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds guaranteed by article 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. A treaty ratified by the United States in 1992, inspired by the first amendment, it guarantees a speaker's rights and the rights of everyone to access information.
▶ 1:02:15So it pains me that the United States, the country that had my back as special reperator, the land of the first amendments make no law, now leads the charge to undermine freedom of speech and of the press. The threat is real, live, and I think shocking given our nation's historic commitments. The administration follows a well-worn path.
▶ 1:02:42A few examples, the silencing of scientists and public health officials. Just last week, the head of the CDC was fired because she would not agree to change her conclusions about vaccines. The administration has scrubbed websites that doctors and parents use to make decisions, censoring and punishing speech of visitors.
▶ 1:03:04In visa interviews and at the border, there are increasing reports of officers screening visitors according to their social media activity or detaining and deporting based on speech and op-eds and the repeated assaults on the media as we've seen attacks on public broadcasting, frivolous lawsuits against media outlets, and the decimation of Voice of America. This is the tip of an iceberg of censorship that should concern this committee and every American.
▶ 1:03:35Yet, US officials who claim to be free speech warriors are spending their time looking Now, I know of nobody who argues that EU and British laws on speech are perfect. Still, the EU Digital Services Act and the UK Online Safety Act respond to problems both sides of the aisle and Congress have found serious but have yet to address.
▶ 1:04:01The enormous, opaque, and unaccountable power of a small number of massive tech companies over our information environments. The EU answered the question of massive platform power not by claiming new powers to take down content or accounts.
▶ 1:04:19It adopted new rules to empower users, including by requiring notice and an opportunity to appeal content moderation The Online Safety Act, championed by Labor and Conservative parties, was widely popular as an attempt to hold big tech accountable. It does have elements that concern me.
▶ 1:04:40Yet whatever faults it might have, it like any other British law is subject to legal challenge and review by courts for any violation of fundamental rights just as we would expect of any democracy. Neither established censorship regimes. I encourage members of this committee to consider two things. First, instead of criticizing allied democracies, consider the kinds of content online that you find objectionable.
▶ 1:05:08Maybe it's anti-Semitic or Islamophobic content, misogyny, child endangerment, content glorifying terrorism or inciting violence. How do you appro propose to address those in a way that is consistent with free speech values? That's not an easy question and it can't be waved away with just three words because free speech. The EU and the UK have made their choices subject to democratic judicial oversight and acting in good faith.
▶ 1:05:39I think this committee could do the same. Second, this committee has the obligation to protect Americans freedom of expression here at home. The administration is putting freedom of expression under direct attack and I think oversight and constraint from this committee would make quite a bit of sense. that I would respectfully submit is the real threat to American speech and innovation and I look forward to your questions. Thank
▶ 1:06:06Thank you, professor of the chair. Uh we'll now proceed on the five-minute rule. The chair now recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, uh Mr.
▶ 1:06:13Thank you, Chairman Jordan. Well, uh one of the things we found out on our trip through Europe was that the US innovates, China duplicates, and now the EU regulates. Mr. Reed, I have a question for you first. Reports estimate that complying with the EU's digital marketing act, the DMA, could cost American companies up to a billion dollars every single year. Uh that's not just a number on a page.
▶ 1:06:39Those costs ultimately fall on American workers who will see fewer jobs, on consumers who will face higher prices and fewer choices, and on entrepreneurs who will have a harder time competing against subsidized foreign rivals. Mr. read. Is it correct that these compliance costs affect our economy? And what does it mean for America if Europe is allowed to impose these kind of costs on US
▶ 1:07:06The short answer is yes, absolutely. Uh the more detailed answer is is that unfortunately the Europe has taken an Xanti approach to regulation. The United States has always done well with an expost. As a small business entrepreneur, I actually want fraud to be gone after. I want deceptive practices to be reduced. But unfortunately, what we see in the EU is an an Xantiprocess that ups my compliance requirements without actually giving customers the certainty of the result.
▶ 1:07:34So, it's absolutely raising costs and for American developers, we see one of the largest problems is how do you get to those European customers if the first trunch you hit is paying a compliance lawyer to meet all of these
▶ 1:07:47Thank you, Mr. Price. Our Federal Trade Commission Chairman Ferguson has warned the government uh regulation can stifle obviously competition and innovation and in many cases the government itself becomes the most dangerous of all the monopolies. Uh isn't it the DMA? Is the DMA a perfect example of that? It kind of weaponizes and makes it burdensome with regulations. Can you give me your comments on the DMA and and what do you think the status is right now?
▶ 1:08:17We certainly agree that European regulation generally slows down uh competition. It it creates a situation whereby companies are unable to innovate with any degree of speed because they're constantly looking over their shoulder uh towards regulators around compliance. DMA a very good example of that. Not just the DMA though of course you have the General Data Protection Regulation GDPR. You have the um the DSA the digital services act and constantly more and more being added.
▶ 1:08:42uh it's been estimated on on in the digital market space alone since 2016 you know 30 pages of regulation existed at the time we're now over a thousand and growing so the European Union's response to American innovation is more and more regulation generally around nebulous concepts like safety and protecting consumers but very often just uh particularly with the DSA to create uh unfortunately a censorship industrial complex as I outlined DMA very good example of that as well
▶ 1:09:11thank you very much Mr. Mr. Reed, if I could come back to you. President Trump just secured a landmark commitment from the EU to address unjustified digital trade barriers. It was part of the uh US EU trade deal. Uh I'm hopeful that this will result in the EU kind of removing and a lot of people we talked to in Europe when we were there said that there was a possibility that they could pull back on some of this. What action could President Trump take to hold the EU accountable to their commitment?
▶ 1:09:39And are there additional enforcement tools that Congress uh could provide to make that happen?
▶ 1:09:47Well, I think Congressman Fitzgerald, you've done great work in reaching out and sending letters to make it clear what the position of the United States government is on these issues. The reality is is that the Europeans themselves through the Draghi report are recognizing that they have done a lot to harm theirs those very same industries. We're hopeful that the United States can continue to use the careful power and the careful discussions through our trade through our trade negotiations and other actions to uh get them to step back. But we're here to talk about free speech.
▶ 1:10:16And so one of the things I would point out is we want the small businesses in Europe to also be able to speak and say, "Hey, we need these we need these regulations pulled back."
▶ 1:10:25So just a followup to that then as well. Um, a 2024 staff report by the housing oversight committee found that FTC chair Lena Khan was using taxpayer dollars to send agency quote unquote leaison to the EU to assist with the implementation of the digital markets act. Mr. Reed, do you think it's appropriate for that type of consultation or for the use of taxpayer dollars to help a foreign country implement laws that unfairly discriminate against US companies?
▶ 1:10:56Well, we don't think taxpayer dollars should ever be used to unfairly discriminate against the United States companies. Um, we're hopeful that US taxpayer dollars can be used to ensure open markets around the world and a safe environment for our entrepreneurs to
▶ 1:11:12Thank you, chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The chair now the the the chairman of the subcom or ranking member of the subcommittee. Gentleman who made a big announcement this week we're sorry to hear about. Uh but we uh we appreciate your service and uh you are recognized for five minutes.
▶ 1:11:29Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a clear and present danger to free speech in America, but it is not across the Atlantic Ocean. It is right here in Washington, sitting in the Oval Office. At a time when the greatest threat to the First Amendment rights of Americans resides in the White House, our Republican colleagues have brought us here today to talk about Europe. They've invited a fringe politician from the United Kingdom to attack the laws regulating certain conduct online in his country and the European Union.
▶ 1:11:58Laws that are intended to combat disinformation by hostile foreign actors, hate speech, and other fraudulent or criminal conduct. They have sounded the alarms about these foreign laws. But when it comes to the Trump administration's suppression of speech in this country, Republicans are curiously and dangerously silent. There is virtually no corner of society that Donald Trump and his administration have left untouched by their effort to impose their radical views on the American people and to stamp out dissent.
▶ 1:12:27Since taking office, President Trump and members of his administration have used the powers of the executive branch in an attempt to silence their political opponents by attacking our core democratic institutions such as academia, the legal profession, and journalism. These are moves straight out of the authoritarian playbook. For example, the Trump administration has taken aim at colleges and universities, trying to bend them to its will by withholding billions of dollars in scientific research funding.
▶ 1:12:55A short-sighted move that will set back innovation in this country by decades. And in some cases, including at my alma mater of Colombia, it has demanded ownorous conditions that infringe on academic freedom. On these same college campuses, students are being kidnapped for writing opeds and others are being deported for participating in protests.
▶ 1:13:16The Trump administration has also targeted disfavored law firms that dare to challenge the president or to hold him accountable or simply for hiring an attorney who clashed with Trump in the past. Some have sadly capitulated to its campaign of extortion. The president has even taken aim at the arts and humanities, launching a hostile takeover. the Kennedy Center and censoring exhibits at the Smithsonian Institution attempting to whitewash American history and to stamp out free expression.
▶ 1:13:46He has also engaged in a dangerous campaign of harassment and intimidation of the media. For example, last October he sued CBS for10 billion dollars for editing a 60 Minutes interview with Camela Harris in a way he didn't like.
▶ 1:14:01Although the suit was widely ridiculed by First Amendment attorneys who called it meritless and absurd, Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, was desperate to win approval from the Trumpcontrolled FCC for its proposed multi-billion dollar merger and felt pressure to settle this basis lawsuit. Ultimately, it paid $16 million to settle the suit and just days later, the FCC approved the merger. What a coincidence.
▶ 1:14:28This followed ABC's settlement of a similarly basis Trump lawsuit for $15 million because of corporate pressure. And now the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch faced their own 10 billion dollar lawsuit from Donald Trump over the journal's reporting that shed new light on Trump's wellocumented relationship with Effrey with Jeffrey Epstein. I'm not aware of any president in the past suing media companies or newspapers or television stations for free expression they didn't like.
▶ 1:14:57Professor K, the free press is essential to our democracy and the rule of law. Can you explain how President Trump's attacks on the news media and his attempts to sue them into silence impact freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country?
▶ 1:15:11Yes. Thank you, Mr. Nadler, and congratulations on your announcement this week. Um, well, I think it's important to note that when we're talking about attacks on the press, it's not just about attacks on the journalists themselves or the media outlets themselves. It's about every American's right of access to information.
▶ 1:15:32It's about the freedom of public debate that we get from a media that isn't intimidated either by suit or by criticism from the Oval Office or whatever it might be. And so I think it's really important to think about these kinds of attacks not only as those on journalists but on the entire information ecosystem. And I think it's also important for us to to realize that we can't pick and choose what censorship we like and don't like.
▶ 1:16:01I think uh the chairman's statement was really correct when he said censorship used by people in power to censor critics. that that's at the core and we should be examining where do we see that. We tend to see that quite a bit in this country I think at an in an unprecedented way.
▶ 1:16:18In your testimony you identified a number of threats to freedom of expression in the United States including science and public health. It's also been reported that the government has a list of hundreds of words ranging from issues related to climate change to diversity, equity, and inclusion that it essentially is banned from government websites and uses to make funding decisions. Is this true?
▶ 1:16:39I've I've seen those reports and I understand that to be true as well, particularly the use of of lists of words essentially to censor research that would be conducted by science by scientists at universities and at nationalmies in the United States.
▶ 1:16:55Thank you. My time is expired. I yield
▶ 1:16:57Gentleman yields back. The ranking members recognized for unanimous consent. Understand?
▶ 1:17:00Yes. Um gentlemen,
▶ 1:17:02Mr. Chairman, uh this is a a minority fact sheet uh about the majority's report on the digital services act.
▶ 1:17:09Well, we we'll look forward to reading that the uh that without objection.
▶ 1:17:16Mr. Chairman, I have another
▶ 1:17:17The gentleman from New York is recognized for unanimous consent.
▶ 1:17:19Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article published by Reuters on October 29th, 2024 titled Fact Check, UK woman jailed for inciting racial hatred, not posting hurtful words, which confirms that Lucy Connelly plead guilty to inciting racial hatred and was not, as claimed in deceptive social media posts, punished merely for posting quote edgy words on the internet.
▶ 1:17:46Uh, without objection, I'm sure we'll be comments about that later. And the gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. M Professor Kay, uh being a fellow Californian, I'm sure you're aware and could correct the ranking member uh that our our own governor has sued Fox for $787 million. Isn't that a correct?
▶ 1:18:08I'm not familiar with that.
▶ 1:18:09Uh well, I didn't think you would be, but neither was the ranking member, apparently. Um uh minister uh or sorry MP Mirage Farage do you have the equivalent of what the uh professor Kay was talking about which is the article 19 you're a signature to that uh that international convention if you will on free speech do you see do you feel that it is being observed in
▶ 1:18:40uh uh in the UK maybe a signary to it and we may and the prime minister, you know, today in the House of Commons was talking about free speech and and and and indeed when President Trump was with him in Scotland the other day, he talked about our proud history of free speech, but what people say and what they do are two very different things. And and and the argument is that the online safety act, I'll repeat what I said earlier, may have been designed by the tries with the best of intentions, but has turned out to be the sledgehammer that misses the nut.
▶ 1:19:10It's not protecting kids and it is damaging. So now um going back to the United States, you don't have a constitutional framework that is the equivalent of ours in that you have no first amendment absolute guarantee. Is that correct?
▶ 1:19:25It is correct. You know, I mean our constitution isn't in written form. It's based on common law that's evolved and adapted over centuries and and your founding fathers. So
▶ 1:19:35look at the best bits that we have.
▶ 1:19:36So it appears it appears in Europe and in the UK uh free speech is whatever the bloody uh members think it is at a given time and it changes with the will of uh of the people they elect. Is that right?
▶ 1:19:52Yes. But I think I mean we've never I don't think at any point we've really had a proper debate about infringing free speech until co and I think co changed the game.
▶ 1:20:03Okay. I think the government, social media platforms, big media, suddenly there were arguments that needed to be made that were banned.
▶ 1:20:11So, Mr. Reid, uh, to your knowledge, and I'm I would go to the professor, but he seems to be ill informed even on our own governor's lawsuits, um, First Amendment in the United States, you can sue for anything. Do you often win if you sue against uh uh uh institutions like Fox uh Wall Street Journal?
▶ 1:20:34Isn't it true that effectively the First Amendment creates a tremendous shield against anything except malicious deliberate
▶ 1:20:44Not my area of expertise. We can absolutely talk about apps, but as an American, yes, that is absolutely my
▶ 1:20:50And you have no such protection. Uh just the opposite. you have no idea in Europe or in uh Britain about what is going to be allowed or not allowed. In other words, you you don't know where to call balls and strikes. You just simply have to pay the fines when you get to them.
▶ 1:21:06Well, I only carry one passport, so I'm I'm more aware of the American laws, but that is my understanding. Correct.
▶ 1:21:11Okay. Now, we do have a First Amendment and we are a signature to Article 19. So, I'm I'm going to draft I'm going to go a little bit into opinion. Now, I'm the author of No Censorship on Our Shores, meaning Mr. Price, I know you're familiar with it. U I'm not going to tolerate censorship overseas and then have those people come to the United States. Now, Mr.
▶ 1:21:36Professor Kay may object to the idea that that I'm not going to let people who have been involved in censorship come into the United States because I think it's unacceptable to get away with that overseas. But let's be reciprocal for a moment for uh Mr. Reid and for everyone.
▶ 1:21:53If we're seeing Europe and the UK and other countries stifle what we are guaranteed in the US and particularly arrest somebody for what they said while on US soils, shouldn't this administration be just as strong and reciprocal that we will not tolerate that activity even off our shores?
▶ 1:22:14And isn't that ultimately what the United States must make available to the world, essentially guarantee the First Amendment to anyone anywhere if they want to do business with the United States? Mr. Price,
▶ 1:22:28the leadership of the United States on this issue, this issue has been transformative for the discussion in in Europe and from the president uh Secretary Rubio and the vice president, they have transformed the issue and I I hope more comes. So to the fringe parliamentarian as you were called uh and probably the future prime minister, what say you?
▶ 1:22:51Yes. For Mr. Nadler's benefit, it's a very big fringe. Um and we're doing rather well. But there we are. Uh look, you know, if you were to follow Mr. iz the logic of your argument that you were to ban people from entering America who would pass legislation that was prejuditial against American companies or American citizens and would threaten and would potential arrest if they came across the other side of the pond.
▶ 1:23:16Um I think the practical difficulty with that is you'd have to ban the British government uh the entire Labor party. Um so I'm not sure in practical terms that it works but I I understand the
▶ 1:23:28Thank you. I yield back. gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from California is recognized for five
▶ 1:23:34Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, let me be clear. I I am not here to defend uh the European laws. Um, and I've often uh the approach of European countries to internet related issues. It's really generally wrongheaded. Uh, but I I don't really think that's the point of of this hearing. I I think the real threat to the First Amendment isn't coming from Europe.
▶ 1:24:02It's coming from Republican-led states that have introduced bills to close the open internet and most of all uh from Donald Trump who's actively trampling free speech here at home. I I think it's rather absurd for this committee to spend our time criticizing laws we have no jurisdiction over while ignoring the countless ways the Trump administration is tearing up the First Amendment.
▶ 1:24:29Um if this committee is really serious about protecting free speech, we need to focus on the Trump administration's literal assault on the First Amendment that's happening right here at home. So, Professor K, I have a series of questions for you. Do you think that arresting international students for being critical of US foreign policy is an attack on the First Amendment?
▶ 1:24:58Yes, absolutely.
▶ 1:24:59And isn't that because it's not just the right of the person to speak, but the right of all the rest of us to hear. The First Amendment isn't just about the speaker. It's also about the listener. Isn't that correct?
▶ 1:25:10Right. That's true. Now, um, a federal judge agreed with you and with us, warning that arresting students for their views chills the speech of millions of Americans. The government can't punish speech simply because they don't like its content.
▶ 1:25:27This year, as has been mentioned by others, uh, President Trump's FCC blocked the CBS merger until the network agreed to change its programming and install a so-called bias monitor, a monitor. Uh, the head of 60 Minutes resigned, saying he could no longer make independent decisions about the news. Doesn't that sound like a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press? It does.
▶ 1:25:54And I and I think it's important to underline that restrictions on free speech don't come just from a law or the police outside your door. It can come from a whole network of of um of public attack that really does chill speech, including the kinds of attacks that lead to deportations of people who are here just to study.
▶ 1:26:22the since January, the Trump administration has revoked over 6,000 student visas because the speech of these students didn't align with what Trump agreed with. And now they're doing the same to immigrants who are applying for citizenship. Does that raise First Amendment concerns, do you think?
▶ 1:26:41I think it raises first amendment concerns, but it's also in a in a broader way, it's raising concerns about our tolerance of disscent, of this government's tolerance of of criticism. And not everything is specifically about the First Amendment and the ability to enforce it in our courts. Sometimes it's about leaders in our country actually promoting a culture of open debate and open access to information.
▶ 1:27:09the very things that we've heard a lot about already this morning, a kind of marketplace of ideas that some people still talk about. That's not just about what the law provides. That's also about how our leaders behave towards that kind of open debate.
▶ 1:27:24The Federal Trade Commission held up a merger of two major advertising firms, Omnicom and Interpublic, until they agreed to run ads on X, essentially a governmentordered gift to Elon Musk. Isn't that a blatant violation of free speech standards, forcing private companies to promote speech they otherwise wouldn't?
▶ 1:27:46It's certainly a kind of um extensive use of the term of jaw boning that has come up over the last several years and it's a kind of pressure that absolutely interferes with with free speech. And it's also the kind of of weaponizing of our federal agencies in support of a actor, a particular uh business person.
▶ 1:28:12It seems to me that um these actions affect not just the companies or the individuals that are the target of this abuse, but they're also uh to to scare off everyone else from engaging in that behavior. Would you agree with that? Yeah, absolutely.
▶ 1:28:30I think that what we're seeing right now with just this essentially a a kind of avalanche of restrictions and intimidations of free speech in this country that it's designed to chill that kind of debate. It's designed to chill whistleblowers, to chill scientists, to to chill professors and students. I think that's that's essentially what we're witnessing right now.
▶ 1:28:55My time is expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. gently yields back. Mr. Mr.
▶ 1:28:59Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent.
▶ 1:29:01You see request from Jim Cal.
▶ 1:29:02Yes. I ask unanimous consent that uh the Politico ad or uh news that was dated June 27th, 2025 saying Gavin Newsome sues for 787 million be placed in the
▶ 1:29:16Without objection. Uh Mr. Price, has anything in the Digital Services Act changed in the last
▶ 1:29:24No, sir.
▶ 1:29:25Hasn't been amended. Hasn't been changed at all?
▶ 1:29:26No, sir. So everything Mr. Bratton wrote one year ago today, well August 12th, 2024, that's still in place. Where he where he said to an American running American company about an interview that was yet to happen, future hap interview, uh, threatened this individual. None of that has nothing in the law has changed that would that would change what actions this individual took.
▶ 1:29:45Nothing in the law.
▶ 1:29:45Just because Mr. Bratton's gone doesn't mean Miss M Miss Bkunin can't do the same darn thing. Right.
▶ 1:29:50Yeah. And that's that's the concern. Mr. price is the statement we need to take back our country. Is that statement hate
▶ 1:29:57Um, we don't really know what hate speech is. It's so vague and that's the problem with it. I wouldn't regard that as as
▶ 1:30:03Well, you may not, but the EU regulators do because they had a workshop on May 25th where this is part of our investigation material we'd subpoenaed. Uh, they gave us this information. They said it is hate speech. That's a concern, right?
▶ 1:30:15Yes, sir.
▶ 1:30:16And it could be made by an American and be termed hate speech and there could be some ramifications for Americans first amendment liberty. Is that accurate? Yes, sir.
▶ 1:30:23Okay. Uh, Mr. Price, what's a trusted flagger? Uh,
▶ 1:30:26a trusted flagger is an NGO or private organization that's recognized under the DSA. And if they identify or a complaint has been made,
▶ 1:30:34Wait, wait, wait. Recognized by who?
▶ 1:30:36Oh, the terms of the DSA. Oh, and uh the national regulators and the commission as well.
▶ 1:30:40Okay. And they do what? So, they're recognized by the government. They're appointed by the government. All right. And what do they do? H if they identify content that they regard as illegal content, the companies have to give priority to removing that content.
▶ 1:30:52Oh, so you people that the government approves tell companies what they can allow on their platform and what they can't, right?
▶ 1:31:00That's correct, sir.
▶ 1:31:01And then the same people who approve these folks are the same people who conducted the workshop and said we need to take back our country's hate speech. Is that fair to say?
▶ 1:31:08That's correct, sir.
▶ 1:31:09Yeah. And that's the concern. And what happens if these trusted flaggers approved by the government, the same government that says we need to take back our country as hate speech? By the way, I think that statement is made probably more by Democrats right now than Republicans. I think the head of the Democrat National Committee made that statement like three months ago at a big Democrat rally or something they were having. So the same people say that's hate speech approve the trusted flaggers who then tell the platforms what they can and have can't have on their platform. And if they don't agree with what the trusted flaggers say, they're civil penalties. Is that right?
▶ 1:31:38Yes, sir. both under national law and the DSA, investigations begin and there's a whole process that can result in enforcement and then ultimately crippling fines for companies.
▶ 1:31:45And and those crippling fines, those civil penalties can be what? 5% 10% of global revenue depending on the online services act or the DSA.
▶ 1:31:53Under the DSA, 6%.
▶ 1:31:546%. Wow, that's a lot of money because these are big companies, right?
▶ 1:31:57Yes, sir.
▶ 1:31:58Now, Mr. Faraj, it's not just civil penalties, though. And this is where it gets really scary because my understanding is this. They can there's criminal penalties and and I think in in the United Kingdom there were 12,183 arrest for offensive post.
▶ 1:32:1912,000 people arrested for things they posted online that some trusted flagger approved by the government, the same government that says what's being said at the Democrat National Committee, we need to take back our country's hate speech. That is that's a scary scenario. Is that right? Yeah, they're massive statistics and and I mean some of it comes comes under non crime hate incidents.
▶ 1:32:42So you've said something on social media, someone's taken objection and you get the knock at the door from the police sort of warning you that if you do this again, something may happen. And this has now been broadened out. I mean, Mr. Price made the point, what is hate speech? How do you define hate speech? And that's the problem, isn't it, with all of these laws that we finish up in a position where local police forces, etc. have to choose their own interpretations.
▶ 1:33:07I think again as I said to you earlier the timing of this uh hearing today is perfect uh because the head of the Metropolitan Police who arrested who arrested Graham Lanhan at at Heithra airport he's thrown the ball back now to the British home secretary and the government to say please tell us what is this law intended what are we supposed as as the police to do so I think we're going to have a much more rapid debate about this but my worry is it may get worse If I
▶ 1:33:37may quickly
▶ 1:33:38because the Labor government now are intending to pass a law that that has a definition of Islamophobia. They're intending to put that into law. And that effectively will mean that criticism of a religion. Mocking of a religion would become an offense. And that's totally against everything because, you know, we've always given the pope a hard time. We've always given the Archbishop of Canterbury a hard time. Um, so we're finishing up kind of with two-tier law. Yeah.
▶ 1:34:07And two-tier justice. That's very
▶ 1:34:09I had one other question I'd like to get for maybe you and Mr. Price if I could. Speaking of religion,
▶ 1:34:14tell me what performative prayer is. This is something we've we've seen in we've discovered in our investigative work. Maybe we'll start with Mr. Price, then go to Mr. Farage.
▶ 1:34:22Yes, sir. We have a client at the moment who's been prosecuted in or was arrested in Bristol for a Christian pastor preaching about the differences between Christianity and Islam. He was then assaulted by a group of people identifying in Islamic as as Islamic people. The police arrived and they arrested him, not the people who assaulted him. This is the state of play in the United Kingdom in in in terms of free speech. And unfortunately across Europe, I I mean I have a whole file of cases here of where people have been arrested for criticisms of Islam where they've been prosecuted. So things are getting pretty bad.
▶ 1:34:51Yeah. That extends to to abortion clinics, doesn't it? And and and the abortion debate in Britain and Europe is different to the abortion debate in America. It's it's in a different place. But we have seen people warned or arrested if they've been seen to be praying outside abortion clinics even if they're doing it silently. Hence it's performative in the sense they're doing that.
▶ 1:35:14Um and and you know I'm afraid you now have to be a certain distance away from one of these clinics. But if other members of the public object and say that your praying there is causing them psychological harm, well, the police may
▶ 1:35:32Thank you, Chairman. May I May I comment on on one of these issues very briefly?
▶ 1:35:37Is that I'm I'm fine if ranking member Okay. I may have to ask you a question after you comment that when when you when you do that. Go ahead.
▶ 1:35:44I realize I'm opening the door. Yeah.
▶ 1:35:46Um I just wanted to to to note on this question of what is hate speech? Um, first off, the the question of um identifying hate speech is not something that happens in a vacuum. In the UK, in Europe, there are very strict rules around the definition of hate speech. They connect it not merely to speech, but to incitement. So, it's incitement to violence or hatred or discrimination.
▶ 1:36:11And I think that's just an important baseline point that this isn't just about pure speech. It's about the kind of speech that might lead to violence. And related to that, um, when you mentioned this, uh, hypothetical of take back our our country, um, and is that hate speech, my understanding is that that came up in the context of a hypothetical related to persistent harassment of a Muslim girl. And that was the hypothetical.
▶ 1:36:39And the question was in that particular context, did that constitute a kind of incitement to some violence against this young girl? So I think I think it's important to put some of these these kinds of abstract questions into that kind of context.
▶ 1:36:53Pastor, did you agree with uh the Biden administration when they established the disinformation governance board?
▶ 1:36:59I didn't take a position on that. I do think that disinformation is an issue
▶ 1:37:04the government should be deciding what we can say and what we can't.
▶ 1:37:06Absolutely not.
▶ 1:37:07Okay. Well, that's good to know. I'll give the I'll give the ranking member a little extra time if he if he so desired. With that, I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee.
▶ 1:37:16Thank you, Mr. chair and firstly I was pleased to join on the Kodell. It was a very fine good Kodell. I appreciate the chair, my friend and my classmate from 2006. One of the things I found most enlightening about the Kodell.
▶ 1:37:29We had a tour of parliament and along with us were two conservative members who were uh I think they were either house of lords maybe one was in the lords and one was in the house of commons but they talked to us about Magna Carta and about how it's the basis of our laws and there was a copy there and copies here and there and whatever but how precious the Magna Carta is and they suggested to us that a legislator this was in the the House of Lords where we spoke that
▶ 1:37:59a legislator is not somebody who votes. A legislator's job is not just to vote. A legislator's job is to stand up to an outofcontrol Very telling for tell British Parliament members to instruct us on what we should be doing and I thank him for that. Uh, I'm a strong supporter of free speech and always have been and but I find this hearing a bit disingenuous because of the problems we have here in America.
▶ 1:38:29Free speech includes the speech of those whom with whom we disagree, people who say vile things. And for my case, I find racist and anti-Semitic and Islamophobic type speech something I find foul. But it's protected by free speech and an offensive speech as well. That does not mean that there aren't limitations, however, and speech can be harmful, dangerous, and infringe on other people's rights. It isn't a free-for-all, though, and the US and our first amendment does not have a monopoly on what constitutes free speech.
▶ 1:38:57There is speech protected by the first amendment like corporate political donations, which I think is misplaced and and mis misapplied. And there are times when our legal system itself suppresses disfavored speech. Uh I passed the speech act in the 111th Congress. I think Mr. Isa was my co-sponsor and it dealt with the fact that Britain is a favored nation for defamation actions and it's easy to get a defamation judgment there.
▶ 1:39:26We would not allow those judgments to be recognized here in our country under the speech act if the activities that took place did not conform to our laws on free speech. And I would think Mr. Farage could try to look at changing their laws on on defamation and can contour more to what we see in the first amendment and that might be good for the people in in in in England.
▶ 1:39:52uh two of my good friends uh most revered friends were from England London Christopher Hitchens and Sir Bill Browder and they've written books and they could be subject to such laws as well but work on protecting your English authors who from Shakespeare on they've been pretty good we used to be bipartisan in these efforts look out for free speech but President Trump has taken on free speech in ways that would never been thought about and I think Mr.
▶ 1:40:20Lan brought some points to to professor Kay and it's not just laws it's autocratic actions as well. President Trump as Mr. Dalio said clearly but so many other people have said it felt it is bringing us on the verge of a autocratic state and his actions in trying to bring law firms to their knees colleges to their knees federal employees students etc is anti-free speech anti-
▶ 1:40:51opportunity and fear for themselves and their futures if they speak out even Congress people could be subject in the future I'm sure with some of the ways we're seeing this justice department act u with questions about their speech. U our president has sued every broadcasting company almost u and they've gone after CNN. They've gone after NBC and they they picked some of these fringe people to to pick on Ukrainian president about his attire.
▶ 1:41:20Uh it's it's bizarre what's going on in our country and I'm concerned uh they try to silence and shake down those who don't conform to whatever the president thinks. Uh we we need to understand that u his review of the Smithsonian exhibits and other African-American museum and saying there was too much emphasis on how bad slavery I don't know how you could find anything good about slavery.
▶ 1:41:49and Edwin Starr who's a singer would tell you slavery like war there's absolutely nothing good about it so we shouldn't be trying to do professor K how would you compare from your expertise how we evaluate and compare with relative states of freedom of expression written in the United States how where do you see the
▶ 1:42:10well well I think right now we're at a very dismal place in the United States but I but I do think that it's also worth thinking a bit about some of the issues isues uh that Mr. Farage raised. So for example, he mentioned the the issue of a law against Islamophobia, but you know there's also a lot of discussion about laws against anti-semitism and against other attacks on people on their status on the basis of their religion and so forth. Those are actually valuable conversations to have.
▶ 1:42:39Um and um but but you can't just sort of pick and choose which censorship or which restrictions are okay and which which are not. You really need to have a general view as to um as to what's appropriate. And I think again the chairman's point about censorship being a focus on criticism is the appropriate one.
▶ 1:43:01And to the extent that we can make that comparison, which country is is really doing more or which countries are really doing more to tamp down, to silence critics, that's that's the harm to our democracy and and right now I see that more in the United States than I see in Europe or the UK.
▶ 1:43:21Thank you.
▶ 1:43:21I'm a gentleman.
▶ 1:43:22And I just like to say to welcome. I have a lot of British friends and respect for Britain. I have a great time when I'm there, but I'm happy we won the Uh, gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 1:43:33Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the statement that Trump is bringing us to the edge of being an autocratic state in and of itself disproves the premise of that statement. Think about that. It's Under the first amendment, the general proposition is that government should not be regulating the content of its citizen speech. You have the opposing idea that it's the responsibility of government to decide not only what its citizens should think but what content they are allowed to see and engage with.
▶ 1:44:00To some the re the reality of the government regulation of speech may sound like it's a distant authoritarian notion that won't come to the United States of America. But I would ask you to just think back again. I remind I'm reminded of Orwell's 1984. Think of the memory hole that that people are trying to memory hole right now.
▶ 1:44:21some even on this panel sir who don't want you to how bad a government can be when it attempts to uh censor right here in the United States for instance President Obama this is from an article I'd asked unanimous consent President Obama has been the most aggressive administration in history not only going after whistleblowers but after pursuing reporters who write their stories. How about this one?
▶ 1:44:51The Biden legacy. How about this whole stack? And I'll put these in in just a second. Is convenient to memory hole. What the Biden administration did what they did to suppress dissent and contrary opinion. I'll get into that in a second.
▶ 1:45:14The actions of European government show that the type of censorship by government is not only possible but very much doable. Under the guise of public safety, government officials in Europe have suppressed and arrested individuals who have simply engaged in political speech they arbit that is arbitrarily deemed to be unspeakable by the government. This kind of regime doesn't just appear on the scene though. It takes time to develop and we've seen it here. And that's why I'm taking this opportunity to remind you that FISA must be reformed.
▶ 1:45:46FISA must be reformed. So, uh, Mr. Price, you alluded to this and so I have I have this document right here that compares the GDP growth of EU versus the US 1998 to 2023. And uh, the US has grown about 87% almost 90%. the EU has increased its GDP by about 13%. So you have uh almost a 6x variable there.
▶ 1:46:16The question is when you set these kind of draconian fines and you set up a system that is amorphous um and almost indefinable, might it not al also have some more than just even the safety ostensible safety of the society? might it lead to trying to regulate when you can't innovate?
▶ 1:46:40I think that's very much the case, sir. Um, we've seen it not just in the area of speech, but obviously as we were discussing the digital markets act, data protection and so on. And Europe is facing some very serious structural problems demographically, financially. And a lot of what I think is inspiring the DSA is what we saw from Germany beginning after the election of President Trump and after Brexit, which is to control the narrative, slow down speech. And into that then they're throwing a very wide net out that's affecting all kinds of legitimate speech.
▶ 1:47:08We talked about my client Py Rosen in Finland who's prosecuted for sharing a tweet from the Bible. It's it's it's absolutely outrageous. And that becomes now the standard that the DSA will set not just for Europe but possibly and and and predictably
▶ 1:47:22And and uh similarly, Mr. Reid, that's what's going to happen to your app innovators. They're not going to be able to have access to 440 million people in a marketplace in Europe without having to go through um essentially government
▶ 1:47:40Well, I think you hit it earlier when you said that the that their focus has been on regulating or adding legislation. And it isn't one piece of regulation or one piece of legislation that has caused problems for our innovators both in the UK, in the EU, and in America. It's been the stacking effect. Because if you start with one regulation, you say, "I can handle that. I'll build that into my business." It's when you have one, then two, then four, then six.
▶ 1:48:05So, what's been the biggest problem for growth has been their answer is that old quip uh um the beatings will continue until morale improves. We often feel that way about regulation. Um innovation uh innovation will get regulated until we get more innovation and I don't think that will work out.
▶ 1:48:21Thanks, Mr. Reed. Now, I'll finish with you, Mr. Farage. What happened to the great countries of the West? I mean seriously and their liberal understanding of civil rights and the ability to speak one's mind openly without fear of arrest or censorship or abuse of harassment by the government. I think what went wrong in many ways is we forgot why we actually had those liberties and had those freedoms in the first place.
▶ 1:48:49We forgot that as I mentioned I touched on earlier. We we forgot the huge that were made by by you know by by citizens alive at that time to defend those principles against tyranny and against dictatorship. We've kind of lost our we've lost our way in understanding why we are as we are. And and I think uh that has permeated through the education system or I'm not sure we've been teaching good values.
▶ 1:49:18The slavery comment was made earlier. You know, I completely understand there's nothing good about slavery. But in take our country, you know, we spent decades driving slavery off the high seas. So whilst we were perpetrators to begin with, we actually in the end drove it off the high seas. So we need to teach our kids a sense of balance about our history, about the sacrifice that's been made. That's my feeling.
▶ 1:49:40Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have some unanimous
▶ 1:49:42Gentlemen, recognized
▶ 1:49:44this one. GDP growth comparison EU to US 1998 to 2023. This one, Biden's press freedom legacy, empty words and hypocrisy. Um, massive government censorship during and about COVID from the new civil liberties alliance. The fifth circuit agrees that federal officials unconstitutionally coerced or encouraged online censorship under the Biden administration.
▶ 1:50:05This one, uh, information during the pandemic suppressed feds blew $267 million fighting misinformation under Biden as Trump vows to ban censorship cartel. This one, how the FBI violated the privacy rights of tens of thousands of Americans. This one, Inspector General report on FBI's FISA abuse tells us one thing, we need radical reform. This one, UK comedy writer Graham Lahan arrested over so social media post criticizing trans activists.
▶ 1:50:34Why did Lucy Connelly receive a 31-month sentence for Southport tweet? Policing thought crime should have no place in the UK. Britain's emerging police state. Knock knock. It's the thought police. As thousands of criminals go uninvestigated, detectives call on a grandmother. Her crime. She went on Facebook to criticize labor counselors. This one, UK steps up free speech crackdown as armed police arrest comedy writer Graham Linhan at Heathrow Airport.
▶ 1:51:03And this one, Britain's new thought police, how labor plans to police your online speech. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:51:10We bet without objection.
▶ 1:51:11Mr. Chair, I'd like to offer two unanimous consent requests. I don't not going to challenge the forest as much as the gentleman and the others but two that records letters to you one to you and one to commissioner Verkunan pushing back on the framing of this hearing from 30 EU and US academics.
▶ 1:51:27Thank you. Uh without objection gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
▶ 1:51:30Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Farage, welcome to the United States of America. This isn't your first time here.
▶ 1:51:39Correct. You were here in 2024 in Milwaukee, weren't you? I've been coming here since 1982 on a very regular basis. I work for American
▶ 1:51:48What purpose were you coming to Milwaukee for? Why did you come to
▶ 1:51:53I've been in Milwaukee many times. I think that
▶ 1:51:55in 2024 was convention.
▶ 1:51:57The convention, the Republican convention, right? I think you're right.
▶ 1:52:00Trump the Trump convention.
▶ 1:52:01I think you're right. Very good. Where Trump was coronated.
▶ 1:52:05Well, he won, didn't he? I mean, yesterday he had already won. We already knew who who had won. It's It's cool,
▶ 1:52:12but it was his coronation. And you attended and you also um attended uh Trump rallies, correct?
▶ 1:52:21I've attended lots of Trump rallies.
▶ 1:52:23Make America Great Again rallies, many of them. And you optimistic, happy, wonderful, joyous event.
▶ 1:52:29You publicly endorsed his
▶ 1:52:30I thoroughly enjoyed them. I've even spoken about you endorsed him for president and you attended his uh election night watch party.
▶ 1:52:38I did. And uh you consider Trump to be uh your mentor, correct?
▶ 1:52:44he's not your mentor.
▶ 1:52:46but he
▶ 1:52:48He is somebody who you want the support of and you have the support.
▶ 1:52:52Yes, I do. I think he's a very very brave man
▶ 1:52:55because you are are getting ready to run for prime minister of Great Britain.
▶ 1:53:00Oh, I've been trying for years. Yeah. And uh and as it stands right now, you you head up a uh a party. Um how how many seats in the parliament are there?
▶ 1:53:15651 if you include the speaker that is And how many are a part? How many seats does your party hold?
▶ 1:53:25How many seats do the opinion poll say we're going to get next time? Is that
▶ 1:53:28No, I mean the numbers don't lie. You only have four seats, right?
▶ 1:53:32That's I'm afraid so. Yes.
▶ 1:53:34And and so you you are indeed the leader of a fringe party.
▶ 1:53:39Oh, I'm a fringe. All right. Don't worry about that. Yes, absolutely. Everything I've ever done.
▶ 1:53:43And as a fringe party leader seeking to run for um uh prime minister of Great Britain, you need a lot of money in order to blow up like the MAGA movement has blown up.
▶ 1:53:57What you need is a message of truth and a message of hope. And well, you need money also, right?
▶ 1:54:01Money is helpful, but it's not the primary thing you need.
▶ 1:54:03The first thing that came out of the first thing that came out of um the chair's mouth to this morning during his opening statement
▶ 1:54:13had to do with Elon Musk.
▶ 1:54:16And you're carrying water for Elon Musk today, aren't you?
▶ 1:54:21From what I can see, Elon Musk is abusive about me virtually every single week. But it's a free country. So
▶ 1:54:27I mean but but you never stop trying to to uh ingratiate yourself with him.
▶ 1:54:34Well I mean and you are familiar with the fact wrong.
▶ 1:54:37You are familiar with the fact Mr. Farage public fallout with Donald that Donald Trump's campaign benefited to the extent of $250 million from Elon Musk.
▶ 1:54:50If you well I mean how much
▶ 1:54:51you are familiar with that correct?
▶ 1:54:52How much did how much did Mrs. Zugerberg give to the Democrats. I mean this is what happens and people around
▶ 1:54:56well he didn't give any money. Let me be clear to the he was sitting behind Trump
▶ 1:55:02with the rest of the tech bros and you are here today to impress all of those tech bros including that correct.
▶ 1:55:11I'm going to answer your question very very honestly.
▶ 1:55:15You need money from Elon Musk in order to get elected
▶ 1:55:18prime minister of Great Britain. That's the bottom line. We consider that
▶ 1:55:23We consider all day as long as the chairman allows us. I don't mind. I had a very public falling out with Elon
▶ 1:55:29But you're still trying to get some money from him though
▶ 1:55:32over a political issue.
▶ 1:55:34It's not about the prior discussion. You're trying to you're trying to ingratiate yourself with the tech bros by coming over here and uh can I get a cup of coffee or something? And you're arguing here a long time. What you're arguing is that the citizens of Great Britain should pay a tariff if these tech companies are not allowed to violate the laws of Great Britain.
▶ 1:56:02No, I'm not. That was a falsehood put out by the British prime minister today.
▶ 1:56:07You didn't say prime minister's questions. I have never
▶ 1:56:10in your statement.
▶ 1:56:10I have never suggested any of my statement. You don't call my statement is very clear tools to my statement is very clear my statement is very
▶ 1:56:21you are not calling it might surprise
▶ 1:56:23you are not calling for
▶ 1:56:24it might surprise you to know
▶ 1:56:26tariffs and trade sanction
▶ 1:56:27trade that know that trade you may not know this but trade between our countries is actually rather important you are the biggest investor in our country and we're the biggest investor in yours
▶ 1:56:38is the gentleman from Georgia has expired but the gentleman to be able to say here to the United States
▶ 1:56:45regular order Mr. Chairman's been rude. He's been disgusting. He's been hilarious.
▶ 1:56:50Hang on. Hang on.
▶ 1:56:52The gentleman's time is expired.
▶ 1:56:54I feel like we should give Mr. Fraud a chance to respond to one of the many questions. He was not allowed to respond to. So, we'll give you 30 seconds, Mr. Farage, and then we'll move on to our next one because I know Mr. Fraud does have to leave in about an hour. So, we want to get through as many members as we can.
▶ 1:57:07Number one, I had a public fallout over a political issue with Elon Musk. I can't be bullied by anybody. I haven't changed my mind. Last time I looked, he was being spectacularly rude about me yesterday. That's life. If we believe in free speech, we live with it.
▶ 1:57:20What I have made very cleared on
▶ 1:57:22What So this is my turn, I think.
▶ 1:57:25Yeah, you got another
▶ 1:57:26Thank you, Mr. What I've made perfectly clear in this paper is the situation we've got with successive pieces of legislation, including now the online safety act, is a danger to trade between our countries. and allies and friends and trading partners have honest conversations with each other. I hope many American companies and politicians have honest conversations with the British government. I've not suggested sanctions at all in any way.
▶ 1:57:52Good luck on your
▶ 1:57:53gentleman. The gentleman from California is recognized.
▶ 1:57:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd remind my colleague from Georgia that President Trump was openly nominated after decisively winning the primary votes across the country. That's in open contrast to the Democratic nominee who has decreed the nominee of her party in spite of the fact she did not receive a single primary vote. So I would be a little careful if I were him about talking about coronations.
▶ 1:58:19I do agree with my Democratic colleagues that we need to be on guard against uh suppression of free speech whether it's coming from the left or the right. But I disagree with them that the chief executive regulating the executive branch's communications or conforming executive agencies and grantees to executive policy is somehow a threat to free speech. The executive branch is designed to speak with one voice, a voice chosen every four years by the people.
▶ 1:58:50and I disagree with them that suing for defamation is an infringement on speech in a legal system where the truth is an absolute defense. The threat to democracy is from the government regulating other people's communications.
▶ 1:59:05Now, we're now discovering that the Biden administration used the FBI to pressure tech companies to censure the communications of the American people over a free discussion of everything from COVID policy and origins, the Russian collusion hoax, Biden family influence peddling, climate change. I myself was the victim of this censorship when I warned of the damage that the COVID lockdowns were causing.
▶ 1:59:30Now, democracy assumes that the best way to separate truth from lies or wisdom from folly or good from evil or love from hate is to place the two of them side by side and then trust the common sense and good judgment of the people to know the difference. But this assumes that the people have full and unfettered freedom to express themselves and to challenge the claims and opinions of each other.
▶ 1:59:55Now some of our colleagues seem to be suggesting that we should transfer that prerogative from the people to the government. That's the very definition of authoritarianism. Mr. Farage, what are your thoughts?
▶ 2:00:08Yeah, I agree with that. I think I think you know we are uh as as citizens we should be f free to make our minds up to express our opinions to a large extent to make our own mistakes provided and we all know there's a limit to free speech you know the professor talked about incitement earlier and of course you know we would be absolutely joined together on that we don't want incitement we don't accept in incitement and if people put out something irrational or insightful
▶ 2:00:38but very quickly put their hands up and apologize and learn their lesson. That's kind of how the world is. I do not want government to be the arbiter of what I should think.
▶ 2:00:47We we have a word for that. It's deemos ruled by the people.
▶ 2:00:51So yes, I'm with you on that. I also agree with you that co I I touched on this earlier. It was during COVID when rational debate about many important issues be it maskearing be it lockdowns rational debate on these things was frankly stamped out and this was supported by uh big social media companies many not GB news obviously but many um TV stations etc um it's a very dark period
▶ 2:01:21in this country what we're discovering is that was being done under pressure by the FBI directed by the executive branch of the government under Joe Biden. But just briefly, how did how did this happen to the UK and the EU and what lesson should we be drawing here today?
▶ 2:01:37Well, we joined the EU half a century ago or the EEC as it was then called. It was a huge mistake in my opinion. Uh we forgot about common law, the kind of law that you guys have always enjoyed too. Uh we sort of gradually transferred to a European way of thinking. We incorporated a human rights act which kind of meant really that you know as opposed to being born free under a human rights regime the state gives you your rights which you're supposed to be incredibly grateful but they can take them away whenever they like. So we we lost our bearings.
▶ 2:02:08The UK lost its way. It became obsessed about doing things a European way. Countries frankly that don't have that history of liberty, freedom and democracy that we do. Uh just uh finally what do you see as the shape of things to come? Are we going to regain these freedoms or or lose them?
▶ 2:02:27Well ultimately the people have to get what they vote for and one of the reasons that we are seeing an extraordinary political revolution that is happening in parts of Europe. And if you believe the polls, what is happening in the United Kingdom right now is we want a government that comes in and gets rid gets rid of all these laws and starts again and starts on the basis, yes, we want to try and protect kids and we will do whatever we can that is practical to protect kids from serious harm online.
▶ 2:02:57Uh but we will get back to the idea that I can insult you, you can insult me, Mr. Mr. Rascal and I can have our chats, but we do it, you know, in a spirit that's not insightful and in a way that honors those who built our great countries.
▶ 2:03:12Thank you.
▶ 2:03:13Thank you.
▶ 2:03:14Gentleman yields back. Well done. Uh the gentle lady from Washington is
▶ 2:03:18Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it wasn't too long ago that Democrats and Republicans on this committee together agreed to undertake a 16-month investigation into the anti-competitive practices of big tech companies. I represent many of them in Seattle and proposed bipartisan legislation which actually passed this committee to restore fairness and competition for consumers and small businesses.
▶ 2:03:42That included the American Choice and Innovation Online Act or ACOIA which included similar common sense structural solutions to what the EU included in the digital markets act. And it was a real recognition that these big tech companies are squaltching competition and innovation and that hurts consumers.
▶ 2:04:03It's a big turnaround then that suddenly the Republican majority wants to do something as absurd as use trade negotiations to help bolster big tech in Europe when EU has undertaken the very smart solutions that fight back against big tech monopolies and protect consumers and small businesses. Maybe it's linked to the fact that these big tech companies are now pouring money into Donald Trump's campaign funds. I don't know.
▶ 2:04:28Maybe it's because they're making all kinds of deals to screw consumers and preference giant corporations in exchange for campaign contributions and a 24 karat gold plaque to Donald Trump like the CEO of Apple just recently did. Seems to me that the Republican party has suddenly turned its back on small businesses, on competition, on innovation, and yes, even on free speech, which is apparently the topic of discussion today.
▶ 2:04:56In fact, one of our witnesses here claims to represent, one of the Republican witnesses, claims to represent small and medium-siz app developers, but his organization gets more than half of its funding from Apple, the very giant corporation that those same small and medium-sized app developers are trying to fight. Make it make sense for me. Now, we have this hearing centered around so-called free speech and so-called censorship. Not here in America, but in Europe.
▶ 2:05:26Well, what about right here at home on US soil? The censorship by the Trump administration, the Republican party on anything that they don't agree with. Let's just take a recent example. Raesa Oturk, a PhD student at Tus University, wrote an op-ed in the student newspaper calling for the university to devest from Israel. It was a simple exercise of her free um first amendment free speech rights. She committed no crime.
▶ 2:05:55She didn't bully or harass anyone. She didn't incite violence towards anyone. Action was totally peaceful. And yet, what happened in March? The Trump administration revoked her student visa. sent masked men to kidnap and disappear her, forcing her into an unmarked car and detained her for 45 days. Professor K, how does this kind of abuse utilizing the immigration system?
▶ 2:06:22In this case, for now, for now, can extend to US citizens, to green card holders, to anyone else. How does this hinder the free speech rights of all Americans? Well, we've seen already that Americans have been American citizens have been caught in the enforcement of immigration laws over the last uh and and outside of the immigration laws over the last several months. But I think we can look at it from two perspectives.
▶ 2:06:50I mean, one is it's a clear violation of a student's free speech right as you just explained it. um when they're detained and set up for deportation solely because of an op-ed that they wrote. But it's also an intimidation for anybody who would write anything further. Anybody who's in that same kind of visa uh situation now is is not going to be writing that op-ed.
▶ 2:07:19And that's not just a harm to them. That's not just chilling their speech. That's also a harm to all of us who would benefit from hearing those kinds of views. In fact, right now the Trump administration is reviewing all social media of visa applicants to see if they've posted any anti-Trump or pro Palestinian sentiments. How does that affect our free speech rights?
▶ 2:07:41Well, it's it's the same answer. It's a um it's a deterioration of our public debate in this country. It's it's exactly this kind of I think that Mr. Mr. Mcccleintoch had said before putting side by side different ideas and that's an interference with that.
▶ 2:07:57So quickly another example in June a Spanish language reporter named Mario Guavara was live streaming a gathering of Americans protesting against Trump's immigration policy. The police arrested him on bogus misdemeanor charges that were later dropped. A few days later he was detained by ICE. Now we've got a government that arrests a student for writing an op-ed, filters a speech of visitors, and arrests a journalist for covering a protest. How does that compare to free speech practices of other countries?
▶ 2:08:24Well, it it does compare with authoritarians who regularly use law enforcement in order to transform journalism into a crime. This is a major global censorship problem. And we're seeing it in Georgia and we see it in this context that is not just a one-off. It's part of, I think, a systemic approach to a free media in this country.
▶ 2:08:50That's one and perhaps the harshest example because I understand that the journalist remains in detention. Um, but it's part of a systemic approach, I think,
▶ 2:09:00similar to Russia and China, places like that. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I have some unanimous consent requests.
▶ 2:09:08Do you want to go now or do you
▶ 2:09:10All right. Go ahead.
▶ 2:09:11Thank you. Um, I ask for unanimous consent to intro uh to enter into the record a letter from the Open Markets
▶ 2:09:21Uh, another one, a letter from the Tech Freedom uh, Association raising concerns with the FTC's inquiry on censorship.
▶ 2:09:30Objection. And a final one from uh the uh I think it's the app association and it's titled Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small
▶ 2:09:45Uh uh without objection. In fact,
▶ 2:09:47I'm sorry Mr. Chairman, I have one more
▶ 2:09:48Okay, go right ahead.
▶ 2:09:49U this is uh an article entitled the false choice between digital regulation and innovation.
▶ 2:09:57Without objection.
▶ 2:09:58Thank you. I yield back
▶ 2:09:59quickly. Mr. read. Are you Is your association fighting Apple?
▶ 2:10:03Pardon me.
▶ 2:10:04Is your association fighting apples? What What the
▶ 2:10:06fighting Apple?
▶ 2:10:07Fighting Apple.
▶ 2:10:08Uh we disagree with Apple on multiple issues as well as for all of our sponsors. Our membership is the small businesses that many of you have met when we've had our flyin every year.
▶ 2:10:17Okay, great. Seems to me your your your association uses Apple. That's where your apps go. I don't think you're fighting Apple. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. Uh, Professor K, was the Centers for Disease Control correct in 2020 about the handling of COVID? You know, the chairman laid out all the things that we now know are debunked. Was the Center for Disease Control correct in how they uh went about their
▶ 2:10:41I I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak to that. I mean, I remember the time like we all did, a time of of great fear
▶ 2:10:48shutting down schools, things like that that have set kids uh set kids behind. See, because it's to uh represent mcclentok's point that wouldn't this administration want to change some people that you talked about that are in the department of health services? Shouldn't they change them if they were wrong about really the seinal issue uh that has come before this generation? Shouldn't they change those people? Well, that's just not my understanding of why people have been to
▶ 2:11:16Are you familiar, Professor Kay, with the uh case Baronson versus Biden, which is a censorship case where um Alex Baronson, a um uh reporter, was deplatformed on Twitter.
▶ 2:11:28I'm not familiar with that one.
▶ 2:11:30I I would uh suggest that you take a look at that because the Biden administration weaponized uh themselves against uh Mr. Baronson and stifled his speech on Twitter. Um what college are you at? a professor at again
▶ 2:11:44University of California, Irvine.
▶ 2:11:45How many classes are you teaching this
▶ 2:11:47This I teach one class right now.
▶ 2:11:49One class this semester.
▶ 2:11:51Mr. uh Mr. Farage, I want to thank you so much for coming to the great state of Wisconsin of which I represent part of it, including Milwaukee. I hope you had a good time there.
▶ 2:12:02I've always had a good time in Milwaukee. No question. Wonderful breweries, friendly people. Love it.
▶ 2:12:07You're welcome back anytime. I want to thank the ranking member for giving us a tutorial on free speech. Mr. Farage, did you instruct anyone on this panel, including the chairman, to um uh to uh to instruct us to stifle the ranking members speech? Did you in
▶ 2:12:26No, absolutely not. Of course not.
▶ 2:12:29Um can you comment on the key issue before the far right that we heard about earlier? What is that key issue in Europe right now that the far right is heavily engaged in?
▶ 2:12:41Well, if you're um in the United I'll speak for the United Kingdom. If you're um opposed to illegal immigration on a mass scale and the huge cost of a taxpayer and the risk to our communities that apparent Oh, and if you like the flag, our national flag, um then apparently you're far right. So that illegal immigration issue that was very informative um to the election in 2024 in America, the same thing is happening in Europe is
▶ 2:13:10very it's a very similar argument in many many ways and therefore the definition of far right I think now applies to about twothirds of the British population. So I think about uh someone who's very famous from your country uh Miss JK Rowling who wrote one of the finest series of books the Harry Potter series uh that has ever been in print um who I believe is self-defined as a liberal as we call them in America. Hasn't she even been threatened for a position she's taken in regards to transgenderism?
▶ 2:13:41Yes, she very much comes from a liberal wing of politics historically, but she's taken a view uh that women should be safe in women's spaces, that means changing rooms, etc. Uh that's all she said. And by the way, that's something that our Supreme Court recently actually did back up the fact that there are fundamental differences. Uh and this is not to launch an attack on anyone that's trans, just to bring some common sense in.
▶ 2:14:05And she has faced cancel culture and abuse on a huge Um I would just uh one other comment in regards to the ranking members opening statement. Um he was saying that we are stifling speech here in America including PBS by defunding them. I would um suggest that the ranking member look at the news that came out in the past week.
▶ 2:14:28It is very good news for PBS where the Ford Foundation and other foundations have said they're going to put in tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure that they stay on the air protecting the American taxpayer. I think that is a great thing that we were able to do um with the one big beautiful bill. Final question for Mr. Price. How is the problem going to be fixed? And can America help?
▶ 2:14:56The Yes, America can help. Um the the light that the spotlight that has already been shone on the problem, by the administration, by the amazing work that this committee is doing here is hugely welcomed by those of us who support the human right to free speech. We have people who are suffering under uh prosecutions, unjust prosecutions in Europe right now. I've outlined a lot of them in my written submissions and it's only because of the support that's coming from this side of the Atlantic that we're able to see possibly a brighter future
▶ 2:15:23and we will continue those efforts. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:15:27Gentlemen, yield back. The
▶ 2:15:28gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
▶ 2:15:30Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, when I was a professor of constitutional law, uh I used to teach my students that freedom of speech is like an apple and everybody wants to take just one bite out of the apple. Somebody doesn't like left-wing speech, there's a bite. Somebody doesn't like right-wing speech. Somebody doesn't like feminist speech. Somebody doesn't like sexist speech. And everybody just wants to take one bite. But if we let everybody take a bite, at the end of the day, there's no apple left. It's all gone.
▶ 2:15:53So if you want to defend free speech and you want a society that's defined by free speech, you've got to accept even the speech you oppose, the speech that you abore. Now, Professor K, um, we want to try to bring some objectivity to the conversation. And I looked up um the uh reporters without borders rankings of every country in the world according to press freedom. Norway was number one. North Korea was number 179.
▶ 2:16:24It's like a totalitarian dungeon. The UK was number 20. The US was number 57 under Trump down from 45 where it was before. Russia, which some people here lionize, was at 171. Right. So if we were going to undertake a serious study of the state of press freedom all over the world for example, where should our focus be?
▶ 2:16:49I appreciate that question. I have a very long list um that that I could
▶ 2:16:55But just tell us methodologically quickly how we should go about doing it if we wanted to undertake this in a serious way.
▶ 2:17:00Absolutely. I mean, I would really use the lens of what do we need as a democracy in order to be wellinformed, in order to make choices about our democracy, to make choices about our health. What do we need? We need an open press. We need open government. We need access. We absolutely don't want to see websites scrubbed as this administration has done. So, I would look at it through that lens, through the lens of what we need in order to have a democracy.
▶ 2:17:29Gotcha. Um so Mr. Farage. Um, first of all, to be called charming by you, a man of your evident air addition and dazzling brilliance is undoubtedly a lifetime achievement award for me. So, I will I will hold it closely. Uh, but I wanted to ask you about your commitment to the freedom of speech universally.
▶ 2:17:49I think it's a principle that you advocate for everyone, not just for people who are in your party or people you agree um you uh said that there should not have been a protest against the Gaza war uh in the UK and then when it went ahead the police refused to shut it down. You called them gutless for not shutting it down. Do you regret having opposed that given that there was no violence there and there were 700,000 people who wanted to express themselves that day?
▶ 2:18:18I have not opposed people standing up and protesting in favor of people living in Gaza at all. There was one particular day and it was the Sunday nearest November the 11th which was when we had big memorial services in London and I think a March being allowed to go ahead on that day would have been a mistake. Any other day fine
▶ 2:18:38oh I see who gets to decide that.
▶ 2:18:41Uh well I think actually something that is embedded in the country something that is absolutely fundamental to
▶ 2:18:47that's why we have a written constitution. You might take that idea back to the UK with you because because the freedom of speech applies 365 days a year here under the first amendment, not 364, 363 depending on some politicians heckling the government and telling them to shut down.
▶ 2:19:02We have allowed We have allowed mass pro Gaza demonstrations in London weekend after weekend.
▶ 2:19:09No thanks to you. All right, let me let me try another sensitive day. That's all
▶ 2:19:15I got you. It was a sensitive day and I thought that's what the freedom of speech was about. You have a right to engage in speech that other people consider offensive or insensitive. But in any event, you've made yourself clear, Mr. Farage,
▶ 2:19:2764 days a year if they want.
▶ 2:19:28You've made yourself clear to your constituents in Claxton today. Let me ask you this. You've banned uh journalists from your political events that you disagree with, haven't you?
▶ 2:19:37No. In fact, I'm the only political
▶ 2:19:39really at your convention. You didn't ban journalists and revoke their credentials. You know, I I I I take the average press conference. I take 25
▶ 2:19:47No, no, that wasn't my question. Mr. Faraj, we're politicians, so we see what you're doing. I'm asking you a direct
▶ 2:19:52Well, thank you.
▶ 2:19:53I'm asking you a direct question. I hope you can answer it. Why do you ban journalists who oppose your views from coming to your events? Why did you tell your party uh that why did you tell the local government not to do interviews with your local newspaper?
▶ 2:20:08I am the most open person to any
▶ 2:20:11Undoubtedly, the handsomest man in the world. But I'm asking you a different question. Okay. That that's not my question. My question for you is and it's legit. Why do you ban journalists that you disagree with from your political events like from your
▶ 2:20:24I don't.
▶ 2:20:25Okay. And you say you've never done
▶ 2:20:27I can't think if I go back the last 25 years. I can't think of banning anybody, but I mean maybe somebody else did. But look, I
▶ 2:20:34I see it the point. I do more. I take more questions.
▶ 2:20:39Do you have any other questions added up together? Mr. Price, let me ask you. You're an honest man. Uh, can do you have any objection to the things you've heard about what Donald Trump is doing in the United States of America, going after law firms, for example, banning them from federal buildings in federal courouses, stripping them of security clearance, saying they can never get federal jobs or contracts because he doesn't like something one of the lawyers at the firm did. Do you think there's a first amendment problem with that as our courts have found?
▶ 2:21:06I'm there's a lot of information you put put into that. It's good to talk to you again after London.
▶ 2:21:10Have you followed that at I haven't. I have to be perfectly honest with you
▶ 2:21:13Okay. Do you have any problems with anything Donald Trump has done with respect to free speech and freedom of expression in America or you just haven't followed it?
▶ 2:21:21Not as well. There are plenty of people here informed on American matters and I
▶ 2:21:24and we are. So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence. I yield back.
▶ 2:21:28I thank the gentleman. My guess is uh Mr. Farage takes press questions probably as often as President Trump does. These are these are two guys who aren't afraid to talk to the press and take any question that that comes to him. We've seen that. Uh we've seen that display time and time again. The gentleman from California, Mr. Kylie, is
▶ 2:21:44Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh it was uh an honor to to be with you uh and the ranking member uh as we had the chance to see firsthand what's going on uh in the U EU in the in the UK. Uh maybe this uh Rascin Farage show could become a recurring event. Uh it's uh gotten very interesting on both occasions. Uh but I'd actually like to direct my questions uh to you, Mr. Price, at first. Um it's good to see you again.
▶ 2:22:08Um, I think that those of us on the trip were really alarmed by the ways in which the tide is turning against free speech uh in the UK and the EU. And I think that there actually was quite a bit of bipartisan agreement uh among the members of our delegation uh on a number of these issues. Uh so I was hoping you could give us a little context of what you think uh explains this.
▶ 2:22:30And I think that we understand that not every country needs to have the has a first amendment or needs to have the exact same standards or the exact same exceptions or the exact same uh ways that the law is applied. But we've always, I think, felt it important that we have uh an alliance uh with our uh European allies around the issues of freedom that stands in contrast to authoritarian regimes around the world like in Russia, like in China, places where they don't have free speech.
▶ 2:22:56And so uh to the extent that these values are fraying uh among our allies then it really uh harms our ability to stand up for the values of freedom around the world. So what do you think is going on? How can we sort of uh strengthen our alliance with our European allies around the issue of freedom of speech?
▶ 2:23:14Thank you sir. Well, what we've seen sadly over many decades and it's it's accelerating has been a consistent use of over broad vague laws to crack down on speech that's regarded as provocative or unorthodox. And you know, I can give you and I have given examples of of the clients that I'm involved in in in representing um where they've been simply speaking about their faith publicly or where they've been offering to talk to people.
▶ 2:23:41So things have reached a crisis point though and this is why I think it's important that Vice President Vance and the administration have intervened and I one thing I would say without divulging any contents of conversations but um Representative Rascin and I had quite a good conversation about just how bad things had become in Europe and I I agree with you. I think there is a bipartisan realization certainly on this committee and I commend the work that it's doing about the nature of the problem in Europe.
▶ 2:24:04What we're with the DSA though we find then the European Union stepping into speech regulating it and bringing that that restrictive um model global and this is where I think really uh the work that that's been happening here is crucial because we we can't allow that to happen because we're going back to co style censorship all over again.
▶ 2:24:23Thank you. And of course it's doubly concerning when this actually implicates the free speech rights of Americans. But I would hope that moving forward we can try to uh work with our counterparts uh in Europe to try to get back to having these shared values around freedom of speech and we don't continue to see a divergence. Um you know Mr.
▶ 2:24:39Reed, I I also wanted to ask you uh about the the DMA uh because you know based I know you represent smaller uh app developers, but we also spoke with uh you know folks uh uh who represent Apple and and Facebook and others and it's a matter of of public record the way that these companies are now sort of uniquely targeted under this law and the the similar law uh in the UK.
▶ 2:25:01And honestly, it caused me to sort of see some of the ongoing negotiations uh around tariffs and other issues uh through a somewhat uh different lens. Uh because the way that American companies are being uh targeted with the DMA really is attacks or imposes or is a direct transfer of wealth from our country uh uh overseas. And these are some of the sort of non-tariff uh barriers that American countries are now facing.
▶ 2:25:27So could you give us give me your perspective on on on the that and the DMA more broadly?
▶ 2:25:33Right. It's ironic that as you say it's a non-tariff trade bearer, but the ultimate biggest loser is usually the smaller and medium-sized companies. Uh early we heard a member of this committee just talk about um bills here in the United States. The irony of those who supported those bills were also billionaire companies. We joked about the fact that it was the trillionaires versus the billionaires who went to war. And the problem when that happens, if any of you run a small business, is the small guy gets crushed.
▶ 2:25:58And what's happening with the DMA in in the in Europe is their desire to put pressure on the US companies means that there are fewer services, fewer features, and less trust are available for the smaller businesses to take advantage of. And that's how we get crushed. And that ends up being a, as you say, a non-tariff trade barrier because it puts the very companies that could compete with these giants at a disadvantage when they have to meet those new tests. Thank you.
▶ 2:26:24And I think that this is going to be an important issue for us to remain focused on is to how we can uh alleviate these barriers that our companies are facing that honestly are hindering uh innovation uh in Europe as well. I yield back
▶ 2:26:37yield back to the chair.
▶ 2:26:40Real clear on uh the the most recent situation. Uh maybe I'll direct this Mr. Farage. So, Graham Lineman is an Irish citizen who posted something while in America and then gets arrested when he goes to the UK for something for some quote offensive post online. Is that
▶ 2:26:58That is absolutely right.
▶ 2:27:00Yeah, that's where this is all headed. That's exactly where this is all headed. Uh the gentleman from California who accompanied us on on the trip when we were so glad that he did is recognized for five minutes.
▶ 2:27:09Thank you, Mr. chair and I also appreciate being invited on a trip and spending time with you and a ranking member uh Rascin. Very informative. Um interesting looking at the DMA winners and losers unattended consequences. According to a recent report commissioned by the EC, the future of European competitiveness, only four of the 50 top tech firms in the world are actually in Europe.
▶ 2:27:40As a Californian, I found it very interesting that a lot of the European move out of Europe, move to the US, specifically California to grow and then possibly move back to Europe. I'm a Californian, so the health and welfare, the interest of Cal of California firms is interest to me.
▶ 2:28:06and uh seeing hundreds of millions of dollars in fines under DMA's nebulous being levied against California firms. Money that could be best spent on R&D in many ways is very bothersome. I care about encouraging California We have the most successful entrepreneurs in the world today.
▶ 2:28:33Yet they are essentially being targeted by the U, EU and other foreign regulations. this money is better again invested in creating jobs in California. And by the way, a lot of these firms that are actually being fined actually pay taxes in California. Today, California recently passed up Japan to become the fourth largest economy in the world.
▶ 2:29:04California is the number number one producer of a products in the world. Number one in terms of venture capital in the US. Number one manufacturer. We pay hundred billion dollars more to the US federal government than we get back on an annual basis. So despite all the challenges we have in California, we actually know how to do it right.
▶ 2:29:32And surprisingly, our workforce visa holders from other countries workforce undocumented workers from around the world that actually harvest their crops. Manufacturing, we are the top manufacturer in the United States in terms of state. A lot of undocumented workers there. So, California, we actually can manage pretty well. The best managed state, I would argue in the union.
▶ 2:30:02So, Mr. Reid, I'm going to ask you, given your association with these small firms, how is the DMA affecting our California firms as they try to grow in the European Union?
▶ 2:30:17The Xanti regulation creates barriers of
▶ 2:30:20What do you mean by Xanti? Explain that to me. In simple terms, it means that the the European Union is determining the behavior before the bad act has happened. It's before it happens.
▶ 2:30:31So they're finding before the actual
▶ 2:30:34They're not just even finding. They're setting the rules by which you could be fined. They are the best way to think about it is is they're saying mother may. If you remember the game mother may, they are asking companies to go forth and say can we do this? And then the commission says well yes you can or yes you cannot. We and traditionally in the United States have taken an expost, meaning did you deceive someone? Did you lie? Did you cheat? Did you steal? And then you're punished.
▶ 2:30:57Unfortunately, the EU is taking a Mother Mayi approach rather than a punishment approach and that harms California businesses because it makes it a lot harder to get in the
▶ 2:31:07Mr. Price, you're from Irvine.
▶ 2:31:12Mr. Price.
▶ 2:31:15tell me a little bit about
▶ 2:31:18California firms and how the DMA
▶ 2:31:21Well, Irvine, by the way, a lot of biotech, high-tech.
▶ 2:31:24I think you might be referring to uh Professor K.
▶ 2:31:26Mr. K, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. K.
▶ 2:31:32Yes. Um, yes, I I teach at the University of California at Irvine. Actually wanted to respond to two of the points that that you're making in part
▶ 2:31:42you got about 20 seconds. Go.
▶ 2:31:45Thank you. Um, in part because this hearing is entitled as one dealing with censorship and we're spending quite a bit of time talking about defending companies. And two things I just wanted to mention. One is the DMA doesn't specifically discriminate against American companies anymore than it does against California companies. And the second is that I think it's important to think about the
▶ 2:32:09Mr. Price. What would you say to that
▶ 2:32:13in relation to discrimination? Yes. They've designed the rules in such a way that they almost perfectly encompass American companies, particularly under the DSA.
▶ 2:32:21So if you're setting the rules and they just happen to throw a net over a particular target group, I think you can legitimately infer from that that that was the intention.
▶ 2:32:30The intention was discrimination.
▶ 2:32:32The intention is to uh throw a drag net over US companies and turn them into a
▶ 2:32:36The intention is discrimination against American firms. That's precisely what the outcome is.
▶ 2:32:41Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And before I yield, I also have some uh articles I'd like to submit for the record, if I may.
▶ 2:32:48Letter by Chairman Fitzgerald and myself to President Trump dated April 9th of this year outlining our concerns with the digital marketings act. Second, report by European Commission dated September 24th, the future of European competitives which is failing to translate into innovation. Third article statement by the Chamber of Progress dated February 10th. How digital markets act has become Europe Europeans digital curtain.
▶ 2:33:18Number four article by the information and technology foundation dated June 30th. Six ways the DMA is backfiring on Europe. Fifth article, Washington Examiner, July 28th, E, excuse me, EU regulations impose heavy costs on US companies. Finally, article in the journal, Wall Street, the tech industry is huge and Europe's share of it is very small. Thank you, sir.
▶ 2:33:44Without objection. Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Texas
▶ 2:33:47Thank you, chairman. I thank you for holding this hearing. I thank the witnesses. Mr. Price, you referenced uh Py Raznan earlier, correct? Yes sir.
▶ 2:33:56Uh can you just real quick in like 30 seconds give the quick summary of what the facts are behind that issue with respect to why she is facing prosecution despite having served in parliament and I believe as a minister in the
▶ 2:34:10That's correct sir. uh over 5 years ago she posted a tweet with a verse from scripture and in that tweet she objected to her church the Finnish uh evangelical Lutheran church using church funds to fund the Helsinki pride parade and for that then a criminal proceedings were launched against her
▶ 2:34:26and she's been dealing with that for four to five years correct
▶ 2:34:29that's correct sir her case is before the Supreme Court at the end of October
▶ 2:34:32facing jail time
▶ 2:34:34facing significant fines
▶ 2:34:35uh and for for having expressed her her with respect to issues involving marriage in the context of a Bible verse. Correct.
▶ 2:34:46That's correct.
▶ 2:34:47And so now we've got, as the chairman illuminated a moment ago, we've got this issue involving Graeme Lanahan who here in the United States made a joke and then is arrested in the UK. Correct.
▶ 2:35:01Yes. He's being arrested or he was arrested for comments that he posted while here.
▶ 2:35:05And that's correct, Mr. Farrage. You agree it is. And that joke had something to do with, as I've looked it up, transidentified males in female only space. And he made some joke about that
▶ 2:35:17That's exactly right.
▶ 2:35:18And so we've got now someone being arrested for alleged transphobia or some sort of hate comment involving a joke on another continent. Now, in the meantime, we've had Mr. Farage talking about Lucy Connelly, right? and her fate, which I understand she got sentenced something like 31 or 32 months for having put out a social media post. Now, that social media post has been alleged to be have tied to some incitement.
▶ 2:35:46She deleted the post, but the post was in response to violence, right? And on the heels of a whole lot of issues involving crime in the UK, whatever the connection is, right? We're saying there is crime in the UK. Now, here's my question, Mr. Raj. How do you feel from the standpoint of borders in the UK? Uh, are open borders healthy for either the United States or the UK?
▶ 2:36:11No, they're disastrous.
▶ 2:36:13And are they having a dilitterious effect with respect to crime and culture in the UK? Yes, they are. It's been a debate that's been very difficult to have without being screamed at, but we are now having that debate.
▶ 2:36:23And so now we've got a moment here where we've got someone being put in jail for putting out something on social media that is allegedly transphobic. And so my question is, I wonder what's going to win out. What's going to win out when the questions of Islamophobia and the tenants of Islam mash up against What will the determiners of truth in the UK government decide?
▶ 2:36:51What will those who make decisions about what we can say and what we cannot say do when these worlds collide? Would you have any comment on that, Mr. Far? In the Lucy Connelly case, it's very interesting that this horrific murder of three young girls happened. The country was in very deep shock. Very deep shock. The government deliberately withheld the truth about who the perpetrator was and it led to a a sea of speculation.
▶ 2:37:18It turned out ultimately that the man that committed those murders was in fact UK born, had not come over on a boat as was being said on social media. just goes to show that actually however bad the news is, people deserve to know the truth about a situation. It stops that frenzy of speculation. Who's going to win these great battles?
▶ 2:37:38Um I think that there is a growing silent majority certainly in my country who object to the two-tier concept that you know Lucy Connelly gets 31. And by the way, there were mitigating circumstances for what she said with her own personal situation, but she's arrested very quickly.
▶ 2:38:02She's threatened that if she pleads not guilty, she'll go straight to prison and be on remand until the trial and goodness knows when. Um, we're not defending what she said, but she recognized her her her error, you know, in a moment of of anger and passion and upset, and she and she withdrew it three and a half later, three hours there. I think uh I think the that the answer, Mr. Roy, is that the silent majority will win. The silent majority will win.
▶ 2:38:31Good will triumph over bad, and common sense will be returned. It won't happen quickly. It won't happen quickly. As I've already outlined, there is coming down the tracks an Islamophobia law, which would divide speech even even more widely than it is now. But in the end, common sense, decency will win. Is Sharia law consistent with Western values?
▶ 2:38:53Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 2:38:55Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
▶ 2:39:00Uh thank you uh Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Froch, thanks for being here coming across the pond. I I'm sorry to hear you're leaving the hearing early. We
▶ 2:39:09Well, it's not a question of leaving the hearing early, but I I I do have other things to do. Yes.
▶ 2:39:13Oh, where you going?
▶ 2:39:14I'm so sorry about that.
▶ 2:39:15It's okay. Where you going?
▶ 2:39:16It's not lunch. I promise you
▶ 2:39:18it's not lunch. You're not going to have
▶ 2:39:20I don't think so. No,
▶ 2:39:21no lunch.
▶ 2:39:21Sad, isn't it?
▶ 2:39:22You're meeting with the president.
▶ 2:39:24I can't remember what the shenan is. It's possible.
▶ 2:39:26You can't remember if you're meeting with the president.
▶ 2:39:29I'm being very polite and I'm not going to tell you what I'm doing this afternoon, but I can assure you that.
▶ 2:39:34But there's the free speech hearing. You're not going to tell me what you're doing this afternoon.
▶ 2:39:37Oh, there's free speech is one thing. Discretion is quite another, too.
▶ 2:39:40Okay. All right. So, you're leaving to have you're leaving to have lunch with the president? So So, Mr. Far, I have a question. Have you heard about the Epstein thing that's going on here?
▶ 2:39:50I have.
▶ 2:39:51You have. What do you think about it?
▶ 2:39:53I'm not going to give comment on anything happening in America. I'm here as a witness.
▶ 2:39:56I'm here as I'm here as a witness.
▶ 2:39:58I'm here as a witness for what is happening in the United Kingdom and in the European.
▶ 2:40:02Perfect. Let Let me just go through it. So, it's been nine months, right, since we've been meeting in these hearings. We've not had Pam Bondi here, even though we have jurisdiction over the Department of Justice. Not Dan Bond.
▶ 2:40:13Would the gentleman yield?
▶ 2:40:14Nat cash. I will I will 100%. We'll go we'll go back and forth. Let me just do my thing and we'll
▶ 2:40:19Well, I'm just going to correct. Cash Patel is coming in two I'll give you an extra 10 seconds. Cash Patel, the director of FBI, is coming in two weeks and the attorney general's coming in four weeks.
▶ 2:40:26Fantastic. But still, but still, we're not we're not doing that this week, the week we're having votes on the on the Epstein thing. So, you know, Pam Bondi gives the influencers, these Republican influencers, a binder. It says part one of the Epstein files. Don't know if you saw it. It was quite spectacular. Uh the attorney general then says the Epstein list is on her desk. Then DOJ issues a memo says there is no list.
▶ 2:40:52Then you know uh that you know the Do you have any questions about any any of that? We've had no we've had no hearings on any of that at all that you know the list is on my desk then there is no list. Then we gave binders to Republican influencers. This this committee had no questions on any of how that transpired at the Department of Justice. Then hold
▶ 2:41:14Well, it sounds like you're it sounds like you're going to in the next few weeks Mr. We can talk soon, but not yet.
▶ 2:41:22So, you know, then the president comes out and says the whole thing's a hoax. He blasts his own base. He blames Barack Obama. I I mean, he hasn't been president for a very long time. Republicans then in committee vote against the release in the rules committee. Then Republicans refuse to go back in the rules committee because they're getting blasted for their vote, getting crushed by their own base. We leave. Congress leaves a day early.
▶ 2:41:49Then the administration sends the deputy attorney general to meet with Maxwell in jail. He happens to be Trump's former personal attorney. She says something favorable about the president. Miraculously, she gets transferred to a minimum security prison. The president starts talking about how he has the right to pardon her if he wanted to. The leaks to the Wall Street Journal then stop. We come back from break. We have the Massie petition. Comr does a document dump where 97% of these documents are already public. How long has he had those documents?
▶ 2:42:19Why hasn't he released them for the last 6 weeks? Does it the day of the vote? Then Republicans drop a non-binding resolution trying to kill the Massie discharge petition. The White House said passing the Massie discharge petition is a hostile act. that's a lot of distraction and deflection and misinformation. Wait, wait.
▶ 2:42:43Passing passing a a discharge petition to release the Epstein files, the White House said would be a hostile act. No, we have no questions about that. But why? Why is it that we're spending so much political capital to keep this list from coming out? You think the list should come out? You think we should know the people who who dealt with Mr. Epste, Mr.
▶ 2:43:07I thought I was coming to a hearing on free speech, not process.
▶ 2:43:10Oh, well, listen, but here's the good.
▶ 2:43:12It sounds like you're discussing
▶ 2:43:14Do you think the list should come out?
▶ 2:43:16I have no opinion on it. I don't know.
▶ 2:43:19So, we have victims that were sexually abused by potentially people in power. And we don't know who's on the list.
▶ 2:43:24I'm very happy.
▶ 2:43:25Hold on, Mr. We don't know who's on the list. We don't know. We don't know who's on the list. We don't know if the president is or is not. I'm not going to say he is or isn't. I'm just going to say these are weird behaviors. We don't know that there aren't other people in Congress that are on the list, right? We we have no idea. Do you think the list should come out? You think people in power should be held to account for these victims who have been sexually abused and assaulted? You think the list should come out?
▶ 2:43:47I think that I'm very happy to come to a different hearing where you talk about legal process.
▶ 2:43:51Will the gentleman yield for a quick question? Were you aware that he has already called for the Epstein file to be released?
▶ 2:43:57It has been reported that he has called for it to be released.
▶ 2:43:59Oh, yeah. here just to refresh your
▶ 2:44:02I happen to have this
▶ 2:44:03but that's not but that is not Look, you can ask me if you like about about um security policy.
▶ 2:44:09Do you agree with yourself?
▶ 2:44:10Here we are here to discuss free speech.
▶ 2:44:13Hold on. Is it It's awkward for your lunch after this. Do you agree with
▶ 2:44:15No, it isn't at all.
▶ 2:44:16Okay, Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious. This committee has jurisdiction over the Department of Justice.
▶ 2:44:22Why have we allowed COMR to cover this up for the last couple of months? As I
▶ 2:44:25why is this committee not
▶ 2:44:26like I said six weeks ago that we will have the FBI director in, we will have the attorney general in and we are doing that in two weeks. You can ask all you can go through that whole list, that whole list. You can do whatever you want to do with I got lots of questions for the FBI director including including the whistleblower who came forward and told him that Adam Schiff leaked classified information. I want to ask him about that as well as well as the issues you all want to ask him about. That's why he's coming so we can ask all these questions and follow the process as Mr. Mr. Farage just talked about gentleman from Virginia.
▶ 2:44:55Unanimous consent.
▶ 2:44:56Unanimous consent.
▶ 2:44:57I'd like to enter the political article into the record uh that Mr. Farage said the Epstein file should be released.
▶ 2:45:03Uh without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
▶ 2:45:05I thank the chairman. I want to uh talk about censorship tools that are being used by Europe and protectionist measures that have major consequences for US companies and free expression worldwide. I'm glad to have you all here to get your views on those issues. Uh Mr. Fro, you've called the online safety act a borderline dystopian censorship regime and many agree including myself that the law badly overreaches.
▶ 2:45:31One of the most serious criticisms is that it empowers offcom to undermine encryption and open the door to not just government surveillance of posts online and public statements but private messages. Uh raising alarms not not just in the UK but beyond UK borders. Vice President JD Vance has warned this could threaten Americans privacy as well. Do you recognize that this is not just a domestic issue for the UK, but a global one?
▶ 2:45:59And if you become Prime Minister, what assurances would you give allies that the UK will not undermine end-to-end privacy standards? you have my absolute word that a reform government will repeal the online safety act and we'll go right back actually you know to legislation back to 2010 um under which these whole concepts of hate speech have begun uh to be interpreted in UK law and we will do that. Do we want to protect kids? This is the big question. Yes, we do.
▶ 2:46:28We need to find means we need to find ways. I half suggested earlier that hardware could be part of the solution. But yes, we want to protect to encourage and let free speech flourish. You've said reform UK has access to some of the best tech minds to design alternatives. How do you propose to balance protecting children without scanning private messages or weakening encryption?
▶ 2:46:51I think well as I said I've I've look look I don't have all the answers to this but the British prime minister says he has got the answers to this. Well, if it's about protecting kids, why does the legislation give Ofcom the most extraordinary and frankly arbitrary powers? Um, and why is there the establishment under the act of an elite police force unit to monitor what is said online?
▶ 2:47:16So, you know, it's far better to be honest and say we don't have the perfect solutions than to pretend we have with legislation that is a sledgehammer that misses the nut. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Price, the EU's Digital Services Act imposes liability for so-called systemic risks. How does that chill religious or political speech? And do you see conflicts with First Amendment principles?
▶ 2:47:39Um, yeah, that's correct. The systemic risk provision, I think, constitutes a form of content moderation that they're misrepresenting, frankly, in their letters to you. Um, and where the systemic risk provisions talk about, in fact, uh, damage to what they call civil discourse. And we've already seen prosecutions uh including clients of ours who have been uh prosecuted for among other things praying silently discussing the differences between Christianity and Islam um tweeting a verse from the Bible.
▶ 2:48:06So if these constitute systemic risks to civil discourse, the EU has the power in terms of this content moderation provision to step in.
▶ 2:48:13Damage to civil discourse seems a little broad, doesn't it?
▶ 2:48:18Um Mr. to read the EU's digital markets act and the UK's digital markets competition and consumers act are sold as prompetition but don't compliance costs just burden small app developers absolutely the problem is is that uh it's interesting as you talked about how do you do a better job you asked how do we do a better job to protect children one of the ways we do it is by empowering parents to be good parents and one of our deepest concerns is by removing some of the capability of the platforms to curate
▶ 2:48:48and provide information to parents about what applications do through a clear forward interface that they see every day. That's useful. It makes it harder to parent, harder harder to know what apps are on your kids's device and harder for you to control it. So, we absolutely see that not only are there problems with it on encryption, which we which we agree with you 100%. But we also think it weakens our ability as parents to be in charge of the devices our childrens are
▶ 2:49:15Yeah. These rules don't help parent consumers, if you will. They just shift power from platforms and from parents and from consumers to regulators.
▶ 2:49:26U do these regimes create a level playing field for US firms or do they advantage European competitors at the expense of American innovation? Well, the original thought behind the DMA was that Europe had not been successful in creating their own industry. As was alluded to by several other members of Congress, and Congressman Korea noted it as well, um Europe's economic uh potential has slowed while the United States has grown incredibly.
▶ 2:49:55We've gone from almost equal in 2008 to a 50% increase in the size of the US economy between 2008 and now. And we think a lot of it comes from the small technology companies that um have been creating amazing devices, amazing products, amazing applications that you're all using. And we are disappointed that uh that there aren't the same opportunities for the US uh for our EU members.
▶ 2:50:18Thanks. I yield back.
▶ 2:50:20Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
▶ 2:50:23Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, for years, political extremists, including some of our colleagues, have claimed without evidence that so-called conservative speech is being cancelled. But the speech at issue is not conservative political speech. It's hate speech, including incitement to violence, threats, and harassments of particular people or groups, and lies about almost everything from election results to healthcare. And there's nothing conservative about any of that.
▶ 2:50:53So today's hearing appears to be one more attempt by these extremists to claim victimhood, promote falsehoods, and normalize radical ideas, all while attacking others. Today, our Republican colleagues claim that our European allies pose the biggest threat to Americans free speech today.
▶ 2:51:12Seriously, there's an allout assault on the First Amendment in the US, but it's coming from inside the House, the White House, the executive branch of our own country. For the past eight months, our Republican colleagues have done nothing but cheer on the administration's unamerican attacks. Because the truth is, they're all for free speech, but only if it's the speech they agree with.
▶ 2:51:38I'd say if you really want to talk about censorship, let's talk about how this administration with the support of our MAGA colleagues has tried to strangle speech and ideas that it doesn't agree with when that speech comes from the free press, college campuses, law firms and judges, library books, the Smithsonian museums, responsible investors, scientists, dedicated employees with deep expertise, and more.
▶ 2:52:06We've seen this White House use executive orders, threats and intimidation, illegal withholding of federal funding, raids by masked and armed police, and even sending military troops onto American streets to shut down opposition to this administration's policies.
▶ 2:52:25Professor K, uh, you are an internationally recognized expert on freedom of expression and have studied the growing assault on free speech and civil society around the world. Um, in your testimony, you said that the situation in the US raises serious alarms. Can you elaborate on that?
▶ 2:52:45Yes. Well, everything that Thank you for the question. Everything that you just mentioned is alarming. um the assaults on the press, on universities, on public protest, all of those things I think are the kinds of things that historically the United States has fought against. So all of those things are are very problematic.
▶ 2:53:06And I think that one way to think about them perhaps and it's useful in this committee actually in the context of this committee is to think of those things that the Trump administration is doing as a contrast to something like the DSA. Right? So the DSA sees a a problem which I think is a problem shared or perceived on both sides of the aisle which is massive platform power and also the kinds of content that that you alluded to.
▶ 2:53:34But the DSA doesn't create any new rules that allow either the European Commission or countries to censor. It is a transparency regime. It's a risk assessment regime. It's actually researcher access. It's it's actually a tool to give us information about what's happening online.
▶ 2:53:57That's in like in just sharp contrast to the kind of issues that we're seeing in this country which are very much focused on criticism and
▶ 2:54:08Yeah. I I think my colleague uh Miss Jipal talked about the fact that we had a very robust investigation of big tech um in prior congresses which has kind of been shut down by a new alliance between big tech and the Republican party.
▶ 2:54:24Um, but it is about dealing with the real issues and the very real power that these big tech platforms have and trying to provide tools for ordinary citizens to fight back against disinformation or harmful content. Can you talk a little bit about that?
▶ 2:54:43Yeah, absolutely. I mean, if you think about one tool that the DSA offers, it's this assurance that individuals will be able to challenge to appeal content moderation decisions. That is not something that is allowed or or mandated by law in in the United States. One one other thing just to mention in this connection, I think Mr. Farage mentioned, and it's really just to highlight how hard some of these questions might be. Um, Mr.
▶ 2:55:11Farage has has uh suggested the possibility that hardware could be part of a solution to deal with children's access to harmful information. I think there's something possibly there, but it's another form of censorship. I think we should just recognize that restrictions are on the table in the United States, in the UK, elsewhere. I I think the European adopted an approach that makes
▶ 2:55:42trying to get to as many members as possible. Gentle lady's time has expired. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. Mr. Frost has leave in a few minutes. We want to get as many members as possible.
▶ 2:55:50Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um just before I begin to my friend, he's not here now, Mr. Moscowitz from Florida. There's kind of an old trick in debating. When you're losing the debate on the issue, you change the issue. This is not about Epstein. It has nothing to do with that. And as the chairman so correctly said, the attorney general is going to be here, the FBI director is going to be here and we can talk about it till the cows come home. Second thing is, I believe it was you, Mr.
▶ 2:56:19Faraj, that said CO changed our world and in many ways more than just a biological disease. What it did to us psychologically, governmentally, philosophically was really bad. And we're still not out of it yet because of what happened then. We're losing our freedoms. We are losing our freedoms. And it's not because of an American Congress. It's not because of American courts. It's not because of American Republicans.
▶ 2:56:46And I'm going to even say it's not because of American Democrats. It is due to bureaucrats in Brussels and in London. Sorry. And in other places as well. It's wrong. It's unamerican. I am unabashedly and I think we all are here hopefully pro-American. We should be protecting our citizens. Instead, we're watching foreign bureaucrats come to our country and try to force United States companies to censor humor, satire, and news they don't like.
▶ 2:57:16It's backwards. It's bizarre. It's perverse, and it's weird. That's what we would call it in New Jersey. It's just weird, and it's not good. It's the opposite of everything that the United States of America fought for and stands for. And it's a globalist mindset. You know, we can all talk about the issues, but I'm going to keep talking about globalism versus American exceptionism, exceptionalism and individuality.
▶ 2:57:42I believe very much sincerely that the whole battle that's going on now with the right and the left, what's happening in Great Britain, what's happening around the world, what's happening in the United States is very much that argument. individuality and in our case here in the states, exceptionalism, or is it globalism?
▶ 2:58:04And like the EU's digital service act and the UK's online safety act are the pinnacle examples and they are of how upside down things have gotten in the effort to globalize our society. And that is the ultimate showdown. It is resulting in our losing of our freedom, losing our influence. And the only winner here are some countries in Europe, Russia, China, and others.
▶ 2:58:28Europe is spending their time attacking American tech companies, dictating how our platforms operate, how our technology operates, and punishing people for exhibiting free speech. The European model. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but it is wrong. We fought a revolution to defend ourselves. men and women pledged their lives, their treasure, their sacred honor so that they wouldn't have to go through this. And we never thought that Americans would be stripped of that.
▶ 2:58:58That's why this moment is so serious. It's more serious than most Americans and people realize right now. And you know, for generations, we thought if we were ever attacked, it was going to be a nuclear holocaust. We thought it was going to be the domino theory. We thought it was going to be world wars. We thought it was so many things. I maintain it's this.
▶ 2:59:18If we lose our first amendment rights and our freedom of speech, we have lost everything and nothing else and internet technology is being used as a vehicle to make this happen. So I have a question for Mr. Farage and Mr. Price. This hearing is really good and I'm sure we're going to have some other hearings. But more than hearings and talking about it, what is it tangibly? This is a hard question that we can do to stop it.
▶ 2:59:48What is it? Mr. Farage, I'll start with you.
▶ 2:59:51The debate we've had here, I mean, nobody here from any side of the of of of the debate has told me that the online safety act is a wonderful piece of legislation. You know, right across the spectrum here, you're having your own internal debates about free speech in America, right? Healthy and what this committee is for. I want to make this argument. Yeah, I know these companies are very big and very powerful, many of the tech firms, but you know, governments talk to each other. Yeah. And it needs the American administration and businesses to have an honest conversation.
▶ 3:00:22Brussels, you won't get a hearing. They are fundamentally anti-American, frankly, and I I was there for 20 years. I saw it. I do think there is a conversation to be had with the British government about the shape of their legislation and the impact it can have on American individuals, their liberty and American companies. So, so I am calling for as a result of what's happened. It's clearly got the legislation's clearly doing the wrong thing. I think it is it is it is cause for proper intergovernmental debate.
▶ 3:00:52I hope that we have it. And by the way, we have censorship in America. Watch ABC, NBC, and CBS. I'm at the meetings. I'm in a discussion. I see and hear what happens. I watch My wife has channel 6 on which drives me nuts at home and it has nothing to do with the damn stuff that actually happened and that's the truth. We have it already and I pray to God we don't lose America. Mr. Chairman, indulgence and I'll shut up. Mr. Price didn't get a chance.
▶ 3:01:18Yes, sir. I you talked about putting pressure on and I I agree that Brussels is a cold house for free speech but a lot of the regulation is actually happening in my own country in Ireland in Dublin where a lot of the tech companies are headquartered their European headquarters and it's the Irish media commission or commission nan in in the Irish language which is the ground zero really for a lot of this regulation and here's where I think the US can do a lot because there's strong bilateral relationships between Ireland and the United States is to put pressure on the Irish government to to stop the bullying of tech companies.
▶ 3:01:49And already X is in the Irish Supreme Court soon against the Irish media commissioner. So they're already starting the crackdown. So I would I would hope that um you use your good offices here to put pressure on the
▶ 3:02:00Mr. Chairman, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.
▶ 3:02:03Gentleman is recognized.
▶ 3:02:04Why is the witness leaving uh this hearing early uh and certainly without
▶ 3:02:09he has an engagement told us about this is this is not unusual. It's happened before under Democrat leadership of the committee, under Republican leadership of the committee. We're trying to get through as many people as we can. You have many of your witnesses who did not ask Mr. Farage a question. Many of your colleagues if you could have coordinated with them. You didn't go in order. We didn't necessarily go in orders because we wanted to get as many people up front asking Mr. Farage questions.
▶ 3:02:29Could we ask him if he would be willing to stay for?
▶ 3:02:32That's totally up to the witness. But uh if the witness has to go somewhere, I understand. We were glad that he came. We were glad that we had a chance to visit with him in in in Europe. So uh you could have went on that trip and had a chance to interact with
▶ 3:02:42I wasn't invited, but next time
▶ 3:02:44you were definitely invited. Everyone was invited from the from the Democrat side. The whole committee was invited. Uh the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Georgia for questions. And Mr. Fraud, if you can stay longer, we would definitely welcome that.
▶ 3:02:54Uh when I chaired uh this event in the Palace of Westminster, we had an hour
▶ 3:02:59for it because time was very tight. And that was perhaps the the source of a slight disagreement. Mr. Rascin and I
▶ 3:03:05some a little bit of confusion on that.
▶ 3:03:07We would have given this
▶ 3:03:08side got an hour, but the whole thing was limited to an hour. And then your side went and then you called.
▶ 3:03:12I was given the instructions. This we've given three hours and I apologize but now I can't stay longer.
▶ 3:03:17I could send the constitution down to the white house for the president to read it. Is not recognized. The gentle lady from Georgia has five minutes to ask her questions while Mr. Farage is still here and then he will leave when he has to leave.
▶ 3:03:29Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses today. Um, our first amendment rights, as you can see, are definitely under attack. Words are very powerful tools as you've heard them being used here in this hearing.
▶ 3:03:42And this administration has gone out of their way to retaliate against our students, news agencies, and others who express views that don't align with their extreme agenda by using lawsuits, eliminating funding, and even going so far as to send out a memo with a list of restricted words that can't even be used.
▶ 3:04:05The actions of this administration have been ruled against in court time and time again by judges from both parties on a basis of abusing our constitutional rights. from freezing funding for colleges because they do not bend to this administration's will to removing programs that are designed to expand student understanding and access in education which I'd like to add, you know, increases future opportunities for
▶ 3:04:36our Republican constituents as well and using federal investigation powers to We are watching the First Amendment be manipulated in ways that this nation hoped that they would never see. Hear it from the judges who have ruled against government bullies who attempt to violate violate the rights of the American people.
▶ 3:04:59US District Judge Suknanim found First Amendment violations in the government investigation into media matters, which he stated is likely to succeed in its claim that the FTC was using this investigation as a retaliation against the watchdog group for claims against a prominent Trump supporter. A clear violation of First Amendment protections. And the cases, they just go on and on and on.
▶ 3:05:26US District Judge McFaden, a Trump appointee, ordered that the Associated Press's access to the White House press be reinstated, reeling that denying their access because of differing viewpoints was a clear violation of the First Amendment. If the majority wants to talk about attacks on the First Amendment in other parts of the world, they need to start right here in our administration.
▶ 3:05:54The constitution is the foundation of this country. It is not meant to be trampled on for political or for business advantage. When you love something, you want to protect it and you want to do what's best for it.
▶ 3:06:11You want to improve This means people will speak out and disagree on actions taken in their country and offer critiques of our leaders and yes the politicians. That's a constitutionally protective right. If the first amendment is our guard rail then this admin administration is truly trying to push us off the road.
▶ 3:06:39This government should be strong enough to accept any criticism without violating people's rights and offending the man in the White House. Professor K, I have a question, just one question for you. Based on what you've seen since this January, if our colleagues in the majority continue to pretend that our first amendment rights are not under attack here at home, what could this mean for our country within the next three years?
▶ 3:07:11Thank you for that question. I think that as we look at the current moment and the current situation for our media, for our universities, for people's access to information generally, particularly access to health information, I think it pretends really very problematic and dark days ahead.
▶ 3:07:35Will we be able to have access to information that makes us informed parents or informed citizens, able to make voting decisions? I think that's the kind of future that we're we should expect if we don't recognize this situation. And I think that the tenor of the conversation could at least recognize that there are violations of fundamental rights to freedom of expression by this government right now.
▶ 3:08:04at least recognize it. I know that Democrats in the last five years called out the Biden administration from time to time when it did things that it thought was uh inconsistent with free speech values. I think having that kind of honest discussion and then some real constraint is is where the committee should be heading.
▶ 3:08:23Thank you so much. I encourage everyone that sees nothing wrong with this administration's retaliatory attacks on expressions of our First Amendment to consider just how much you are willing to give up to appease this man in the White House. At this time, I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to our ranking member.
▶ 3:08:45There's no there's no time left to yield. The um I think the gentle lady gentle lady yields back. I do have to run to another commitment. Uh I will be back in 20 minutes. We will have Mr. or not take over as chair. Mr. Fraud, if you have to leave, I look forward to visiting with you sometime later. Uh
▶ 3:08:59I do. But thank you very much.
▶ 3:09:00Thank you for your testimony.
▶ 3:09:01Could I just ask you for one more? Mr.
▶ 3:09:03Gentleman from the gentleman from Alabama, uh is recognized for five
▶ 3:09:08Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Farage, I enjoyed Milwaukee at the Harley-Davidson plant with you. That was a great evening. So, uh question for Mr. Pricar or Mr. Farrage. One requirement for speech to be censored as a false communication offense under the OSA is that speech must cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm. What is non-trivial psychological harm? I honestly don't know. And that's the problem with this legislation. It's so open-ended. It could mean anything.
▶ 3:09:36Um it it it it leaves this entirely in the hands of local police forces uh to to make their decisions. Um and and and the other disturbing element of this is that the the much within this act can be changed on a whim by a government minister or at the other end it can be interpreted by offcom in ways that it sees fit. You know, this is not good legislation. It's totally open-ended. It could literally mean whatever you want it to mean.
▶ 3:10:04And local law enforcement, I guess, can make that decision on who they decide to prosecute and who they do not. Have we seen it tending one way or the other? I know we've talked about a couple of cases in here. Are there certain people being targeted you think with OSA?
▶ 3:10:16Well, that's the fear, isn't it? The fear is that certain communities will be acted upon more harshly than other communities. That creates the impression of a two-tier country. That then breaks down trust in law and order, the democratic system, and everything else.
▶ 3:10:29I thought what was interesting overnight was that the boss, Sir Mark Roley, the boss of the Metropolitan Police has said, "Look, we arrested this guy at Heathrow because we had to under the law, but they've thrown it back to the government to say, "Come on, can you just define more clearly what you want this legislation to mean?" And that's why I think it's rotten legislation. It impacts us in ways that we can't yet foresee. It impacts potentially Americans and American businesses. Um, and it needs to be gotten rid of and we need to start again.
▶ 3:10:59So, Mr. Price, talking about affecting American businesses, I guess Europe's 440 million people, the US is 300 million people. How do these companies, what do you see down the road for these platforms, these social media platforms, these companies that feel like they have to try and comply if they're going to do business in Europe, if in fact we don't repeal this OSA thing, which I hope Mr. Farage is able to do that with his leadership at some point in the near future. So, how does this play out for our companies, Mr. prize and for free speech in Europe in general.
▶ 3:11:27Well, on the corporate side, they're facing a really complicated piece of legislation and as as Mr. Farage outlined with the the provisions that are confusing in the online safety act in the United Kingdom, there are similarly extremely confusing provisions in the uh digital services act. So, the mindset has to be one normally of compliance. One company has stood up to this whole regime and is challenging it at every level and that's X. I hope others join and do the same because um the European Commission though really has been quite threatening.
▶ 3:11:57Um you'll recall the Terry Breton letter of course about the Elon Musk's interview with um then candidate President Trump. Um and you'll also see that other members of the commission have made threatening remarks against companies as well on these so-called voluntary codes of conduct.
▶ 3:12:12when X and Google left one of the codes of conduct a European commissioner said well of course they are voluntary but we note that you've left them and we'll still hold you on the obligations and you have Tiar Breton saying as well you can run but you can't hide if you leave the codes of conduct so the whole thing is designed to force compliance and the hammer that they have of course these enormous crippling fines
▶ 3:12:33it's like 10% on global revenue if I understand correctly so for some of these companies that's pretty tremendous
▶ 3:12:40absolutely yeah of turnover over.
▶ 3:12:42And I guess could you as we're looking through this, it's like almost like people could claim that they were offended or hurt you. You hurt their feelings and all of a sudden you're a target of this investigation. Is that right, Mr. FZ? Is that kind of
▶ 3:12:55Yes. And frankly, under free speech, we should be allowed we should be allowed to cause offense.
▶ 3:13:01I should be able to offend you. You should be able to offend me. And provided we know what the limits are. and the limits I think we fully understand of incitement uh for example uh then we have to get back to you know a a much freer way of living and if people say rude things and we don't like them well we just ignore them and get
▶ 3:13:19like today when you were accused of Russian collusion I guess that was pretty offensive
▶ 3:13:22well I remember the Russia hoax very very well we had shades of it earlier on this morning but but not much more than that I'm pleased to say
▶ 3:13:29well thank you and Mr. Chairman with that I'll yield back
▶ 3:13:31thank you and we're going to have to go Mr. chairman, but thank you very much for you can blame it on me. One more.
▶ 3:13:37Oh, you're avoiding me.
▶ 3:13:39Mr. Farage, thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Goldman.
▶ 3:13:43I'm sorry to see you leave, Mr. Farage, I actually had u much that we agree upon and uh was looking forward to your testimony because it is it's very nice and refreshing to hear from my GOP colleagues that they are worried about Mr. Biggs and Mr.
▶ 3:14:02McClingto both said that earlier and I imagine given what's going on in this country when the president is sending the military into American cities is weaponizing the department of justice to investigate his enemies requiring loyalty oaths from uh the federal all federal workers at risk of otherwise being fired. The list goes on and on.
▶ 3:14:27It is reassuring to hear that the Republicans who have remained stone silent about Trump's authoritarian takeover of our government here are actually concerned about And I found it really heartening that Mr. Van Drew said, and I quote, "If we lose our First Amendment rights, we lose everything." Now in his opening statement, Mr.
▶ 3:14:56Farage said, quote, "When the government starts regulating speech, it is rarely those that agree with the government who find themselves in court." And Mr. Farage, I I'll ask you the question, is that similar to your concern about suppressing speech that disagrees with the government? Oh, Mr. Farage has left. Well, Mr.
▶ 3:15:26Raskin, I I will then maybe just you can stand in for Mr. Farage for for a minute here. I I uh I know you are a champion of of free speech. I'm not sure it's the same free speech that Mr. Farage uh is supporting. But if this concern about the government regulating speech is because it is rarely those that agree with the government who find themselves in court, then you would think that Mr.
▶ 3:15:54Farage and all of our Republican colleagues would be very very concerned if a administration here in the United States was investigating who made the colossal mistake of speaking out against the president. That would be a clear violation of Mr. Faraj's principle.
▶ 3:16:24Is that right?
▶ 3:16:26He was talking about the importance of political disscent. And this is a test, Mr. Goldman, I think, of our constitutional patriotism. To what extent are we willing to speak up for people who are the targets of government repression, even if we don't agree with what they're saying? A great example of that is our colleague, Congresswoman MacGyver, from New Jersey.
▶ 3:16:44I would hope that in a comparable circumstance, I would stand up for a Republican colleague who tries to exercise his or her oversight rights by going to a government facility uh on a pre-arranged visit and then gets caught up in the chaos and confusion outside and they want to send her to jail for 30 years. I did stand up for um our colleague from New York. I'm spacing his name. Uh
▶ 3:17:10Mr. Santos. because that they wanted to expel him without his having a conviction or an ethics process. And I said that wasn't fair. So I think I passed a micro test there. I would hope some of our colleagues would say no, you know, don't prosecute our colleagues just for doing their jobs.
▶ 3:17:27Well, let's let's talk about that because that is exactly what this Department of Justice is doing. Recently, we heard publicly, which would ordinarily never happen, the Department of Justice does not say publicly, they don't confirm that there are any investigations of anyone be until there's an indictment because that person or those individuals can't defend themselves.
▶ 3:17:51But now, we know that Senator Adam Schiff, who led the first impeachment of Donald Trump, is under investigation by the Department of Justice. New York State Attorney General Leticia James, who filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump and his business, she is now under investigation. Miles who literally did only the only thing that he did was write a op-ed and a book criticizing the president of the United States.
▶ 3:18:22He is under criminal investigation. Chris Krebs, whose offense, I think, was to say that the 2020 election was the most secure ever. He is under investigation. John Bolton, who has criticized the president, gets his house raided. Lisa Cook, the Fed governor, is now under investigation for mortgage fraud, I guess, because she doesn't want to lower rates.
▶ 3:18:46the degree to which this government is suppressing speech that simply opposes the president's views should make Mr. Farage and every single one of my Republican colleagues speak out in favor of the First Amendment and yet we have heard nothing. There is still time, my friends, and I yield back.
▶ 3:19:10Thank you, sir. The chair now recognizes a gentle lady from Wyoming. Uh Benjamin Franklin said over 270 years ago, "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government. When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins. An evil magistrate entrusted with power to punish for words would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible.
▶ 3:19:38under pretense of pruning off the exuberant branches, he would be apt to destroy the tree. Mr. talked in his opening statement that um noted that Europe's regulatory regime risks exporting restrictive standards that could violate Americans constitutional rights. So, I'd like to expose that and discuss that a little bit further.
▶ 3:20:02He noted that the oh so benignely titled online safety act exemplified this regulatory model. The OSA is marketed as a measure to protect children online, but it is clearly being used as a means to actually impose governmentbacked censorship, especially speech which is critical of government policy.
▶ 3:20:22As an egregious example, we have learned that the OSA has been used against Katie Lamb, MP for Wield of Kent, to block videos of her speeches made in Parliament critical of the fallout from the country's immigration Um, Mr.
▶ 3:20:39Price, are you familiar with the circumstance where actual uh uh speeches in parliament or other public figures are their speeches are being censored by the government under this claim of of protecting um minors or protecting people from hearing this speech?
▶ 3:20:58I'm familiar with censorship of public protests that's already happened in the United Kingdom. um the the online safety act has placed blocks on those to so you know to protect children that's the claim but it has prevented adults from accessing it as well.
▶ 3:21:13So the times has also reported that using the communications act of 2003 and the malicious communications act of 1988 there have been three 37 police forces have made over 12,000 arrests in 2023 alone which is the equivalent of 33 a day all in relation to social media posts. Are you familiar with that information Mr. Price?
▶ 3:21:38I am. Yes.
▶ 3:21:39Okay. Um in ju in in July the House of Commons Science Innovation and Technology Committee released a report indicating that the OSA was merely a first step is the way that they have described this. In other words, they are going they are planning to do even more to address what they describe as online harm. Have you heard that as well?
▶ 3:21:59I have. Yes. Well, and I think that there's something that just happened this week, and a few of the members have uh uh referenced it, but it involved the Irish comedian and writer Graham Lynhin, who was arrested in Britain apparently for social media posts about transgender issues. Did you hear of this
▶ 3:22:16Yes, I did. I know Graeme personally.
▶ 3:22:18Okay. And according to his Substack article, the trouble actually began when he was in America. He was at the airport in Arizona seeking to fly back to Europe. uh was told that he did not have a seat, was put on a later flight, and when he arrived uh at Heathrow, he was met by far five armed police officers. Are police officers in England typically
▶ 3:22:41They're not. No.
▶ 3:22:42So, did you find it strange that he would be met by five armed police
▶ 3:22:48At airports, counterterrorism police are usually armed and uh or there's a special wing of the Metropolitan Police that has armed support unit.
▶ 3:22:55So, is he considered a terrorist? We're not I'm not clear what provision he was uh arrested under of legislation, but there is a power in the terrorism act to arrest people at airports and seize their devices.
▶ 3:23:06Sure. Was was was he identified as a terrorist because of his online posts?
▶ 3:23:11It's not clear yet if he was arrested under that provision, but it has very wide ranging powers and it is used on occasion uh to detain people at ports.
▶ 3:23:18Okay. Uh, I I understand that and that probably is more of a frightening answer than I expected, which is that they've used the power that is typically reserved for terrorists or people who are of grave risk to the country to arrest Mr. Lynhin at the airport because of his Twitter posts. Is that right?
▶ 3:23:35It's not clear if they use it yet, but that is a power that they frequently uh that is used to seize people's devices at airports.
▶ 3:23:42Can you describe more of what happened with this incident involving Mr. Lenhen? Are you a do you have the familiarity with the facts?
▶ 3:23:51I've I've read his statement. Yes.
▶ 3:23:52Okay. And could you please explain what
▶ 3:23:55It appears that um he was detained on arrival in Heathrow and uh then uh arrested, searched, um subjected to a long series of questions, most of which uh revolved around his beliefs on gender ideology and transgender issues. Um some of the questions from the police, according to Mr. were extremely ideological in nature and they talked about people who are assigned a gender at birth which as he pointed out himself is is activist language that the police should not be
▶ 3:24:23So um he also claims that his bail conditions was one of the conditions was that he could no longer use X. Is this a tactic you have seen or heard of being used before?
▶ 3:24:34Yes, we've seen extraordinary bail conditions even placed on on clients of of our own. uh we had a client pastor Diam Moodley who was given a bail condition that he was not allowed to preach about the differences between Christianity and Islam uh on the basis of that he would be bailed. So we we have seen bizarre and and wide ranging bail conditions set on people before under speech offense.
▶ 3:24:53Time's expired.
▶ 3:24:54Okay. Thank you.
▶ 3:24:57The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from North Carolina.
▶ 3:25:01Thank you very much and thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony and for your patience. It's been a long hearing. Um, I think it's very timely that we're discussing threats to freedom of speech and innovation in this committee. I do wish we were talking about what's going on in this country right now. Um, but I don't always get what I wish for. Freedom of speech in this country is under threat.
▶ 3:25:31There is no question about it. And and we haven't talked about this much, so I'm going to focus on it. The essential American ideal of innovation is also under threat, and it's enshrined in our constitution, and it's being The gravest threats to speech and innovation are coming not from our democratic European allies, but from the authoritarian and
▶ 3:26:01unconstitutional actions of the Trump administration. The Trump administration has embarked on a coordinated crackdown of speech on universities across the country. I represent more than five universities in the research triangle area. I've seen it.
▶ 3:26:21The administration illegally froze billions of dollars in federal research grants affecting not just people's health and safety, which is what they were for in the first place, but the economies of places like North Carolina. They forced the resignation of university pre presidents they don't like and they threatened to strip universities of patents for discoveries made in their labs. unprecedented.
▶ 3:26:52It they this administration has also refused to restore these important grants which fund research it for everything from breast cancer to inf infant mortality unless the schools allow the government to exert control over faculty hiring academic programs and student admissions.
▶ 3:27:15Professor K, how have the Trump administration's attacks on our na our nation's preeminent research universities harmed the ability to
▶ 3:27:28I think that's an excellent question and and we've seen it across the board. These attacks on universities and if we think about universities and there is a connection here to freedom of speech. If we think of our universities as the principal engine for the generation of knowledge and the generation of ideas, basically innovation in our country, the administration is going after them in all the ways that you described and
▶ 3:27:58it goes after them not only by withholding grants that have already been awarded. Um, it's also going after them in the context of seeking to shape what the research is, what's actually being taught in the classroom. Those are, I think, very significant interferences with the potential for innovation in our
▶ 3:28:23Well, thank you for that. And now to get to the tech issues because that's kind of underlying what's going on. This hearing is supposed to be about Europe's threat to big tech companies, but I'd like you to speak about the threat of big big tech companies and the AI models that they're creating on intellectual property rights, many of which are protected more strongly in Europe than they are here.
▶ 3:28:52How have AI models that scrape everything that they can whether copyrighted or not impacted innovation and even our newspapers which are having to sue to have for the copyright for the content that they
▶ 3:29:10Well, I think this is a as you know a pretty complicated area but but I would highlight just to to bring it to European regulation for a moment. Um whereas the United States has not really gone very far down the path of legislating in this area and finding ways to boost AI's potential for democratic and freedom of expression purposes.
▶ 3:29:36Europe has actually adopted an AI act which again we might not agree with all of its particulars but it's aiming to harness the power of AI for democratic purposes and to ensure that AI doesn't have this negative impact on fundamental rights. I think that's an approach that that we can learn from actually and that we haven't so far.
▶ 3:29:58And I I want to just because I know I only have a second left. I really want to give a lot of um credit to Congressman Isa because he has been having excellent hearings on this very issue, but unfortunately the larger judiciary committee has taken no action and so I would encourage the larger judiciary committee to follow Congressman ISIS's lead about pre protecting our creators. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 3:30:29Thank you, Representative Ross. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
▶ 3:30:35Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, we're here to talk about ongoing concerns with European censorship, British censorship uh and its effect on American speech or broader free speech principles um that hurt certainly citizens but American companies uh both domestically and abroad. What I'm hearing today, at least from the witnesses, is is rather alarming. Uh this Orwellian in nature approach that Europe has taken.
▶ 3:31:05Uh the hostility uh to free speech, to satire, to uh uh maybe speech that you disagree with. Um and I want to talk about that as it pertains to the UK, the EU, and certainly the US. Mr. Price, Prime Minister Starmer said that the UK does not have a free speech problem. Do you agree with that with that statement?
▶ 3:31:27No, I do not. In
▶ 3:31:28in what ways do you disagree with the prime minister?
▶ 3:31:31We have seen numerous prosecutions in the United Kingdom for totally uh nonviolent um speech. Uh we have clients, my own organization is acting for who have been arrested for silently praying, for offering consensual conversations, for preaching uh about the gospel. Um and I can go on. There are numerous and numerous examples. prosecutions, I think, is at least what I've read. Does that does that sound about accurate to you?
▶ 3:31:58That sounds accurate.
▶ 3:32:00Which is a 50% increase from pre- pandemic levels. What does that tell you about maybe the focus of the British government as it pertains to speech right now?
▶ 3:32:09Sadly, it shows that the United Kingdom, just like the rest of Europe, has entered a spiral of censorship and it's getting worse. And it's gotten to the point where even our our oldest and closest ally, the United States, has had to intervene and point that out. And as I said in numerous occasions, I'm extremely grateful uh to all of you for doing that. Um but the problem, frankly, is being now compounded and set in stone by things like the DSA uh from the European Union and the online safety act in the United Kingdom.
▶ 3:32:36Well, let's talk about the online safety act for a second. I mean, I think I think it maybe is intended to protect children and I think everyone loss that. Mr. Farage talked about that that nobody right or left wants their child exposed to uh bad content online, but it's been talked about and you've seen this in your practice used as a weapon to target speech that maybe the government finds uncomfortable or disagrees with. Is that
▶ 3:33:00Yeah, that's correct. We've seen, for example, um section 62, which is designed to protect children, being used to censor videos of protests near asylum centers. Um and so once you reach a point where uh content is restricted on the basis that it is political, we're moving well out of any kind of zone of protecting children into essentially
▶ 3:33:22Right? So, at least in the case of the comedian, the the the Irish comedian that was recently uh arrested, you know, I I viewed I had was not aware of his content before and looked at it uh and it seemed to be satirical in nature or maybe hyperbolic and not necessarily uh to be treated literally. Is that your interpretation of that, too?
▶ 3:33:41Yes. Uh in fact, I told Graeme Lennon when I was growing up, I wasn't allowed to watch his comedy on TV. Um Father Ted was the show that he's probably most famous for. So, um, what I would say is he's he's an excellent satist and he's in the long tradition of Irish satire starting with Jonathan Swift really and all the way up to today.
▶ 3:33:58Isn't that part of like British society though? Like satire is embedded in the culture like you've embraced this for for hundreds of years, right?
▶ 3:34:06Yeah. I would just add Irish and
▶ 3:34:07Irish and British, excuse.
▶ 3:34:09Yes. Yeah. Very much so. Yeah. And um it's it's it's the concept really I think we we haven't seen political extremism in the British Isles um in the way that we did in Europe because we have a healthy um way of kind of laughing at and and poking fun at uh our leadership. And I think whether it's cartoons about the king in in the 1800s all the way up to uh Father Ted and um Graeme Lenin's work today, that's a great tradition.
▶ 3:34:35Isn't there growing frustration with uh uh the Irish people, the British people, maybe broader European uh cultures that that government is more focused on speech than it is say the migrant crimes that are happening right under their noses? I mean, that seems to be from from uh my view across the pond that uh particularly the British people, they're fed up with the non-inforcement of immigration laws uh at the expense or may uh maybe because in in large part they're focused on what people are saying online.
▶ 3:35:05Do you share that?
▶ 3:35:05I completely agree with that and this is the discussion I had with Representative Rascin in in in London. This is about shutting down growing discontent in Europe with the decisions that our political elites have made and we've reached a crisis point where it's no longer possible to conceal the level of public anger and I think these censorship maneuvers are an act of desperation and they won't work.
▶ 3:35:24Thank you for that. And radically shifting to Mr. Reid for a second uh in a different approach in the app industry. Does the DMA incentivize Chinese copycat companies uh to flood the market and if so how does that impact American companies uh in European markets and what are the associated data privacy implications of that?
▶ 3:35:45You may finish
▶ 3:35:46uh being aware of the time. Yes. Uh the problem is article 6 section 4
▶ 3:35:51you you have unlimited time. Pay no attention to the the chairman.
▶ 3:35:54I I always pay attention to the chair from and the ranking member. Um the the easy idea is article 6, section 4, article 6, section 7, and even 10. Part of the problem is they basically have must carry provisions. And what that does is open the door. Part of what small businesses have benefited the most from the existence of these platforms. Again, as I said, this isn't a love affair. It's a business relationship. They opened the door to customers, and the customers trust what they're buying on the platform.
▶ 3:36:24uh article 6 section 4 and section 7 really say they must put on anyone's product and of course the most classic example of that the first mover under the new DMA was Pornhub which Apple had decided they didn't want porn apps on their app store and the first one out of the gate to say incorrectly they claimed it was an Apple approved app which once again leads to confusion and breaks down trust that was out of the gate the first app and so from my members perspective Their
▶ 3:36:54concern is, hey, I want to be sold at the store that people feel comfortable buying at. And the more you degrade the quality of experience and the more you degrade or allow that to be broader, we run into a problem. Thank you. I'm sorry for the time,
▶ 3:37:09Mr. Chairman. I have a parliamentary
▶ 3:37:11Yes, sir. Go ahead.
▶ 3:37:12Apparently, the whereabouts of our missing witness have been ascertained. He's appearing on GB News, which I guess is the network he works for outside of the Rayurn building. I just wonder if it would be consistent with the rules and the practice of our committee for us to send someone to invite him to come back because I think we have five or six members who haven't questioned yet. Uh would that be all right if we sent someone to to go alert him that there's still members waiting to do their questioning just out of courtesy and respect for our colleagues?
▶ 3:37:39Well, the chair will will make note that the uh the witness has appeared voluntarily. He has left voluntarily, but in terms of going and asking him to come back, no objection there.
▶ 3:37:49Okay. if if we could do it, if we could find him. And I'd like to submit for the record um this clip from GB News. British free speech under threat. Nigel Farage says UK is an authoritarian state like North Korea.
▶ 3:38:01Without objection.
▶ 3:38:01Thank you. Gentleman yield.
▶ 3:38:04Yes, sir. Uh the chair recognizes the representative from Vermont.
▶ 3:38:08Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I spent my August traveling around my state listening to Vermonters uh tell me what was on their minds. And there was one constant thread, and that was fear and concern for young people, for their safety, for their future. And parents kept asking me, "Will my kids ever be able to afford a house in this economy? Is it going to be safe for my kid to go to school?
▶ 3:38:37and are my kids safe online over and over again. And I want to tell you about one conversation I had with a high school student in Vermont who said to me, "We all know that social media on our phones is hurting us and in some instances it's literally killing us." And what he wanted to say is, "What are you doing about it?
▶ 3:39:03What are you doing about it?" And I have to ask myself the same question because I'm a parent. I'm a former teacher. I'm now a member of Congress. And what are we actually doing to solve the problem to stand up for our kids? And it's clear we need real attention on this. We need to focus our attention and we do need to regulate corporations behind these problems. And we need real public oversight. Yes. Over the gun makers.
▶ 3:39:34Yes. over financial speculators, but also big tech. Because polls show across the country, Americans overwhelmingly want us to take action on the harms that are hurting their kids. And yet, here we are, first hearing back. We're not talking about the AI platforms that are leading kids to self harm. We're not talking about the algorithms profiting off of teens eating disorders. We're not working together to hold big tech accountable.
▶ 3:40:06No, we're here talking about how other countries are being too mean to big tech. It's gross. Professor K, thanks for being here. Can you pre briefly describe how the EU's digital services act regulates social media content for children?
▶ 3:40:24So the DSA is a very big piece of of legislation, a big regulation, but it gets to exactly the point that you're making, which is the DSA is the result of a years'sl long process of Europe trying to figure out what's the response to the massive power of big tech over their information environments.
▶ 3:40:47And so to give one example, um they provide a mechanism that actually requires those that those companies that are considered the very largest platforms and search engines to do an assessment of the risk that they cause in the context of illegal content which could include child sexual abuse material.
▶ 3:41:11That's that is really only doing that basic risk assessment that we should imagine all companies would do. Exactly. And then based on that, they're supposed to they're actually obligated to take mitigating measures against them. That's one example.
▶ 3:41:26Yeah. I mean, this is bare minimum stuff here, right? Bare minimum.
▶ 3:41:30risk assessment. What are we subjecting our children to?
▶ 3:41:35And so in your um assessment, does the EU prioritize protecting kids and teens from content related to suicide and self harm.
▶ 3:41:46So, so the DSA is not content specific, right? It doesn't require any company for example to take down any particular kind of content. But in the risk assessment provision, it's pretty clear and if you read the negotiating history around the DSA as well, it's pretty clear that this is one of the key issues that concerns Europeans and thus concerned the the regulation as it was
▶ 3:42:13Thank you. I really appreciate you being here to to to balance this out. So, look, we got to follow the money here, I want to uh draw your attention here to the visual here. Okay. Trump inauguration fund, Amazon a million, Meta a million, Google a million, Microsoft a million, Apple a million, open AAI a million, and the list goes on. This hearing is not about making the internet a safer place for kids.
▶ 3:42:42It's about harassing Europeans who are trying to do something something. No, it's imperfect, but they're trying something. And we sit here twiddling our thumbs. There has never been a more important time than now to create some basic rules for big tech. Our kids are more important than these billionaires and their shareholders. Period.
▶ 3:43:06If we truly want to protect our kids, we have to push back on unrestrained corporate power and try to retain some moral clarity in this moment.
▶ 3:43:18I was told I would have more time because there was a member that went over by a minute.
▶ 3:43:23Sure, go right ahead.
▶ 3:43:25We should be looking at any country around the globe who is actually trying to do something. And no, should we copy exactly what they're doing? No. But we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand and say, "Oh, there's nothing we can do here. We cannot maintain the status quo." and then go back to our constituents and look these parents in the eye and say that we're actually doing our jobs. The solutions are right in front of us if we would actually do the work here in this committee.
▶ 3:43:55And I yield back.
▶ 3:43:57Uh the gentle lady yields back. I would just remind the gentle lady that Mr. Zuckerberg from Meta sent this committee a letter a year ago, August of last year, saying that the Biden administration pressured them to censor. They did it. They're sorry and they're not going to do it again and they've changed policy. I said that in my opening statement. So we do think this committee has had a huge impact on protecting free speech. The gentle lady from Florida is recognized for 5
▶ 3:44:17Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we are examining a growing threat, the way that Europe and the UK are using so-called digital safety and competition laws to undermine American values and American innovation. The EU digital services act and the UK's online safety act go far beyond legitimate regulation. They empower foreign bureaucrats to label political disscent, even ordinary phrases like take back our country as hate speech.
▶ 3:44:47And they pressure US platforms to apply those censorship rules globally. At the same time, the EU's Digital Markets Act and the UK's DMCC deliberately single out American technology companies for punitive treatment, forcing them to share proprietary data and subsidize less innovative rivals. These laws are protectionist by design and they put American jobs, innovation, and free speech at risk. Congress has a duty to push back.
▶ 3:45:16We must ensure that foreign governments cannot dictate what Americans are allowed to say online, nor use regulatory schemes and backdoor taxes on our most successful industries. I look forward to hearing from you all today and appreciate your testimony. Mr. Price. I am a former American judge and as such I know that laws must have clear defined terms in order to be applied impartially and fairly and consistently.
▶ 3:45:46I'd like to return to the discussion of the OSA and specifically the requirement under which that for speech to be censored as a false communication it must cause quote non-trivial psychological or physical harm. Would you share with us your perspective on the use of phrases such as non-trivial psychological harm and your view of whether it is possible for these terms to be applied uniformly, fairly, and
▶ 3:46:14Good question.
▶ 3:46:15I'm afraid I I I really can't and and you you've you've hit the nail on the head really in terms of your question. These terms are extremely vague and it's a long-standing principle of the common law that vagueness in the criminal law is repugnant. And so, sir, is it your view that this is actually an appropriate or even enforcable regulatory scheme?
▶ 3:46:36It's not appropriate, but they certainly intend to enforce it.
▶ 3:46:40Mr. Reid, I'd like to turn back to the DMA's application to our companies and the concept of gatekeepers, which we touched on earlier today. Would you please describe how that operates and how these regulations are creating an unfair competitive advantage for European and Chinese firms at the expense of American companies?
▶ 3:47:03Well, I think the primary problem with the way that the EU has set up the gatekeeper requirements is it's driving the largest companies to essentially pull back on the tools they build for my members from the frameworks they build for the small businesses. Ironically, often times these small guys are the ones who are going to compete with them because it allows them to say, "Well, in order to comply with the DMA, we need to remove various functions." And this isn't a hypothetical.
▶ 3:47:31What we've seen so far in our discussions is they want to remove links. They want to remove other elements that they see as essentially keeping power in a few of the big companies. The irony is, of course, the small guy, not the medium-sized guy, not the billionaire, but the truly small guys actually need that foothold to step up.
▶ 3:47:50And so, what it creates is an environment where, sure, there'll be some billionaire companies that will do well out of the DMA, but the the thousandaires, those of us who are trying to get to that next level, are the ones who get crushed between the two
▶ 3:48:04Thank you. I yield the balance of my time to the chairman.
▶ 3:48:06Hi, thank you. Uh, Mr. Price. I just want to make sure I understand exactly what's happening. A pastor gets arrested for what he said, but the guys who attacked him don't. Lucy Connley said things that she shouldn't have. Probably we not probably definitely what would what Mr. Frost say in temperate, you know, statements and but she took him down. She got more prison time than young violent offenders got.
▶ 3:48:33And Miss Rose Dhy, I believe, uh, was praying silently outside and she got charged. Is that all
▶ 3:48:43The only point I would add is Rose Dardy, 74 year old grandmother, was arrested for holding a sign that said, "Here to talk only if you want."
▶ 3:48:53Oh, so she's praying silent, not saying, just a sign, right? Oh, wow. Wow. Uh, and if and if if an American comments on this in in a way that the DSA defines as disinformation, misinformation, hate speech, they can have their speech taken down as well. Is that accurate?
▶ 3:49:14That is entirely accurate within the the terms of the DSA.
▶ 3:49:17That's the state of play. Mr. Reed, I would just point out when Miss Berkun, the guy, the lady who took Mr. Ratan's place when she was here talking about how the digital markets act could impact companies she said you know we don't have anyone in Europe complaining about the law and my response was that's because you don't have any companies the way you defined it according to Mr. price and and you understand it only includes American companies and one Chinese company. Is that right?
▶ 3:49:44Well, the irony is is there are a lot of smaller European companies that are complaining about the DMA. Not the idea that they need a competitive landscape. It's that it focuses on entirely the wrong thing. Um you hit it on the head. A lot of our members come here to get money to go back there to build
▶ 3:50:01Yep. Uh I'm sorry. We we we called votes. I do want to move quickly and I shouldn't have went over. Mr. Garcia is
▶ 3:50:07Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, we're here today for two reasons. One, because Republicans are in the pocket of big tech. And two, they want to distract us on their war on free speech and expression in the US. We all remember Trump's inauguration. The tech oligarchs were all there.
▶ 3:50:33Musk, Zuckerberg, Basil's Cook, Pes and they look like they won the presidency because they did and they got what they paid for. Since taking office, Trump put out an AI action plan that could have been written by big tech, dropped enforcement provisions against tech companies, and tried to unlawfully fire two FTC commissioners who fought to hold these companies
▶ 3:51:03accountable. By the way, one successfully got back to work today, first day back. Uh that's Rebecca Trump and his loyalists in Congress are also serving their corporate overlords by attacking the countries that actually try to reign in big tech. That's not innovation. That's corruption and oligarchy. The American people do not want corruption and oligarchy.
▶ 3:51:29They want leaders who have the backbone to stand up to big tech, to stop massive surveillance and protect data privacy and uphold freedom of speech. But the people least qualified to talk about freedom of expression are the ones that currently are cracking down on the First Amendment. As my colleagues have described, Trump and his fellow Republicans have banned words that the federal government can use.
▶ 3:51:57They've extorted media companies to punish news coverage they don't like. And they've weaponized the immigration system against people who have other views. They've suppressed economic data and other information that contradicts the propaganda machine and targeted medical research even and museum exhibits. All because they're afraid of words, history, and the truth.
▶ 3:52:24At the same time, Republicans are leading a historic crackdown on expression and they're holding propaganda hearings like this and telling us to reject the evidence of our eyes and ears. Mr. K. Thank you for being here today. As I mentioned, this administration is using the immigration system to suppress speech.
▶ 3:52:44As we've seen, Mahmood Khalil, Mosen Madawi, Mio Gavvada, and many others being targeted and detained because of their speech and in Gavvada's case, his reporting. Could you please comment on the ongoing weaponization uh of immigration to trample freedom of expression? Yes, each of those examples are are accurate.
▶ 3:53:08And I think that as we're we've heard so many different examples of crackdowns or alleged crackdowns on different kinds of speech in the UK or in Europe or in the United States, we just have to be honest that there are crackdowns happening in the United States.
▶ 3:53:25It's not a um it's it's entirely accurate to say these kinds of contentbased restrictions and punishments in the US are very serious interferences with freedom of expression. And it would just be important to acknowledge that as we're talking about other kinds of restrictions as well.
▶ 3:53:46Thank you for that. It's really important that uh we not allow arsonists to pretend that they're firefighters and we must not let Republican lives prevail. I yield back.
▶ 3:53:59Gentleman yields back. We will do one more then unfortunately we have to recess for votes and I know you guys have been sitting there for three hours. You need welldeserved restroom break. We'll see if we got some refreshments for you back there hopefully. Uh Mr. Harris is recognized and we'll take a quick recess.
▶ 3:54:12Thank you Mr. chairman and thank you uh for this important important issue and to all of you that have shared on this panel today. Greatly appreciate your patience, excuse me, and uh your thoughtful answers.
▶ 3:54:26Um I've served as a pastor for 36 years and uh so obviously I have a heightened sensitivity to the whole issue of uh when governments uh and institutions begin to talk about hate speech and the censorship of hate speech. And I I guess one of the questions that that I'm concerned about today and and I'll ask you Mr. price.
▶ 3:54:50Um, because of your experience in this area, particularly with ADF, would you consider posting a Bible verse hate
▶ 3:55:00And is saying there are only two genders hate speech?
▶ 3:55:04I certainly wouldn't consider that hate speech. And so yet the UK's Online Safety Act, among other things, is requiring companies to take actions against content which quote incites hatred against people. And I I guess my question is again, Mr. Price, who is in charge of determining what constitutes content which incites hatred against people?
▶ 3:55:31The regulator in of the online safety act is Ofcom uh which is the the statutory body and the legislation itself includes um what they call priority content that's content that would be age restricted h encompasses things that are illegal outside or you know in real life not online.
▶ 3:55:50The problem with that is that our pastor Diamoodley that I mentioned earlier, he was um threatened, he was arrested under uh the public order act which talks about stirring up uh religious hatred for comparing Islam and Christianity. And so on the basis that the online safety act crim uh restricts something that's deemed to be a crime outside that kind of content would be restricted and and I think that's extraordinary
▶ 3:56:14And is is hate speech quote objective? Well, this is where I I might just pick up on something Professor Kane said earlier in relation to hate speech. The problem with it is it's a it's a tautology saying that incitement to hatred is speech that creates hatred. Um there have been attempts by the UN like the Rabbat plan of action to try and on the prosecution side set out a more clear framework on it. But as far as European courts are concerned, I think that their jurist prudence in this area is essentially incoherent.
▶ 3:56:45Right. Well, obviously I oppose any hateful rhetoric that's expressed online. But at the end of the day, it's not the job of governments to police bad speech, especially when we'll never be able to agree on what actually constitutes bad speech. And at the end of the day, the best remedy for bad speech is good speech, uh, not censorship, in my opinion.
▶ 3:57:06But I will also ask, there is currently a clash between social media platforms that value free speech and the laws of the UK, causing some companies to alter their terms of service. And Mr. Price, are American social media companies expected to comply with UK's online safety act?
▶ 3:57:25Yes, sir, they are.
▶ 3:57:26And how does this impact the way in which companies set their terms of service? the we've seen this again and again when it comes to regulations from European regulators either from Brussels or London where uh companies of course commercial enterprises setting uh and designing a system that uh complies with EU law often means setting something for their entire operations globally and that we saw that again and again with GDPR every time you have to click I don't want cookies something and Americans are exposed to this that's as a result of uh
▶ 3:57:57it's complicated enough process but of European regulation reaching into your online activity.
▶ 3:58:02Well, again, um this is a critically important issue and you've done some incredible work, I know, with Alliance Defending Freedom. And I know Mr. Price, you've defended witnesses criminally charged for praying near abortion clinics. One of those examples was Father Sha G, a Catholic priest who was charged for praying and holding a sign that read praying for free speech. Um, UK authorities allege that silent prayer near abortion clinics constitutes an attempt to coersse women who are considering abortions.
▶ 3:58:32And I just ask, is silent prayer coercive?
▶ 3:58:36No, sir.
▶ 3:58:36And should silent prayer and holding signs result in legal consequences?
▶ 3:58:40Absolutely not.
▶ 3:58:42So when pro-life activists are prosecuted for engaging in peaceful prayer and protest, what kind of message does that send to other pro-life activists in the UK? I think it shows u an extreme degree of intolerance. It shows uh police overreach and ultimately we have to go back systemically. The problem is these laws that have been created, they're incredibly vague, over broad, whether it's by European regulators or UK regulators. They're having a real impact on people's lives and their human right to free speech.
▶ 3:59:11Well, as this committee has discussed previously, the Face Act here in the United States has been used to go after proifers. And I just pray we don't reach the point that such activists are arrested for silent prayer as we've seen there. Uh with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 3:59:26Gentlemen yields back. The committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes more or less. Uh restrooms and and refreshments and back uh for you guys. Thank you so much.
▶ 4:45:10Committee will come to order. We have a few more. Again, I want to thank our witnesses. You've been very patient, very good. Uh we appreciate you being here. We're going to start with the gentleman from Wisconsin. Then we'll go to gentleman from North Carolina. Unless a member of the minority party shows up, then we'll go with them and we'll finish up. uh from uh from there. So the gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
▶ 4:45:28Uh it's my opinion first of all I had a few comments I wanted to have for uh Mr. Pang we call it uh before he left and uh
▶ 4:45:42I have always known the there's certain things you think about the English. I know we can't stereotype today, but we're going to. When you think of the English, you think of irreverence. You think of accepting of right? You think of their dry sense of humor. There is no if we had to crack down on free speech in any country in the world, the country we'd lose the most in is if we crack down on free speech in England because they are great, aren't they? They're just a general comment.
▶ 4:46:12Now, uh Mr. price. There are variety of things we're trying to get at in this hearing and some of it is financial and how regulations can hurt companies, but I think the most important thing is to wake up the world and what's going on in Britain, okay, and other countries in Europe. I don't think the average American is aware of that.
▶ 4:46:34And it's important they be aware of it because I think in general stupid idiot ideas begin in Europe and then they go to California, New York, and then they seep their way across the United States. And this idea that we can crack down on free speech. I would like you, Mr. Price, just to go through a few examples, including the examples of that poor gal who wind up in prison. Don't be afraid to not be able to say what she said because we're still in America. It's still a free country.
▶ 4:47:02What do you say to wind up having to go to prison for in Britain today? Exactly what do you have to say
▶ 4:47:11while you're still in the US?
▶ 4:47:13Yes, sir. Um I am going back to the UK though and uh after what happened to my fellow Irishman Graeme Lennon, I might just be careful. Um, one thing I would say is that the over broad laws that we've been discussing, um, and the implementation or the the enforcement of the law has reached a point where we now have perfectly legitimate speech being caught up, uh, in in criminal prosecutions.
▶ 4:47:37So, for a Christian pastor like Diamoodley in in in the city of Bristol, it's a perfectly natural thing to answer a question from a member of the public about the differences between Christianity and Islam. And the fact that he was ultimately arrested under the public order act there for stirring up religious hatred um which a charge they later dropped and not the people who were assaulting him gives us an idea of how bad things have gotten in the UK.
▶ 4:47:59And we were delighted, of course, that um Vice President Vance in his uh Munich Security Conference speech drew attention to this other class of cases involving um prosecutions for praying silently or for holding a sign offering consensual conversations in the vicinity of abortion clinics. Um which is an extraordinary assault on on freedom of speech and I would say freedom of religion as well.
▶ 4:48:23Okay. When I was looking this up, I didn't know what she said. Apparently, she was critical of a mass murder whose ancestors came from Rwanda. It's now against the law to point that out in Great Britain, apparently. Yes, that's the case of Lucy Connelly. Um Lucy Connelly uh tweeted um a tweet where some of us, I think most people would probably disagree with what she said. She disagreed with it herself. She took it down three and a half hours later. It was, as uh Mr.
▶ 4:48:50Faraj said in in a moment of great um tension and and great personal stress um and for that she received uh a 31 32-month sentence and she has been released since but uh she was prevented from attending this hearing which I think is is is a real
▶ 4:49:08Last week in a in the United States we had a a horrible murder and I think it was a Catholic school in Minnesota. The murderer happened to be a transgender. Would that be illegal to point out in If you were, you could very readily see that it could be regarded uh strong criticism.
▶ 4:49:27He was a very bitter angry person. It would be un Yes. Could we point out that you know maybe that had something to do with transgender? Could people have that opinion in Britain? I if if I were advising people and this is the chilling effect in action, I would say think very carefully before posting uh criticism of what happened that tragedy in the school in England because you could be accused very easily of stirring up hatred against a group of people.
▶ 4:49:51Stirring up hatred. I mean that's just preposterous. Who what is hatred?
▶ 4:49:57I don't even know what hatred is. This is an ongoing discussion among lawyers in relation to um
▶ 4:50:04is there any just so you know in your understanding your understanding Mr. Reid is there any doesn't free speech means I can say things that maybe imply I hate somebody can I heat somebody is that against the
▶ 4:50:20really I think that's a question that Mr. price is probably better to handle. Maybe I can't. Well, thank God I'm the type of person who's never hated anybody in my life. But if I was a different sort of person, would it be against the law to say I hate somebody?
▶ 4:50:37Well, the the difficulty with it is that we've seen again and again legitimate Christian beliefs being described as hatred when it comes to the definition of marriage, when it comes to sexual
▶ 4:50:46Would it be the easiest thing is to just to enforce the First Amendment and say we can say whatever we want to say. go back to old English.
▶ 4:50:53What I would say is you're ex well blessed in this country to have the extraordinary protections of the first amendment and I really do wish we had something similar in Europe.
▶ 4:51:01Well, next time you get back to Europe, straight him out, kick him in the butt. Okay. Thanks.
▶ 4:51:05Yes, sir.
▶ 4:51:06Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from Texas who was joined us for part of our visit to the European to Europe. Uh we appreciate that. Recognized for five
▶ 4:51:15Yes. I hate that I didn't get to reminisce with our good friend Mr. Farage. Uh but nevertheless um uh you know it it's interesting that we're sitting here and we're talking about the so-called threats to the first amendment when the biggest threat to free speech right now is the old guy that is sitting over in the oval. Um now Mr.
▶ 4:51:39Farage and I met over a month ago and he has made it a brand of being this free speech warrior. And one of the things that I wanted to recap was the fact that he literally tried to shut down my ranking member as he was engaging in his own free speech. Um it seems like it's more so free speech for me but not for thee a lot of times with certain people.
▶ 4:52:07Um and it's sad that he had to run and have lunch with Trump or to go raise some money um for his four member party. So Mr. price. Um, you get to be the lucky one to help me figure out what exactly free speech advocates believe. It's good to see you again. Um, you tell me whether these government actions support free speech or suppress it. Let's call it free speech or federal suppression.
▶ 4:52:32Finding or defending or defunding news outlets or companies because they don't share a political a particular political I think I'm not entirely sure what context you're referring to. I think I'd need a little bit more information.
▶ 4:52:48So, uh, long story short, if they decide that they are going to fine or defund any news outlet simply because it doesn't necessarily go far left or far right, do you think that that is a violation of free speech? Well, I I'm not entirely sure how it would connect with, let's say, the area of expertise that I have. I think you may be referring to the um PBS controversy. It's it's probably not something that I would be able to really
▶ 4:53:19Not necessarily. But let me go to Professor K. Professor K, did you understand my question? Finding or defunding news outlets or companies because they don't share a particular political message?
▶ 4:53:31Yeah, the at Thank you for the question. Um, at the very core of the First Amendment is a prohibition of viewpoint
▶ 4:53:40And what you describe sounds like viewpoint discrimination.
▶ 4:53:43So, it definitely sounds like federal suppression. Um, if you require news outlets and companies to have content moderators to ensure their coverage promotes a political ideology or leaning, would that be federal Well, that does sound like an interference with a company's content moderation decision.
▶ 4:54:05Banning materials because of their
▶ 4:54:12Yes. So, like books.
▶ 4:54:13Oh, of course. Well, and we've seen this and the, you know, range of book bans at libraries across across the country.
▶ 4:54:22Absolutely. Um, what about threatening private companies with lawsuits or fines unless they do the government's bidding?
▶ 4:54:30Sounds like pressure that would be undue. Yes.
▶ 4:54:34Okay. So, I agree with you. All of these actions are exactly what Trump has done since he's taken office. Make no mistake, Trump is weaponizing his idea of free speech to force folks and companies to become his political puppets to promote his propaganda. Trump and Republicans defunded NPR because they argued it was biased.
▶ 4:54:53Trump has removed books discussing racial discrimination at US militarymies, including the amazing Maya Angelo's um autobiography, I know why the caged bird sings. He's tried to strip funding to schools across the country if they don't remove materials that include discussions of racial discrimination or that promote diversity.
▶ 4:55:17And in order for the merger between Paramount and Sky Dance to happen, the FCC chairman and Republicanappointed commissioners required Sky Dance to establish a bias monitor and in its FCC order noted reports quote concerning negative media coverage of the Trump administration. This is to say nothing of Trump pushing television networks to get rid of comedians and talk show hosts who criticize his administration, say like Mr. Cobar.
▶ 4:55:48Let's call this what it is. It's Trump weaponizing the idea of free speech to force people, institutions, and companies to be his mouthpieces. This ain't free speech. It's propaganda. Meanwhile, my Republican colleagues are out here having a meltdown over the European bill. one that by way by the way includes provisions to fight child trafficking.
▶ 4:56:10You know, it's frustrating because we talk about being fiscally responsible and we talk about free speech and right now as we're having these discussions, you know, who's trying to shut down members from voting in the way that they want to vote? It's the president who literally said he would look at anyone who decided that they were going to vote to release the Epstein files as hostile.
▶ 4:56:32That sounds like a threat as it relates to all First Amendment um protections in addition to the fact that it's literally contravening our constitutional duty that we swore an oath to because we don't swear to an orange king. Instead, we have sworn an oath to the constitution and we were elected to represent the people that elected us. Thank you so much and I'll yield.
▶ 4:56:57Gentle lady yields. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.
▶ 4:57:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman. to the witnesses. Thank you all for being here. Uh this is a very important topic when we look at what's going on in Europe and because of what's going on in Europe, what's happening by extension around the world.
▶ 4:57:14When we look at the encroachments on uh freedom of expression, freedom of speech, it's it is chilling and it's it's remarkable that the countries that that gave birth to the western civilization that we all enjoy are really becoming totalitarian and even uh points of expression that are organic to the United States or statements made while in the United States can result in being arrested once you return to Europe.
▶ 4:57:41It's it's it's if if this was noted 15 to 20 years ago, people would not believe it. And listening to the witnesses here who are on the ground who are dealing with these totalitarian measures in Europe, it's worth noting to anyone who listens that they are thanking the president of the United States. They are begging the president. They're begging the vice president and the secretary of state to continue doing what they're doing, fighting this repression that's going on in in Europe.
▶ 4:58:11And we've heard testimony that economic liberty is diminishing. Freedom of opinion is diminishing. Freedom of expression is gone. Increased scrutiny of online comments, Twitter, Facebook or X, excuse me, it's gone. Um, all under the the mantra of safety. And Mr. Price, I want to talk to you first.
▶ 4:58:30You said that this these uh points of legislation are really aimed at quote protecting How exactly are the proponents of these restrictive measures? How are they making the argument that they're protecting youth?
▶ 4:58:47Yes, that's the argument they make, sir. Um the essentially particularly if we look at the online safety act it's the premise is that safety requires various kind of restrictions such as age verification. Um and what that does in effect is that it means that minors aren't allowed to access certain content but there's two types of content. One is what they call primary priority content which is the worst kind of things that we would all agree is wrongful.
▶ 4:59:11But then there's also priority or primary content which would include things that I think are otherwise lawful that people should be allowed to access particularly in the United Kingdom where the proposal now is to give I think it's been passed or it's in the process 16 year olds the vote would then be prevented from certain seeing certain content under the online safety act
▶ 4:59:28and in terms of uh some of the examples you've mentioned that give me concern uh it doesn't seem as though there's too much restriction for modern gender theory transgenderism uh aimed at children or graphic or explicit material material aimed at children, but there's a there are restrictions on pointing out verses of scripture or biblical truths that that people adhere to. You can't discuss that online. How does that factor into the protection of the child?
▶ 4:59:54I think your your point is well made. Um it's worth noting and it often strikes me that smartphones with internet access have been available really the iPhone was launched in 2008 and there were no immediate actions by governments or regulators to try and protect children from content. It's only after the election of Donald Trump and Brexit that there was suddenly an enormous effort at the European level to crack down on content in the name of safety. But I suspect, as I say, that there's an underlying political justification.
▶ 5:00:21So what's the goal? I mean, we've talked about the diminishing prosperity. The freedom is gone. Uh there's diminished enjoyment of life. There's diminished humor. Um there's zero free flowing information. What's the goal besides complete political power?
▶ 5:00:36I certainly think the goal as you as you allude to is narrative control information is the first and most important um as where quantity in a democracy that's how we make our decisions based on what we hear and if you can restrict the amount of information that people hear or you can channel in one direction then you influence the democracy and as I say there's increasing discontent in Europe about the direction of travel in so many areas and I do believe that the DSA like the German network enforcement act and related legislation
▶ 5:01:07is part of a serious effort to control the narrative
▶ 5:01:09and it's basically a tool of quotequote progressivism to silence disscent and to move the agenda forward. Is that correct? That's what I'm that's what I'm gleaning from the conversation today.
▶ 5:01:18In certainly in in a lot of our work um it has gone that way. It seems that Christians are disproportionately targeted. There was a a dissenting opinion by the Polish judge in a case called Dotra Rasobbaka before the European Court of Human Rights in 2022 where he made the observation that when it comes to speech, those who are critics of Islam seem to be prosecuted and do not have the protections of the right to freedom of expression.
▶ 5:01:42Whereas um Christians, people who are critical of Christianity uh are prosecuted and um they suddenly are entitled to free speech in that context. So, in the UK, we often call this two-tier policing, and I think there's a two-tier approach to human rights. Certainly, the Polish judge did, and I agree with them.
▶ 5:02:00Interesting. Uh, Mr. K, just briefly in regards to the the points that you've made. I appreciate what you've said. I appreciate your perspectives. Would you admit at this point that the Biden administration was involved in suppressing information as it related to uh various components of the COVID response, the COVID treatment plans, the vaccines efficacy and so forth?
▶ 5:02:24I no that that is just not something I I
▶ 5:02:28you wouldn't stipulate to that even even in and I know I know you criticize Mr. Zuckerberg for saying that the government leaned heavily on social media companies to remove content as it related to CO. So you do not think that the government was engaged in suppressing information in any way?
▶ 5:02:43Well, we know there was because there's Supreme Court, you know, uh, cases around this where the allegation was that um, officials in both administrations, the Trump and Biden administrations did put some pressure on the companies in terms of public health messaging. There's no question about that. I think the court found that that didn't constitute unlawful pressure or coercion.
▶ 5:03:11Um but clearly those kinds of messages were part of the the period 2020 2021.
▶ 5:03:18Do you do you affirm that action by regulating content or no?
▶ 5:03:21Do I
▶ 5:03:21do you affirm the motivations or the the actions of the Biden administration to suppress the co discussions?
▶ 5:03:26No. I I think there needs to be clear back and forth and information sharing between government and the largest platforms that shape the information environment. Of course, you don't want coercion, but I think you have to find the balance where that kind of back and forth can exist.
▶ 5:03:43Well, I'm sure you're aware that they they say they were coerced by the Biden
▶ 5:03:48I think
▶ 5:03:49I think I think it I think it appears to be a partisan interpretation when you say that it was reasonable what Biden did with Facebook with X and so forth. Well, I mean, we could go back and forth, but my my view is is that that wasn't coercion. Actually,
▶ 5:04:02if you could say if you could type on Facebook, "These vaccines do not work," would that have been allowed?
▶ 5:04:09I think I think it would I think it would depend on when we're talking about
▶ 5:04:13under Biden, it would have been stripped. I'm sorry, our time's up. But
▶ 5:04:17M. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, may I add just one very brief? Of
▶ 5:04:20course. Yeah. Thank you. I just want to make one point about about hate speech because there's been a lot of discussion about hate speech here and I think it's it's valuable for us to at least understand the basis for where these hate speech laws come from. Most of the language from the international law on hate speech particularly in Europe was a result of the use of propaganda to target Jews and others during the Nazi holocaust.
▶ 5:04:48So quite a bit of the hate speech is actually a response to that history and I think at least acknowledging that that is a part of the cultural freedom of expression background in Europe is is useful so that it's not just a a kind of bullying of Europeans but also an understanding of where they come from.
▶ 5:05:08Yeah. But Mr. Price ma made the point I think his last comments made the point about a two-tiered system which they see versus how certain Christians get treated versus how people of a different faith get treated and if you even use that term two-tiered system you can be criticized for using the term about something that many people think exists currently in the UK and in in the EU. So uh there's been lots of comments there. I I'll give the chairman the ranking member some time and I got maybe one last question I one last point I would like to make. Oh, thanks.
▶ 5:05:38And this is just for a UC request, Mr. Chairman. Um, because you had mentioned the the outreach that you'd gotten from Mark Zuckerberg, and this is an article about that meta to pay 25 million to settle 2021 Trump lawsuit. The sentence that stuck out to me was the president signal that the litigation had to be resolved before Zuckerberg could be quote brought into the tent, one of the people said. So, just want to introduce that
▶ 5:06:01without without objection. And one other thing is just the Supreme Court decision Murthy versus the uh Missouri um disproving the government's censorship
▶ 5:06:11Uh okay, without objection, I I would just make one maybe final point. Uh because it's been brought up several times, I believe. Um Mr. Mr. Well, I'll ask all of you. Uh is Mr. K, has President Trump banned any books in in in the country?
▶ 5:06:27Are you aware of it? I I don't know about him specifically, but I do know that for example,
▶ 5:06:31you know, you know, President Trump from defense libraries, Martin books on Martin Luther King have actually been
▶ 5:06:38President doesn't Trump and any books.
▶ 5:06:41I mean, my my understanding the way it works is you got a local library board, you got a local school board, and they may say certain book books aren't appropriate for kids, which is frankly the argument they use in in in the EU on the digital services act and and UK on the online safeties act. No one no president's banning books. They're just saying local library board are saying, you know, second graders should maybe not see certain things uh that adults can see.
▶ 5:07:03Mr. Chairman, if I could follow up on that just because I've got constituents who are in the service abroad and there are schools called DODA schools, Department of Defense schools and there was an executive order uh applying to the Department of Defense and they shut down the the school libraries there. These are federal schools, not local schools, federal schools.
▶ 5:07:22and um they stripped all kinds of books from there and there have been protests throughout Europe um by American families over there saying that they don't want you know 1984 and Handmaid's Tail to be stripped from the schools. I mentioned that actually in my opening statement.
▶ 5:07:38um I want to thank each of our witnesses for being here today. Appreciate your patience uh and appreciate you being here for wow five hours. Thank you very much. And this concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee today. With objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record.
▶ 5:08:02Can I say one more thing, Mr. Chairman, in in praise of you?
▶ 5:08:06I I just I I might have designed it differently, but I want to thank you for organizing a very interesting trip for us and this hearing as well. Uh
▶ 5:08:14without objection. Thank you. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
▶ 5:09:18Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
▶ 5:10:43Heat. Heat.
▶ 5:12:42Heat. Heat.