    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE
                                CLOSING CIVIC SPACE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
                            GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
                          INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 9, 2020

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-139

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    42-494 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                       ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman

    BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York               Member
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey		     CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia	     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida	     JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    KAREN BASS, California		     SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts	     TED S. YOHO, Florida
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island	     ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    AMI BERA, California	             LEE ZELDIN, New York
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas		     JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
    DINA TITUS, Nevada		     ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York	     BRIAN MAST, Florida
    TED LIEU, California		     FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania	     BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota		     JOHN CURTIS, Utah
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota		     KEN BUCK, Colorado
    COLIN ALLRED, Texas    		     RON WRIGHT, Texas
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan		     GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
    ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia	     TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	     GREG PENCE, Indiana
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey	     STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
    DAVID TRONE, Maryland		     MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
    JIM COSTA, California
    JUAN VARGAS, California
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
                   Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
                          International Organizations

                         KAREN BASS, California, Chair

    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey,
    DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota                 Ranking Member
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       RON WRIGHT, Texas
                                         TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Lin, Joanne, National Director, Advocacy and Government Affairs,
      Amnesty International USA......................................     7
    Radsch, Dr. Courtney, Advocacy Director, Committee to Protect
      Journalists....................................................    28
    Kao, Emilie, Director of the Richard and Helen Devos Center for
      Religion & Civil Society, Heritage Foundation..................    38

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    56
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    57
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    58

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record from Chairman
      Bass...........................................................    59

                                  AGH REMARKS

    AGH remarks submitted for the record.............................    72

             INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE CLOSING CIVIC SPACE

                          Wednesday, December 9, 2020

                              House of Representatives,
                 Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
                Global Human Rights, and International
                                         Organizations,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC,

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., via
    Webex, Hon. Karen Bass [chairwoman of the subcommittee]
    presiding.
        Ms. Bass. I note a quorum is present, and the Subcommittee
    on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
    International Organizations will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the subcommittee at any point, and all members will
    have 5 days to submit statements, extraneous material, and
    questions for the record, subject to the length limitation in
    the rules. To insert something in the record, please have your
    staff email the previously mentioned address or contact full
    committee staff.
        As a reminder to members, please keep your video function
    on at all times, even when you are not recognized by the Chair.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. And
    please remember to mute yourself after you finish speaking.
        Consistent with House Res. 965 and the accompanying
    regulations, staff will only mute members and witnesses as
    appropriate when they are not under recognition to eliminate
    background noise.
        I recognize myself for opening remarks.
        Pursuant to notice, we are holding a hearing on the
    International Human Rights and the Closing of Civic Spaces. I
    would like to thank our distinguished witnesses: Ms. Lin, the
    national director for advocacy and government affairs at
    Amnesty International; Dr. Radsch, advocacy director for the
    Committee to Protect Journalists; and Ms. Emilie Kao, director
    of Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil
    Society at the Heritage Foundation, for joining us today.
        We look forward to your suggestions on ways to enhance and
    better protect individual and collective human rights,
    particularly in the time of a global pandemic where governments
    may misuse their power to limit the rights of citizens.
        Today we hold this hearing on the eve of the International
    Human Rights Day, December 10, which is reserved to commemorate
    the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
    1948. By definition, human rights are fundamental rights and
    freedoms to which we are all equally entitled, without
    distinction, based on place of residence, gender, or national
    or ethnic origins, religion, sexual orientation, or any other
    status. Human rights are universal and inalienable,
    indivisible, independent, and equal and nondiscriminatory.
        Today we emphasize the importance of preserving
    international human rights by reviewing and finding solutions
    to the various obstacles confronting the protection and
    expansion of human rights for more people. Since 2019 the world
    has witnessed governments throughout the world take deliberate
    measures to limit rights and freedoms.
        I have highlighted human rights atrocities around the
    world, and I want to mention a few. Now, let me just be clear
    on the examples I am mentioning are in Africa, but we know that
    Africa is not the only place where human rights abuses are
    taking place. As a matter of fact, human rights abuses are
    taking place all over the world in just about every country.
        I personally have urged governments to cease internet
    blackouts and social media disinformation in countries, such as
    Ethiopia and Tanzania; to stop journalists from being detained,
    such as Matias Guente in Mozambique; stop the abuse of citizens
    who disagree with governments, such as Bobi Wine in Uganda or
    Maurice Kamto in Cameroon; and end electoral reforms that
    remove Presidential term limits, such as in Guinea.
        I have called out governments for abusing citizens because
    of their religious practices, called for the end of human
    trafficking and the displacement and mistreatment of migrants
    around the world. I have called out governments for election
    tampering, interfering with the judicial process, and using
    constitutions to manipulate Presidential term limits.
        And I have called out this administration on various issues
    with other Members of Congress, including the mass deportation
    of Eritreans and other countries where populations of people of
    color during President Trump's travel ban, and also currently
    what we are experiencing, which is resisting the peaceful
    transfer of power. We cannot accept this from our country. We
    most certainly cannot accept it from around the world. We have
    always been a beacon of hope and light for the world, and we
    need to continue to do that.
        Now, whether it is introducing legislation in 2017 to try
    and build a comprehensive strategy to address the humanitarian
    and security crisis in Yemen, encouraging the adherence of the
    rule of law and not support irregular unconstitutional
    transfers of power in Venezuela, or calling out Tanzania for
    internet suppression. I believe everyone should have
    fundamental basic human rights without constraint or fear.
        All of us should take a pause and reexamine our role as
    public servants, Members of Congress and members of a global
    society writ large. We must continue to follow these issues
    closely, create spaces where all citizens can discuss them, and
    support the changes necessary to protect and promote the human
    rights of every individual.
        I know my colleagues and I will be listening closely to
    your solutions of creating greater opportunities for inclusion
    and spaces to assemble peacefully and speak freely.
        I want to thank our witnesses for participating in this
    important hearing, and our committee is looking forward to
    hearing your recommendations on how to strengthen human rights
    on a global scale.
        I now recognize the ranking member for the purpose of
    making his opening statement.
        Thank you very much.
        Representative Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Bass, for
    convening today's important hearing on the very, very important
    topic of human rights and on the eve of Human Rights Day.
        December 10, 1948, was, of course, the day that the United
    Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of
    Human Rights, or the UDHR, and I would like to reflect in my
    remarks a little bit about the significance of that event and
    what preceded it and made it necessary.
        For the UDHR was born of the horrors of the Holocaust and
    World War II, as well as the imperfect attempt to achieve some
    sort of justice at the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes
    tribunals. Recall, the defendants at Nuremberg and Tokyo had
    broken no positive laws. Indeed, they controlled the power of
    the State, which dictated the laws.
        To dispense a modicum of justice to right the obvious
    injustice that had been done to tens of millions of victims,
    Robert Jackson, a prosecutor at Nuremburg who took a leave of
    absence from his duties as a sitting Associate Justice of the
    U.S. Supreme Court, referenced the need to apply, quote, a
    natural law that binds each man to refrain from acts so
    inherently wrong and injurious to others that he must know that
    they will be treated as criminal.
        It is this notion of a law above whatever the positive law
    may be at a particular time which likewise animates the UDHR.
    There are some rights which are so fundamental that the State
    may never take them away, regardless of its power it may wield
    at any given moment.
        We see this notion expressed, for example, in Article 26 of
    the UDHR, which States, and I quote, Parents have a prior right
    to choose the kind of education that should be given to their
    children, closed quote. This is a right that is prior to the
    State. In other words, it is grounded in nature and cannot be
    taken away by the State.
        These are the rights which our Declaration of Independence
    referred to as unalienable, having been endowed by our Creator.
    Foremost among those rights is, of course, the right to life,
    without which no other rights are possible.
        This notion of Natural Law is certainly compatible with a
    Judeo-Christian tradition, one that directly inspired the
    framers of the UDHR, such as Catholic Jacques Maritain, the
    Orthodox Charles Malik, or the Jewish Rene Cassin.
        But it is deeper and broader than that, much more deeper.
    It is not just Jeremiah and St. Paul who spoke about the law
    being written of the hearts of men and women, but Cicero and
    Confucius as well.
        Indeed as our witness Emilie Kao's notes and her remarks,
    UDHR drew from a diverse array of sources. Among its drafters
    was Peng-chun Chang who contributed a Confucian Natural Law
    perspective, the tao that is written in the heart.
        Thus I, and I know many others, categorically reject any
    notion that when we hold the government of the People's
    Republic of China to account for its cruelty, abuses, and
    violations of fundamental human rights norms that we are
    seeking somehow to impose a Western standard upon it. Far from
    it. These are universal norms, and they are very consistent,
    and they are consonant with the Chinese notion of a tao, or a
    law, which is above any positive law arbitrarily imposed by the
    State. The actions of Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist
    Party must be judged according to this law and their mandate to
    govern, the mandate of heaven which the Confucians appealed to,
    depends on whether their actions conform to this norm. If they
    fall short, they are to be held to account.
        Thus, when I speak of the barbarism of harvesting organs
    from Falun Gong practitioners or the cruelty of forced abortion
    and its enormous deleterious impact on both women and children
    or the incarceration of millions of Muslim Uyghurs in
    concentration camps, or mass jailing of Hong Kong democracy
    activists, including the brave Joshua Wong unjustly jailed for
    the fourth time, or Xi Jinping's efforts to rewrite the Bible,
    the father that dictates to the Communist Party, I and many
    others are only seeking to hold the Chinese leadership to the
    noblest standards from within the Chinese tradition.
        As we hear from our witnesses today, I ask that we also
    reflect on what the source of the rights of which we speak.
    They do not come from the State, for as we saw in the horrors
    of World War II and the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide, the
    State which is the sole guarantor of rights can take them away
    and, in so doing, commit grave offenses against human dignity.
    Rather, the source must be transcendent, objective, and
    immutable.
        Again, Chairwoman Bass, thank you for convening this, and I
    too look forward to the testimony of our very distinguished
    witnesses.
        Ms. Bass. And as always, Mr. Smith, I always enjoy your
    presentation of history and taking us back to the origin and
    providing a wide context, appreciate that very much.
        I will now introduce the witnesses.
        Joanne Lin directs Amnesty International USA's policy
    advocacy program targeting Congress and the Federal Government.
    She leads and manages a team of eight human rights advocates.
    She has overseen advocacy initiatives to halt U.S. arm sales to
    the Saudi-Emirati coalition, to pressure Myanmar to halt
    atrocities against Rohingya, to release detained asylum
    seekers, and to mandate background checks on all U.S. gun
    sales. She is recognized as one of the Nation's premier experts
    on immigration and refugee law and policy. Ms. Lin has been
    named a top grassroots association lobbyist by The Hill in 2018
    and 2019.
        Dr. Courtney Radsch is the advocacy director at the
    Committee to Protect Journalists. As a veteran journalist,
    researcher, and free expression advocate, she writes and speaks
    about the nexus of media technology and human rights. She is
    the author of a book and several book chapters and articles
    about the Arab Spring, media, terrorism, and human rights. Dr.
    Radsch has participated in expert consultations at the United
    Nations, OSCE, and the E.U. On press freedom, countering
    violent extremism, online violence against women, and
    journalist safety. Dr. Radsch has worked as a journalist for
    the New York Times, in Dubai, and the Daily Star in Lebanon.
        Ms. Emilie Kao is an attorney who has defended religion
    freedom for the last 17 years. She worked on behalf of victims
    of religious freedom violations in East Asia and the Middle
    East at the State Department's Office of International
    Religious Freedom, the law office of Jus Cogens and the Becket
    Fund for Religious Liberty. Previously she worked at the United
    Nations in Geneva and the law firm of Latham and Watkins. She
    taught international human rights at George Mason University
    Law School as an adjunct law professor.
        Emilie is a graduate of Harvard Law School where she
    received a J.D. And Harvard-Radcliffe College where she
    received a degree in Near Eastern civilizations and languages.
        I now recognize each witness for 5 minutes. And without
    objection, your prepared statements will be made part of the
    record.
        I will first call on witness No. 1, which is Ms. Joanne
    Lin.

     STATEMENT OF MS. JOANNE LIN, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, ADVOCACY AND
             GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA

        Ms. Lin. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Bass, Ranking Member
    Smith, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Joanne Lin,
    and I am the national director for advocacy and government
    affairs at Amnesty International USA.
        This is a time of hope and a time of fear for civic space
    and human rights. On the one hand, new technologies have
    empowered activists to speak and fight for human rights. On the
    other hand, government censorship and reprisal, sometimes aided
    by Big Tech, is jeopardizing and silencing that human rights
    advocacy.
        Today I will address three global trends: First, internet
    shutdown; second, Big Tech complicity and censorship; and,
    third, government attacks on civil society.
        Trend No. 1, internet shutdown. Governments are
    increasingly shutting down internet access and, thus, stifling
    people's ability to get information to communicate and to
    organize. Activists rely on the internet, in particular
    encrypted messaging services, to document and share
    information. Without the internet, activists are forced to use
    nonsecure means of communication, such as phone calls, text
    messages, thereby increasing their risk of being arrested.
        To understand the interplay of internet restrictions in
    human rights, let's look at what has happened in Myanmar. In
    2019, the government-imposed internet shutdown in Rakhine and
    Chin States, areas where authorities have long persecuted
    religious and ethnic minorities. Over 130,000 Rohingya are
    interred in mass detention camps in Rakhine State.
        The internet shutdown lasted 14 months and took place at a
    time when access to information, whether about armed conflict
    or COVID-19, could literally mean the difference between life
    and death.
        Ten activists were convicted of protesting without
    permission, nine sentenced to prison terms. One poet activist
    was convicted for putting up a banner that read, quote, ``is
    the internet being shut down to hide war crimes and killing
    people?''
        Trend No. 2, Big Tech complicity and censorship. While some
    countries have imposed internet shutdowns, others are censoring
    content and turning to Big Tech as a partner. Just last week
    Amnesty published a report finding Facebook complicit in
    censorship and repression on an industrial scale in Vietnam.
        In 2020, Facebook complied with 95 percent of censorship
    requests by the Vietnamese Government. This staggering figure
    demonstrates that Facebook isn't just letting censorship unfold
    on its platform, Facebook is complicit in government
    censorship.
        Facebook's actions have direct human rights impact in
    Vietnam, a country with a record of repression, including
    jailing people for social media use. Of the 170 prisoners of
    conscience in Vietnam, nearly 40 percent have been jailed
    solely for their social media activity.
        Big Tech complicity and censorship isn't limited to
    Vietnam. Across the world, from Thailand to Turkey, governments
    are co-opting social media platforms to censor people's voices
    at scale.
        Trend No. 3, civil society under attack. A growing number
    of countries are cracking down on civil society and NGO's,
    including Amnesty sections in Hungary, Turkey, and India.
        In Hungary, a government-affiliated magazine published a
    list of individuals described as mercenaries paid to overthrow
    the government. The list included Amnesty Hungary staff, as
    well as other activists and academics. Some of the individuals
    on the list received threats of rape and death.
        In Turkey, police arrested and jailed the board chair and
    director of Amnesty Turkey in 2017. While they were released
    pending the outcome of their appeals, other activists have been
    locked up for years.
        While Amnesty has managed to survive in Hungary and Turkey,
    that has not been the case in India. In 2020, Amnesty India was
    forced to lay off all staff and cease all human rights work
    after its bank accounts were frozen. This followed years of
    intimidation by the government, including raids of Amnesty
    India offices and interrogation of staff and board members.
        The forced shuttering of Amnesty International in the
    world's largest democracy has sent a chilling message to civil
    society around the world.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lin follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        When we go to Q and A, you will have an opportunity to
    expand more. But I want to call on the next witness, Dr.
    Courtney Radsch. But I want to bring our witnesses' and our
    members' attention to a timer that you see. When you are
    looking at the layout, you should see a timer that is showing 5
    minutes.
        Let me call on Dr. Courtney Radsch.

    STATEMENT OF DR. COURTNEY RADSCH, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE
                         TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS

        Dr. Radsch. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass, Ranking Member
    Smith, and other distinguished members of this subcommittee.
    Appreciate you hosting this important hearing and for inviting
    the Committee to Protect Journalists to testify.
        My name is Courtney Radsch, and I serve as CPJ's director
    of advocacy and communications. At CPJ we believe that attacks
    on journalists are attacks on international human rights and
    civic space. But such attacks have a compounding effect because
    they not only silence journalists, they impede reporting on
    other human rights, political, economic, and environmental
    rights.
        Humans have a right to engage in journalism and a right to
    access and exchange news and information, a right that has life
    and death consequences during a global health pandemic.
        It looks likely that the responses to the coronavirus could
    shift the long-term paradigm for journalism in similar ways
    that the war on terror fueled the global expansion of
    antiterrorism laws and, in turn, ushered in an uptick in the
    jailing of journalists that continues today.
        One of the most prominent ways that governments censor
    reporting is by outright criminalizing the act of journalism.
    And the COVID-19 pandemic has provided governments with a new
    excuse to further crack down on news organizations and
    journalists, mainly through restricting information that is not
    in line with the official narrative.
        Like journalist Hopewell Chin'ono who was arrested and
    charged with incitement for his reporting on alleged COVID-19
    procurement fraud within Zimbabwe's Ministry of Health.
        The result is a world in which the press is even less free
    to report at a time when the public needs reliable information
    more than ever.
        Due to the spread of COVID-19, imprisonment can now amount
    to a death sentence for the 250 journalists behind bars
    globally. Azimjon Askarov was a journalist in Kyrgyzstan
    sentenced to a life in prison for his reporting on human rights
    violations, and in July he died. His wife told CPJ she
    suspected he contracted COVID-19. Journalists in jail lack
    adequate access to healthcare, legal representation, and
    personal protective equipment.
        The U.S. Government should demand the release of all
    journalists behind bars during the pandemic, especially in
    allied countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey to name
    but a few. These cases are not atypical.
        We have also seen the expulsion of foreign journalists from
    countries, including China, Egypt, and Iraq, in retaliation for
    reporting on the pandemic and government responses.
        Another threat is the increasing use of fake news rhetoric
    and laws. In 2012, there was just one journalist behind bars on
    a false news statute. In 2019, there were 30. With the
    expansion of disinformation laws as governments seek to respond
    to the coronavirus, there is little doubt that these will be
    abused to restrict reporting and retaliate against a wide array
    of critical journalists.
        Several governments, like South Africa and Cuba, have moved
    to criminalize disinformation about the pandemic, and the
    governments have been using emergency measures to halt the
    sharing of opinions, restricts journalists' movements, and put
    on other sort of press freedom restraints.
        Finally, we are concerned about the proliferation of
    surveillance technologies that may legitimately be aimed at
    combatting the spread of the virus but are also prone to abuse
    as we saw with surveillance capabilities developed in response
    to the war on terror.
        Companies have developed and sold increasingly
    sophisticated spyware to government actors with dubious press
    freedom records under the guise of combating terrorism, but in
    many cases, these tools are being used to target journalists as
    in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, and elsewhere.
        This year we have seen coronavirus technologies deployed
    quickly and it appears without human rights impact assessments,
    sufficient privacy controls, or adequate restrictions on their
    use outside of the current context.
        We are deeply concerned about what this will mean for civic
    space and independent media because once a technology is built,
    even if it is for the best of goals, the capability exists and
    there is no reverting back.
        We are grateful that so many Members of Congress are active
    on press freedom, but given the severity of the threats against
    the press, more must be done.
        And in my written testimony, I have made a series of
    recommendations, but I want to highlight just a few here. Pass
    the Protecting Human Rights During Pandemic Act, which has
    bipartisan support.
        Speak publicly about the importance of a free and
    independent press to democracy, especially as related to the
    pandemic.
        Ensure U.S. Government support and assistance, including
    through emergency visas and temporary relocation for
    journalists forced to flee because of threats.
        And protect the independence of U.S. Government funded
    media which have been the first or only source of information
    on COVID in some countries.
        Thank you for holding this important hearing and for
    inviting the Committee to Protect Journalists to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Radsch follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you so much for your testimony.
        Let me call on our final witness, Ms. Emilie Kao.

    STATEMENT OF MS. EMILIE KAO, DIRECTOR OF THE RICHARD AND HELEN
     DEVOS CENTER FOR RELIGION & CIVIL SOCIETY, HERITAGE FOUNDATION

        Ms. Kao. Chairwoman Bass, Ranking Member Smith, and other
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you so much
    for your invitation.
        My name is Emilie Kao. I am director of the DeVos Center
    for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation. All
    of the views expressed today are my own and should not be
    attributed to the Heritage Foundation.
        As we commemorate the adoption of the Universal Declaration
    of Human Rights in 1948, let us be aware of the new and gradual
    encroachments upon freedom, as well as the familiar ones.
        In 2019, the United Nations introduced the global strategy
    and action plan on hate speech. This strategy is well
    intentioned, but it follows the wrong path toward censorship.
    The U.N. Introduced the strategy in response to attacks on
    houses of worship, and though there is no internationally
    accepted legal definition of hate speech, the U.N. Strategy
    defines hate speech as any kind of communication that uses,
    quote, ``pejorative or discriminatory language about a person
    or a group on the basis of religion, race, gender, or other
    identity factors,'' closed quote. But pejorative and
    discriminatory are subjective terms and easily abused.
        First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who led the drafting of the
    Universal Declaration, warned that governments would seek to
    punish all criticisms under the guise of protecting against
    hostility.
        There are both principles and pragmatic reasons for the
    United States to oppose the new strategy. First, the Universal
    Declaration established the principle that all human beings
    have inalienable rights because of our unique human dignity.
    They pointed to our endowment with reason and conscience, but
    speech restrictions violate this human dignity. They subject a
    person's freedom to speak according to their reason and their
    conscience to supervision by the State.
        James Madison said that a person's opinion depends only on
    evidence contemplated by their own minds and cannot follow the
    dictates of other men. But hate speech, blasphemy, and
    defamation of religion laws require citizens to follow the
    dictates of other men.
        American law treats speech as an end in itself, not the
    means to an end, even a noble one. The Supreme Court recognized
    counter speech is the best way to effect reason and conscience
    and protected our interest in security by limiting speech that
    is likely to incite imminent lawless action. Hate speech laws
    do not work.
        European nations and Muslim majority countries have
    endorsed the U.N. Strategy, but evidence from those nations
    shows that speech restrictions radicalize extremists, and they
    do not protect the innocent.
        In the Middle East and North Africa, 65 percent of
    countries have blasphemy laws, arguing that they keep the peace
    by preventing insult to Islam. Professor Nilay Saiya's analysis
    of 51 Muslim majority States found that those which criminalize
    blasphemy are more likely to suffer from Islamist terror
    attacks than those that did do not.
        Amjad Mahmood Kahn warned that these laws create a sense of
    religious duty to silence those who are perceived as
    threatening the reputations of Muhammad, Islam, and Islamic
    governments.
        The implementations of radicalization are global. The
    Pakistani branch of the Taliban tells its followers that,
    quote, ``Zionist and crusader enemies of Islam are insulting
    the signs of Islam everywhere,'' closed quote.
        European governments are also enforcing restrictions on
    hate speech that offend religious sensibilities, but there is
    no evidence that their censorship reduces terrorism. According
    to the Pew Global Restriction Survey in 2015, Jewish people
    experienced more harassment in Europe than any other part of
    the world.
        There are three recommendations for broadening civic space.
    First, the U.S. should proactively urge the United Nations to
    rescind its strategy on hate speech, increase efforts to
    protect free speech and religious freedom, and adopt the U.S.
    Supreme Court's clear and objective standard of imminent
    lawless action.
        Second, Congress should encourage the President and
    Secretary of State to oppose any international efforts to enact
    hate speech restrictions that fall short of the imminent
    lawless action test, in addition to opposing blasphemy,
    hypocrisy, and defamation of religion laws as both House
    Resolution 512, which just passed, and Senate Resolution 458
    do.
        Third, America's global counterterrorism efforts and
    national security strategy should reflect the relationship
    between speech restrictions and terrorism. An open public
    square ensures that toxic narratives can be challenged by the
    truth that all human beings have inherent dignity and are
    created equal. Freedom offers the path toward greater justice,
    peace, and security.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kao follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you very much. I thank you for
    your testimony and for all of our witnesses for taking your
    time out today.
        I will now recognize members for 5 minutes each, and
    pursuant to House rules, all time yielded is for the purpose of
    questioning our witnesses.
        I will recognize members alternating between Democrats and
    Republicans, and if you miss your turn, let our staff know, and
    we will circle back to you. If you seek recognition, you must
    unmute your microphone and address the Chair.
        I will start by recognizing myself.
        And I want to direct my first question to Ms. Lin. You
    know, I wanted to know what you think of the impact in the
    world that has happened because of what people are seeing here
    in the United States, whether we are talking about what is
    going on with the election, whether or not it was free and
    fair, the attacks on the media that we hear attacking
    journalists, talking about reporting fake news.
        If you do not like something, you call it fake news. And I
    wanted to know what impact you feel we are having on the rest
    of the world where we typically try to hold the rest of the
    world accountable, and now the world is looking at us a bit.
        So that is for Lin. I would also like Dr. Radsch to address
    that as well, especially in regard to journalists.
        Ms. Lin. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass, for that question.
        I mean, your question is the ultimate human rights question
    because we are all gathered here today to honor Human Rights
    Day tomorrow, and that Human Rights Day applies to all
    countries of the world, including what's happening right here
    in our borders. So, needless to say, people are looking at how
    we walk the walk, more so than how we talk the talk.
        2020 has been a devastating year for human rights in the
    United States. The summer of 2020 has made clear that Black and
    Brown people live in great peril and that police killings
    remain a very serious problem throughout the country.
        Now, clearly this problem is not limited to the United
    States. We have seen protests in Nigeria erupt this summer
    again calling out police brutality and protest movements taking
    to the streets demanding an end to SARS, which is their
    infamous police force there.
        We have also seen people take to the streets in every
    continent, whether it is Hong Kong, Belarus, Iraq, Lebanon,
    Chile, and this shows that the civic space is still very much
    alive, that even in spite of everything that has been testified
    about to today, that people are demanding that their voices not
    be silenced, and they are demanding greater government
    accountability and justice.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Ms. Lin. Okay.
        Ms. Bass. Let me go on to Dr. Courtney Radsch, especially
    when you hear people in rallies denounce the press in the
    United States. And so my question is really, what are you
    seeing internationally because of this, whether it is
    attacking, you know, one station or another?
        The other thing is what about journalists who are reporting
    false information? And one of the things that concerns me a lot
    is COVID, false information about COVID in terms of whether or
    not you need to wear a mask, whether or not you need to abide
    by the guidelines, or whether or not hydroxychlorquine, you
    know, is a cure.
        So I would like for you to respond to that. What impact are
    we having around the world?
        Dr. Radsch. Thank you so much for that question because it
    is really important because we have seen over the past 3 or 4
    years that the rhetoric around false news ricocheted around the
    world. We saw that governments of all shapes and sizes, from
    authoritarian through Democratic, adopted that rhetoric. But we
    saw an evolution this year, especially with COVID-19, through
    the adoption of legislation to criminalize fake news.
        So actually, yes, walking the walk very important, as
    Joanne said, but also talking the talk, both rhetorical and
    action oriented.
        The abuses that we saw during the protests over the summer,
    the antipolice violence protests and the more than 900 plus
    freedom violations that we have tracked with the U.S. Press
    Freedom Tracker have sent a very chilling signal around the
    world, both in terms of what the U.S. law enforcement, how it
    treats its own journalists, and in terms of dismantling U.S.
    leadership on press freedom and its ability to be a moral
    authority.
        Then when you couple that with your question about
    journalists reporting on false information, let's remember that
    how journalism works is that they are typically reporting on
    what politicians, doctors, scientists, and experts or the
    public are doing, saying, et cetera, so they are out there
    reporting.
        So one of the big problems is that a lot of misinformation
    and disinformation is being perpetrated by government
    spokespeople, whether that is President Trump or Bolsonaro in
    Brazil where there is, you know, one of the most popular videos
    out there is about hydroxychloroquine being a cure for COVID-
    19, which obviously we know it is not.
        So the journalists are in a very challenging position
    because, on the one hand, they need to report what the experts
    are saying. On the other hand, journalism is the first draft of
    history, and we are in an unprecedented health pandemic during
    which the science is evolving, our understanding is evolving,
    so there is not necessarily a truth out there.
        And we need to look at that intersection and address the
    severe online harassment that then is perpetrated against
    journalists who are caught up in the politics of reporting on
    these issues.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you, thank you.
        Representative Smith.
        I think you are muted.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. Did I get it?
        Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses.
        Let me just say we just celebrated the 20th anniversary on
    October 28th of the signing of the Trafficking Victims
    Protection Act, the law that I am the prime author of. It was a
    bipartisan law bicameral obviously. Article 4 of the Universal
    Declaration makes clear that slavery is an abomination and no
    one should be subjected to it.
        Perhaps you might want to speak to how well you think we
    are doing. I believe very strongly that the Trump
    Administration has done a tremendous job. The TIP office, run
    by Ambassador Richmond, has been very, very forthcoming and
    assertive in combatting human trafficking, so your thoughts on
    that.
        Second, Ms. Lin, you talked about Vietnam. Back in February
    2006, I chaired a landmark hearing on how Google, Microsoft,
    Cisco, and Yahoo were aiding and abetting dictatorships around
    the world, but it was focused primarily on China.
        You have pointed out that Facebook is complicit in
    censorship and repression on an industrial scale. Your thoughts
    briefly on how we can further combat the incarceration of so
    many people who are online and then aided and abetted--you gave
    95 percent of the censorship requests coming from Vietnam--that
    are followed by Facebook.
        I find that, you know, obviously very disturbing, but it is
    a trend in the world, whether they be in Africa or Belarus or
    any other country.
        Next, if I could, some of the stories that some of us on
    this side of the aisle find frustrating is that when
    unbelievably effective policies yield real results, like the
    rushed Warp Speed as it was called to get a vaccine, go
    underreported in terms of how it happened.
        You know, I actually asked--it is after the election, so it
    is probably easier for them to say it, but I asked my Governors
    on a Zoom call, Commerce--or not Commerce; Health Secretary
    what her view was of it, and it was nothing but accolades for
    the Trump Administration.
        I have never seen any of that, any of it in print anywhere.
    It may be in some conservative media, but not in the Washington
    Post or the New York Times, and that is disturbing, the
    imbalance.
        I really do believe that the press has an absolute
    obligation to ask the hard questions, but I do also think there
    needs to be--you know, when I took journalism classes, and I
    loved to write, I write op-eds all the time, I write my own
    speeches, but the three As, accuracy, accuracy, accuracy and a
    real keen sense of objectivity needs to be, I think, more
    embraced.
        And I think that would go a long way to telling the truth.
    That is all we ask; just tell the truth and ask the hard
    questions, but tell the truth. But Warp Speed got almost
    nothing.
        Next, on the issue of India, and I think, again, that is a
    very, very troubling state of affairs that the largest
    democracy tells the embassy international people, you are out.
    Maybe you want to speak to that very briefly with Modi because
    I do think there are other serious human rights abuses
    occurring under his watch, particularly in the realm of
    religious freedom.
        And, Ms. Kao, you know, maybe you want to speak as well to,
    you know, the blasphemy laws. You know, right in the Universal
    Declaration it makes very clear everyone has the right to
    freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The right
    includes freedom to change religion or belief. If you do that
    in some countries, what happens? You are executed. And I think
    we need to more aggressively assert that universally recognized
    human right.
        So our witnesses, please.
        Ms. Lin. Thank you, Congressman Smith, for the litany of
    terrific questions. I will go ahead and address the questions
    about Vietnam and India.
        So you were clairvoyant to have a hearing on Big Tech in
    India.
        Mr. Smith. If I could interrupt you, T. Kumar provided
    great testimony from Amnesty at that hearing.
        Ms. Lin. Yes. Thank you. He is my former colleague, and his
    contributions and legacy at Amnesty are still felt today. So
    thank you so much.
        Specifically I just wanted to highlight what we have seen
    in Vietnam is not limited to Vietnam, and we know that we are
    seeing this trend extend across the world, to Thailand, to
    Turkey, to other countries of the world as well.
        And we have two sets of recommendations because we have two
    actors involved. We have the Vietnamese Government and we have
    Big Tech.
        So let me start with Big Tech for a moment, all right,
    because Big Tech is located in the United States. These
    corporations are all, for the most part, based in Silicon
    Valley. So we have three recommendations with respect to Big
    Tech.
        First, that all of the high tech companies need to adopt
    new content moderation and community standards policies that
    are grounded in international human rights standards,
    particularly the U.N. Guiding principle on business and human
    rights.
        Second, ensure monitoring and oversight bodies such as
    Facebook's new oversight board--they just had their first
    hearing last week--are empowered to make binding policy changes
    with respect to content moderation and transparency and not
    merely in individual cases.
        And, third, expand the mandate of Facebook's oversight
    board to include the evaluation grounded in human rights law of
    content moderation decisions that have been made pursuant to
    local law.
        So those are our recommendations with respect to Big Tech.
        Then when you look at the actual government, so here we are
    talking about Vietnam in particular----
        Ms. Bass. I am going to let you finish that point and then
    we will--because we are over time, but you go ahead and finish
    that point, and then we will come back to you a little later.
        Ms. Lin. Okay. Thank you.
        Two suggestions: One, that it is critical to call on the
    Vietnamese Government to end the harassment, arrest,
    prosecution, and imprisonment of human rights defenders and
    activists and to drop all charges against those, especially for
    those who were there for social media activity.
        And then urge the Vietnamese Government to repeal all of
    the oppressive laws that have criminalized or restricted the
    work of human rights defenders.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Representative Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to all of you
    witnesses here today, thank you for taking the time to be with
    us.
        I want to focus my first question on COVID and how it has
    impacted elections. I am particularly concerned about how
    coronavirus has impacted civic spaces and elections all around
    the globe, of course, even including here in our country.
        But we have seen elections delayed in Somalia, in Ethiopia
    and taken place with some limited engagement and restricted
    access in countries like Cote d'Ivoire.
        Starting with Ms. Lin, can you speak to how elections have
    been impacted by the restrictions on civic spaces and how COVID
    has influenced this dynamic around the world?
        Ms. Lin. Congressman Phillips, I actually am not
    [inaudible]. I can talk about the impact of COVID on civic
    space generally in terms of protest movement, but not on
    elections. So I do not know if there is another witness who
    could address your question more.
        Mr. Phillips. Okay. Yes, maybe, perhaps, Ms. Kao, is that
    something you might address?
        Ms. Kao. Thank you very much, Congressman Phillips.
        Actually, if I could, I would like to briefly address the
    way that the Chinese Government suppressed information about
    the coronavirus, if I may, because that is a massive human
    rights abuse that has not only cost the lives of millions of
    Chinese--millions of people around the world, as well as
    Chinese citizens.
        They suppressed the freedom of speech of Dr. Li Wenliang,
    one of the first doctors to encounter the coronavirus, and they
    continued to suppress the freedom of doctors and journalists
    who wanted to report on the coronavirus, including the
    important information about human-to-human transmission.
        I will let someone else speak to elections.
        Mr. Phillips. Okay. I do want to focus--our subcommittee is
    Africa, so I do want to try to focus your--Ms. Radsch, is that
    something you might address?
        Dr. Radsch. Yes, to some extent. So one of the things we
    have seen around the world is that elections are times when
    there are typically crackdowns on the press and it is a time
    when we see a lot of violence against the press.
        Belarus is an interesting case where it is a very
    repressive environment for reporters. One of the only
    independent outlets there that was the first one to actually
    report on COVID was RFE/RL, the U.S.--congressionally funded
    outlet of the U.S. agency for media.
        So that really underscores the critical role that
    independent media play in censorial countries that was
    undergoing a protest, and we saw massive protests erupt there
    in a place that has very restricted civic space.
        I think one of the things about protests and elections that
    we have seen, you know, kind of proliferate around the world is
    that, you know, part of the civic space are the streets, and so
    the streets are kind of the last outlet in many countries when
    other forms of civic space, like the pages of the newspaper or
    the airwaves or internet platforms, are not available to engage
    in those debates that need to take place during elections.
        And then that is part of the reason you see people going
    into the streets and you see protests. And then, of course,
    there is often an uptick in violence.
        Mr. Phillips. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        To use the rest of my time, lets address some of the human
    rights questions that I have in Africa, clearly challenges in
    many nations, from protecting civilians from armed conflict,
    for any human rights activists from repression, opening up
    public spaces for dialog, and tackling discrimination and
    violence against both women and minorities.
        Ms. Kao, what--any recommendations from you relative to
    what the U.S. Congress can do legislatively to ensure that
    those governments are being held accountable and supporting
    those who are faced with discriminations?
        Ms. Kao. Thank you very much, Congressman Phillips.
        Well, further to my comments and to my written submission,
    I think it is really important for the United States to be very
    clear that at the United Nations there should be no promotion
    of restriction from speech because that is only going to narrow
    the civic space in Africa as well as the rest of the world.
        Authoritarian governments would love for, you know, the
    U.N. To support their restrictions on speech because, of
    course, they know that will increase their grip on political
    power. So that would be my primary recommendation.
        In addition to that, I would say continue to, you know,
    support the State Department's efforts to protect religious
    freedom. Ambassador-at-Large Sam Brownback has convened now
    three international ministerials on religious freedom that have
    been incredibly successful in bringing together multi level
    partners to protect religious freedom. We see the atrocities
    that Boko Haram is committing, and, you know, obviously, they
    are dedicated not only to eradicating religious minorities but
    also to no education for females; thus, their name.
        And so protecting religious freedom, protecting the ability
    of these religious minorities of all faiths to flourish in
    Africa is essential to the future of the government.
        Mr. Phillips. I appreciate that.
        My time is expired, so I yield back. Thank you.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, Representative Phillips.
        Representative Houlahan.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
    of you for being here today.
        I have a couple of questions to followup on Mr. Phillips'
    lines or Representative Phillips' lines of questioning.
        One is that this committee is Africa, but it is also Africa
    and human rights. And so I have one question about our own
    history and what's happening in our own Nation right now in
    terms of police brutality. And I am interested and concerned
    about how we as a Nation can rightfully or try to condemn the
    Nigerian Government when we are, obviously, very flawed in the
    way that we are approaching our response to this kind of issue.
        Is there some way that the U.S. can be a better
    international model on the issues of civil rights and freedom
    of expression that you could recommend to this committee that
    we could be helpful with?
        Ms. Lin. So, Congressman Houlahan, thank you so much for
    the question.
        I really feel like your question is the question for
    everyone in the human rights community, whether we work on
    civil human rights or we work on international human rights.
    And, clearly, the United States history, the legacy of Jim Crow
    is still very much alive with us. The fact that police
    killings, that there have been 164 police killings of Black
    people between January 2020 and August 2020 is just proof
    positive that the work at home needs to be top priority.
        That being said, you know, I do think that the United
    States has historically played a leadership role in advancing
    human rights, international human rights. I think that it is
    critical for the incoming administration to return to all of
    the various international bodies and agreements that were
    exited in the last few years.
        And I think that is possible to do that with a dose of
    humility and honesty about our own history and that we can call
    for an end to police brutality in the United States at the same
    time that we are calling for an end to police brutality in
    Nigeria, that we can require that our police forces respond to
    peaceful protestors consistent with human rights standards here
    in the United States at the same time that we insist that they
    not use violence, excessive violence in Hong Kong, Lebanon,
    Iraq, and Belarus.
        So that is the challenge before us going forward.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you.
        And my next question, although not centered around Africa
    per se, has to do with women's issues and gender-based violence
    and then that aspect of human rights. Specifically, Poland,
    which is where my heritage is from, and the fact that the
    Justice Minister has announced they have withdrawn from the
    Council of Europe's Istanbul Convention against violence
    against women.
        And I was wondering what sort of long-term effects that
    might come from disengagement from issues, on the part of the
    United States, on gender-based violence will have on the rights
    of women globally. And how can we as a Nation effectively
    encourage Poland and other countries like Poland, who are
    reversing their progress on this issue, to change course?
        Ms. Lin. Again, I am happy to start off with the answers
    here. So gender-based violence, again, is a scourge that still
    afflicts the United States and every country in the world, and
    we have seen this exacerbated in the time of COVID as people
    around the world have been shut in, many people in countries
    where there have been true lockdowns, in situations where
    people have lost jobs and sometimes have lost healthcare and
    are facing other economic pressures.
        So attacking gender-based violence as an affirmative human
    rights issue is going to be a top priority for the next
    Congress, the incoming administration.
        I am sorry, I do not know the particulars around Poland. I
    do have colleagues who do, and so I could get back to you on
    that.
        But, needless to say, the United States needs to address it
    at home and challenge and require all countries around the
    world to do the same.
        Ms. Houlahan. And, Ms. Kao, do you have anything to add to
    that?
        Ms. Kao. Thank you for the question, Representative
    Houlahan.
        I think it is important for the United States to engage in
    international human rights institutions. It is also important
    for the United States to keep those institutions accountable to
    their mandate.
        One of our primary concerns at the Heritage Foundation with
    the U.N. Human Rights Council has been the lack of
    accountability. We have seen human rights violators, like
    China, like Venezuela, like some of the worst countries in the
    world, be elected to the Human Rights Council, and now they are
    in charge of actually choosing the experts that do the
    investigations of human rights around the world.
        So we would love to see reform at the U.N. Human Rights
    Council in that area of accountability and as well also getting
    rid of the anti-Israel bias in singling out Israel for more
    condemnation than any other State, because we do believe that
    international organizations can play a very constructive role,
    and we would like to see the U.N. Human Rights Council do that.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you to everybody. And my time has run
    out, and I will yield back. And I apologize, I am zooming off
    to a Women in Peace and Security conference at 3 o'clock, but
    thanks for having me today.
        Ms. Bass. Wonderful. Thanks for coming, Representative
    Houlahan.
        Representative Smith, are you still with us?
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Let me just, if I could, I am a great believer in being
    inclusive of all of the information that should be on the
    record. Now, I do not like how Donald Trump handles press
    conferences. I just do not like it at all. But on the previous
    administration, James Risen, you might recall, who called Obama
    the greatest enemy of press freedom in his generation, the
    Associated Press were very, very upset--and I would be
    interested to know what some of our witnesses think--very upset
    when trying to find who was leaking what, you know, spied on
    everyone after then.
        With Risen, it started under George W. Bush in terms of the
    Espionage Act, was carried over to the Obama Administration;
    but I am not sure--and if you have got information, that would
    be fine--that that kind of spying on the press was done during
    this administration.
        Again, I think the press have an absolutely critical role
    to play in ferreting out information, protecting our liberties
    and our rights by being so proactive, but I think there has to
    be a sense of responsibility.
        And, you know, Risen, you know, was revealing things that
    some people did not want out. And we all remember the Pentagon
    papers going back many, many years ago. I am grateful that the
    press reveal information that we need to know that gets, you
    know, hidden and becomes part of a clandestine operation that
    needs to be exposed.
        So I just--my sense is that we need to call out everyone
    who abuses press freedom. And, unfortunately, you know, a
    caricature gets produced about what is really happening, what
    is not happening, and I do not think any President should, you
    know--and openness and transparency is what we ought to be
    pressing aggressively for.
        Yes, there are some State secrets that could be injurious
    to our national security, but there are also State secrets that
    are, you know, branded that in order to preclude any kind of
    scrutiny by anyone outside of a certain group of people.
        So that would be one thing that I would be concerned about.
    I do think--and maybe we can speak to it again, but the idea he
    have what is happening with the media giants. And I think, Ms.
    Lin, you really hit that very, very strong, and I have been
    hitting it for 20 years.
        I remember when the power shifted for Republicans to
    Democrats, my good friend, Tom Lantos--and I was his ranking
    member--called a hearing, and we had Yahoo come and testify,
    and Jerry Yang--we had a reporter's mother. Shi Tao had gotten
    10 years.
        Yahoo gave up all the information about his personally
    identifiable information when what the secret police of China
    simply came in and said, ``give us everything you have on Shi
    Tao.'' They did. He went to prison for 10 years.
        Well, Jerry Yang was sitting in the audience, and Lantos
    and I, Chairman Lantos at the time, pressed hard. And he was
    almost like doing mea culpas about what he had really been a
    part of; but they quickly revert back.
        And I think if anything, Facebook is truly being complicit,
    as you said so eloquently earlier, with what these
    dictatorships are doing. Making a little more money does not
    help, and T. Kumar said this at my hearing in 2006. He goes,
    the argument is that this will open up society, having an
    internet, having this, having that. That one is controlled by a
    dictatorship.
        I remember going to an internet cafe--and I will finish
    with this--in Beijing, and I typed in the Dalai Lama. Blocked.
    Typed in George W. Bush. Blocked--no, I got that he is--I typed
    in myself. I was blocked. Typed in all of these names, and it
    was like--then I typed in Tiananmen Square, just as I did at my
    hearing. Beautiful pictures. I typed in massacre at Tiananmen
    Square. Nothing, all blocked.
        And, again, when I asked Amnesty--not Amnesty; Google and
    Cisco, Yahoo, and Microsoft under oath, because I swore them
    all in, how do you know what to censor? Who tells you? It is
    the government. But they wouldn't tell us what words, what
    phrases, you know, how this really works.
        So they just--my belief was, then and now, they get a
    request, they honor it, and then they say they are honoring the
    laws of that country, the laws of a dictatorship.
        So, you know, these social media, these others, they have
    an affirmative obligation, and we have got to push harder and
    harder to ensure that they do not become, you know, the willing
    dupes of these dictatorships.
        So thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
        Ms. Bass. You are very welcome.
        I wanted to ask a few more questions. You mentioned
    Facebook, and I think it was Ms. Lin that talked about Facebook
    and censorship. You know, we have a challenge here where there
    are some problems. I mean, there are some things Facebook does
    need to censor.
        And I just wonder how you deal with that because, you know,
    one of the things--and I know our ranking member knows what I
    am talking about--you know, they put out deliberate
    misinformation. And I do not mean that Facebook is doing it,
    but they allow for it to be out there or they allow for foreign
    intervention. And so how do you deal with that?
        I would also like to ask that slightly different with Ms.
    Kao, because it sounds like you do not think speech should be
    limited, you know, at all. And I am just wondering how you deal
    with that when it is deliberate misinformation, when you are
    calling and rallying people to something that could be violent,
    telling people to turn out, and that is something that we
    criticize other governments for.
        So I am not sure where you land on that. So I would ask
    that of Ms. Lin and Ms. Kao.
        Ms. Lin. Well, thank you for the question, Representative
    Bass and Representative Smith, about Facebook. So
    Representative Smith raised this very important issue. Money is
    a big factor here. So if you look at Facebook's revenues in
    southeast Asia, one-third of their revenues flow out of
    Vietnam. That is a huge market share.
        And then you also need to look at the history of a
    particular country's human rights record. So even though
    Vietnam has ushered in all these economic reforms, it remains a
    very repressive society. If you look at any type of freedom
    measure, whether it is freedom of press, freedom of speech,
    freedom of expression, it is still a very closed society.
        Ms. Bass. Well, excuse me, I was really referring to
    Facebook here. In other words, I understand what you are saying
    about Vietnam, but what about--because we do have problems with
    Facebook. We do. So I do not know if your position is that you
    just allow anything to be on, but, I mean, it has caused a lot
    of problems here.
        Ms. Lin. Yes, no. I think that what you are raising is a
    very important issue. And I do think that--I do not have an
    answer for how to handle it here in the United States. I am not
    going to pretend that it is a simplistic one size fits all.
        If you look at, for instance, Thailand, which is a country
    neighboring Vietnam, where there, again, Facebook did close a
    Facebook group with over a million members that were
    criticizing, expressing criticism of the Monarchy, which is
    illegal under Thai law, again, that happened in recent months
    in a country that is more open than Vietnam, but still is more
    closed than the United States.
        So I think what you are asking about, Congresswoman Bass,
    is a hugely important question, but I think it requires a
    separate hearing in and of itself, because you are right, how
    it breaks out in each country is very, very challenging for all
    the reasons that I and the other witnesses have mentioned
    today.
        Ms. Bass. Okay. Ms. Kao.
        Ms. Kao. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass, for raising this
    important question. So I do think that speech which incites
    imminent lawless action should not be protected and it is not
    protected, because the Supreme Court in Brandenburg versus Ohio
    said that speech that is likely to incite imminent lawless
    action does not receive the protection of the First Amendment.
        I share your concern about other speech, you know, that may
    be hurtful, it may be insulting, it may be offensive, it may be
    bigoted, but I believe that the best way to address that kind
    of speech is through counterspeech, because counterspeech is
    what persuades people. It is what changes their hearts and
    minds. Silencing people and censoring them does not change
    their hearts and minds, and I think that narrows the civic
    space and it reduces the contact between people who hold
    different opinions.
        I think today's hearing is so important, because we are
    talking about opening the civic space. And opening the civic
    space is what allows for more interactions between people who
    hold different opinions, to learn from one another, to debate
    one another, to disagree with one another.
        And so that is why it is important to keep that space open
    and to allow people to say something that may be, you know,
    something that causes disagreement or even offense.
        Ms. Bass. Okay. Well, thank you very much.
        And let me thank the witnesses for appearing today, for
    taking time out of your schedule. I think this was a very
    important hearing, and I want to thank especially Ranking
    Member Smith and the other members that attended the hearing.
        And, with that, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      AGH
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]