    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       EUROPE'S THREAT TO AMERICAN SPEECH
                                 AND INNOVATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                          WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-33

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-556                  WASHINGTON : 2025

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

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
    BRANDON GILL, Texas
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                    ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, September 3, 2025
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Ohio.........................................     1
    The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     5

                                   WITNESSES

    Morgan Reed, President, ACT | The App Association
      Oral Testimony.................................................     8
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    11
    Lorcan Price, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
      International
      Oral Testimony.................................................    38
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    40
    The Hon. Nigel Farage, Member of Parliament (MP), United Kingdom
      Oral Testimony.................................................    61
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    63
    David Kaye, Clinical Professor of Law, Irvine School of Law,
      University of California
      Oral Testimony.................................................    69
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    71

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the
      Judiciary are listed below.....................................   142

    Material submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
      for the record
        A fact check document entitled, ``Debunking Republicans'
            Misleading Report on the EU's Digital Services Act
            (DSA),'' Jul. 25, 2025, Ranking Member Jamie Raskin,
            House Committee on the Judiciary Democrats
        An article entitled, ``Meta to Pay $25 Million to Settle 2021
            Trump Lawsuit: President had sued social-media company
            after his accounts were suspended following Jan. 6
            riot,'' Jan. 29, 2025, The Wall Street Journal
        A Supreme Court Syllabus, Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v.
            Missouri et al., Jun. 26, 2024
        A clip entitled, ``British Free Speech Under Threat? Nigel
            Farage says UK is an authoritarian state like North
            Korea,'' Sept. 3, 2025, GBN
    A fact check document entitled, ``Fact Check: UK woman jailed for
      inciting racial hatred, not posting hurtful words,'' Oct. 29,
      2024, Reuters Fact Check, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold
      Nadler, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
      State of New York, for the record
    An article entitled, ``Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787M in
      defamation case over Trump call,'' Jun. 27, 2025, Politico,
      submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for
      the record
    Material submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the
      record
        An article entitled, ``Obama Press Attacks Degrade the First
            Amendment In The Name of Security,'' Mar. 20, 2014, The
            Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School
        A document entitled, ``GDP Growth Comparison: EU vs. US
            (1998-2023).''
        An article entitled, ``Biden's press freedom legacy: Empty
            words and hypocrisy,'' Jan. 20, 2025, Freedom of the
            Press Foundation
        An article entitled, ``Massive Government Censorship During
            and About Covid,'' Apr. 18, 2025, The New Civil Liberties
            Alliances
        An article entitled, ``The 5th Circuit Agrees That Federal
            Officials Unconstitutionally `Coerced' or `Encouraged'
            Online Censorship,'' Sept. 11, 2023, Reason
        An article entitled, ``The Government's Sprawling Effort To
            Censor (True) Information During the Pandemic,'' Apr. 24,
            2023, Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) (Not
            available at the time of publication.)
        An article entitled, ``Feds blew $267M fighting
            `misinformation' under Biden--as Trump vows to ban
            `censorship cartel,' '' Nov. 22, 2024, The New York Post
        An article entitled, ``How the FBI Violated the Privacy
            Rights of Tens of Thousands of Americans,'' Oct. 22,
            2019, The Brennan Center for Justice
        An article entitled, ``Inspector General report on FBI's FISA
            abuse tells us one thing: We need radical reform,'' Dec.
            10, 2019, USA Today
        An article entitled, ``UK comedy writer Graham Linehan
            arrested over social media posts criticizing trans
            activists,'' Sept. 2, 2025, Fox News
        An article entitled, ``Why did Lucy Connolly receive a 31-
            month sentence for Southport tweet,'' Aug. 21, 2025, The
            Independent
        An article entitled, ``Policing Thought Crime Should Have No
            Place in the U.K.,'' Jan. 24, 2023, Newsweek
        An article entitled, ``Britain's emerging police state,''
            Jan. 30, 2025, The Expose
        An article entitled, ``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
            criticise Labour councillors at the centre of the `Hope
            you Die' WhatsApp scandal exposed by the MoS,'' Feb. 22,
            2025, Daily Wire (Not available at the time of
            publication.)
        An article entitled, ``U.K. Steps Up Free Speech Crackdown as
            Armed Police Arrest Comedy Writer Graham Linehan at
            Heathrow Airport,'' Sept. 2, 2025, Gateway Pundit
        An article entitled, ``Britian's New Thought Police: How
            Labour Plans to Police Your Online Speech,'' Jul. 27,
            2025, Labour Heartlands: Left Wing News Views & Opinion
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Tennessee, for the
      record
        A letter to Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, Commissioner for
            Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, European
            Commission, from the scholars of digital civil liberties
            and the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA),
            Sept. 3, 2025
        A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the
            Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, from the
            scholars of digital civil liberties and the European
            Union's Digital Services Act (DSA), Sept. 3, 2025
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Pramila Jayapal, a Member of
      the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Washington,
      for the record
        A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the
            Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, and the
            Members of Congress, from The Open Markets Institute,
            Sept. 3, 2025
        A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the
            Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, from Berin
            Szoka President, TechFreedom, Sept. 3, 2025
        An article entitled, ``Apple is top funder of lobby group
            that says it represents small developers,'' Sept. 19,
            2022, The App Association
        An article entitled, ``The False Choice Between Digital
            Regulation and Innovation,'' Vol. 119, No. 2 (2024),
            Northwestern University Law Review
    Materials submitted by the Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Member of
      the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California,
      for the record
        A letter to the Honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the
            United States, The White House, from the Honorable J.
            Luis Correa, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary
            from the State of California, and the Honorable Scott
            Fitzgerald, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary
            from the State of Wisconsin, Apr. 9, 2025
        A report entitled, ``The future of European competitiveness--
            Part A | A competitiveness strategy for Europe,'' Sept.
            2024, European Union
        A report entitled ``New Campaign: How Digital Markets Act Has
            Become Europe's Digital Curtain: Europe's tech law has
            turned Europeans into second-class digital citizens,''
            Feb. 10, 2025, Chamber of Progress (Not available at the
            time of publication.)
        An article entitled, ``Six Ways the DMA Is Backfiring on
            Europe by Harming Users, Innovation, and Allies,'' Jun.
            30, 2025, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation
            (ITIF)
        An article entitled, ``EU regulations impose heavy costs on
            US companies, study finds,'' Jul. 28, 2025, Washington
            Examiner
        An article entitled, ``The Tech Industry Is Huge--and
            Europe's Share of It Is Very Small,'' May 20, 2025, The
            Wall Street Journal
        An article entitled, ``Europe's tech law has turned Europeans
            into second-class digital citizens,'' Feb. 10, 2025,
            Chamber of Progress
    An article entitled, ``Nigel Farage: Epstein files should be
      released,'' Jul. 31, 2025, Politico, submitted by the Honorable
      Jared Moskowitz, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Florida, for the record
    An article entitled, ``Study says ChatGPT giving teens dangerous
      advice ondrugs, alcohol and suicide,'' Aug. 6, 2025, Associated
      Press, submitted by the Honorable Becca Balint, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Vermont, for the
      record

                                    APPENDIX

    Material submitted by the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for the
      record
        A statement from Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy, Abundance
            Institute, entitled, ``Ban All Imports of Europe's
            `Regulate-First' Attitude,'' Abundance Institute, Sept.
            2, 2025
        A statement from Yael Ossowski, Deputy Director, and James
            Czerniawski Head of Emerging Technology Policy, Consumer
            Choice Center, entitled, ``The Red, White, and Blocked:
            Europe's Threat to American Voices and Innovation,''
            Sept. 2, 2025, Consumer Choice Center
        A statement from Joseph V. Coniglio, Director, Antitrust and
            Innovation Policy, Schumpeter Project on Competition
            Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation,
            Sept. 3, 2025
        A statement from Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Sept. 1, 2025
        A statement from Jessica Melugin, Director, Center for
            Technology and Innovation, Competitive Enterprise
            Institute, Aug. 29, 2025
        A statement from Amy Bos, Director, State and Federal
            Affairs, NetChoice, Sept. 3, 2025
    A letter to the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the Committee
      on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, from Seth Stern,
      Director of Advocacy, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Sept. 5,
      2025, submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
      for the record

                     QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

    Questions to the Hon. Nigel Farage, Member of Parliament (MP),
      United Kingdom, submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin,
      Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State
      of Maryland, for the record
    Questions to Lorcan Price, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending
      Freedom International, submitted by the Honorable Scott
      Fitzgerald, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
      State of Wisconsin, for the record
      A responses to questions from Lorcan Price, Legal Counsel,
          Alliance Defending Freedom International
    Questions to Morgan Reed, President, ACT | The App Association,
      submitted by the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Wisconsin, and the
      Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Member of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of New York, for the record

               EUROPE'S THREAT TO AMERICAN SPEECH AND INNOVATION

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, September 3, 2025

                            House of Representatives

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
    2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan [Chair
    of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Biggs, McClintock,
    Tiffany, Roy, Fitzgerald, Cline, Gooden, Van Drew, Moore,
    Kiley, Hageman, Lee, Fry, Grothman, Knott, Harris, Onder, Baum-
    gartner, Raskin, Nadler, Lofgren, Cohen, Johnson, Jayapal,
    Correa, Scanlon, McBath, Ross, Balint, Garcia, Moskowitz,
    Goldman, and Crockett.
        Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. Without
    objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 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 Allegiance.
        All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
    of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
    Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
    all.
        Chair Jordan. The Chair is now recognized for an opening
    statement. Then, we will move to the Ranking Member's opening
    statement. Our witnesses will get five minutes.
        I want to just take an opportunity before I even do an
    opening statement to welcome everyone back. Hope everyone had a
    good break. The Ranking Member and I, along with a few other
    Members--Mr. Kiley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Correa, I think Mr.
    Swalwell and Ms. Crockett--all had a wonderful visit--and Mr.
    Cohen--to Europe, where we talked about this issue, and we've
    learned some valuable information. We look forward to today's
    hearing and hearing from our witnesses. First, you have to
    listen to the Chair and the Ranking Member talk.
        On August 12th of last year, Thierry Breton wrote Elon Musk
    a letter. Thierry Breton is the commissioner in charge of
    enforcement of the Digital Services Act and the Digital
    Marketing Act. In very first sentence, 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 U.S. Presidential
            candidate and yourself.

    Think about it. A 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 U.K., a non-European Union country.
        If that's not Europe trying to influence what happens here,
    I don't know what it is.
        He goes on throughout the letter and says this: ``Measures
    need to be taken to combat disinformation.'' He's telling this
    to Mr. Musk. ``We are concerned about any illegal content you
    may have.'' He ends his letter by saying in the 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 toolbox.''
        He ends the letter with a threat. Before the interview even
    takes place, he's threatening an American running an American
    company about an interview regarding the most important
    election we have, election of the 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 U.K.;
    comments about events happening in the U.K. concerned about
    this, quote, ``spillover effect.'' That is why we're having
    today's hearing. That's why we went to Europe last month--or
    actually, in July to study this issue.
        Now, here's what's interesting. Mr. Breton, after he sends
    this letter, we, this Committee, sent him two letters, and then
    he suddenly resigns. We asked him to come today, but he refused
    to come. We ask him to send written testimony. He refused to do
    that. We asked him to appear--he just wouldn't come.
        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, what Michael Shellenberger called,
    journalists called, ``the censorship industrial complex.'' Big
    Government, Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Academia, all working
    together to censor Americans. We learned all kinds of things in
    that investigation.
        We learned, on April 27, 2022, that the Biden
    Administration had established a Disinformation Governance
    Board. That's right. A bunch 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,
    and what's 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 journalists like Mr.
    Shellenberger, like Matt Taibbi, regarding the Twitter files.
    We heard from Tulsi Gabbard. We heard from RFK, Jr. All
    Democrats, frankly. In fact, I took some heat for that. ``What
    are you doing bringing Democrats in front of the Judiciary
    Committee?'' We brought them 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 an Executive Session,
    kick everyone out, no journalists, and no one was allowed. They
    wanted to kick everyone out, go to an Executive Session so no
    one could hear what RFK, Jr., was going to testify to in a
    hearing on censorship. You can't make this stuff up.
        We learned that, on January 23rd--think about that, by the
    way. We learned, on January 23, 2021--maybe point this one out
    first--that there was an email. 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.'' Who
    initiated the tweet? Who had put out the tweet? RFK, Jr. You
    had the Biden Administration trying to censor a fellow Democrat
    who was going to run against him in the Democrat primary.
    Everything in that tweet actually were true statements.
        We learned all that last year. Of course, our investigation
    culminated with the 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.''
        Meta and 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 Subramanya, who I thought said something that was
    really important. She said ``free speech is a core value of
    Western culture.'' That is true. That's what our concern is.
    We're concerned about the attacks on free expression in Europe,
    the censorship, the arrest for offensive posts, and the
    chilling effect it all has on speech.
        We're more concerned, frankly, as Americans about the
    limits the DSA, the Online Safety Act in the U.K., put on
    Americans' First Amendment rights and the shakedown--and that's
    the appropriate term--the shakedown of American tech companies
    under the DSA, the OSA, and the Digital Markets Act in 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 enterprise flourish. Instead of
    cutting red tape and allowing their own companies to innovate
    and grow, the EU and the U.K. are going after American
    companies that have grown to dominate the global tech
    landscape. Regulations like the EU's Digital Markets Act and
    the U.K.'s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act
    impose burdensome requirements on U.S. tech companies while
    leaving their European counterparts untouched.
        These attacks on American companies won't result in a so-
    called European champion. Instead, 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--foreign
    competitors to simply steal from U.S. tech companies.
        In addition to attacking American tech companies, Europe is
    attacking free speech around the world, including here in
    America. The laws like the Digital Services Act and 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. These 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 the user's location. When
    platforms are forced to change their terms of service to comply
    with European laws, it affects what we see, what we read, and
    what we say online here in America, infringing on Americans'
    First Amendment rights.
        This is no accident. Even The New York Times and The
    Atlantic have acknowledged that these foreign censorship laws
    are intended to have global impact. The European actions have
    proven it. Again, just look at Mr. Breton'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. Censorship laws are never about disinformation,
    child safety, or anything else. They're always about censoring
    criticism of the government.
        Social media is a relatively new technology, but censorship
    is as old as time. Misinformation, disinformation, and hate
    speech labels are always used by the people in power to censor
    their critics. My experience has taught me that today's
    misinformation is tomorrow's truth. We have seen it time and
    time again.
        I always like to point out everything the government told
    us about COVID turned out to be wrong. Everything our
    government told us about COVID. I'm not even talking about
    Europe here. Everything. They told us that the virus didn't
    come from a lab. It 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--they told us that the vaccinated
    can't get it. They told us the vaccinated can't transmit it.
    They told us masks work. They told us a six-feet social
    distance was based on science. They told us this is the first
    virus in history where there's no such thing as natural
    immunity. They were zero for eight. Yet, they're going to
    define with some Disin-formation Governance Board what we can
    say, what we can tweet, what we can read, and what we can post.
    You got to be kidding me.
        As RFK, Jr., testified before our Committee--never forgot
    what he said. He said, ``When you look at history, it is never
    the good guys who are for censorship; it is always the bad
    guys.'' That's our concern. We need to debate. The best way to
    answer bad speech, wrong speech, stupid speech, crazy speech,
    and even hate speech is more speech. We need the First
    Amendment. Our Committee will continue to move legislation that
    protects free speech from threats, including threats from
    abroad.
        With that, I now recognize our Ranking Member for his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair. Welcome to our
    witnesses.
        I 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 Alexei Navalny in prison, or perhaps a Chinese prodemocracy
    activist about President Xi's attacks on free speech in Hong
    Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, or the persecution trial of Jimmy Lai,
    or maybe a journalist about the Saudi Crown Prince's
    assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, 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. The star witness is not a human rights leader, like
    Navalny, but a far-Right pro-Putin politician who leads the
    U.K. 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.
        Well, this hearing mimics Vice President J.D. 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.
        Republicans are promoting far-Right parties in Europe like
    Alternative for Deutschland, Reform U.K., and Rassemblement
    National Francaise, and ignoring massive repression in Russia,
    China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and among all the autocrats of
    the world, Republicans are vilifying European liberal
    democracies simply for engaging in the 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, all forms of speech that the First
    Amendment does not protect, and these tricky contours must
    still be drawn by law.
        We could have a meaningful hearing on this complicated
    subject, but this hearing is just a drive-by hit against a
    strong democratic ally to benefit a Donald Trump sycophant and
    wannabe.
        It's even worse than this. Not only are our colleagues
    ignoring intensifying repression in the world's dictatorships;
    they're also 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 U.K. We're not worried about White nationalists not
    having enough license to incite lynch mobs to set immigrants on
    fire in their bedrooms. The Americans 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.
        The Americans 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, lifesaving 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 MAGA considers politically
    incorrect.
        The Americans 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 Skydance 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 giving us the news 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 Kamala 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.
    When 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 U.S. 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.
        Look. 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 arrested without warrants by masked Federal
    agents in unmarked cars for writing an article or attending a
    rally that Stephen 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.
        Free speech is in danger when ``To Kill a Mockingbird,''
    ``The Handmaid's Tale,'' ``1984,'' and ``The Kite Runner'' 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.
        Freedoms are in danger when the administration tramples the
    civil service rights of hundreds of thousands of nonpartisan
    expert civil servants. 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 in labor statistics to the public.
        These 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 protecters
    of free speech, but they only want to protect speech they agree
    with. In the U.K., Mr. Farage 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 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 Congresspeople of any free speech rights at
    all. I had my own close encounter with that when Mr. Farage and
    his team presented for more than an hour in a conversation we
    had about free speech, and after three minutes of talking, 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. The U.K. Prime Minister Keir
    Starmer has not shut down GB News where Mr. Farage has his own
    show just because Mr. Farage 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. Farage from parroting Putin's absurd
    talking points like when Farage claimed that NATO, the U.S.,
    and Britain provoked this war in Ukraine. For a man who
    fashions himself as 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. Farage wants to get rid of the Online Safety Act in his
    country, a law shepherded by the Conservative Party and
    implemented by the Labour Party, which bans child pornography
    online, protects children from harmful content, forbids
    nonconsensual 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.
        To the people of U.K. who think this Putin-loving free
    speech imposter and Trump's sycophant will protect freedom in
    your country, come on over to America and see what Trump and
    MAGA are doing to destroy our freedom, kidnap 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 think twice before you let Mr. Farage make
    Britain great again.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        I would just point out that the encounter that the Ranking
    Member had with Mr. Farage was a little different in my
    recollection than how it was described. I would also point out
    that 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. I think that's a little bit of a--well. Let's
    say that's not how I think it actually goes.
        We now will introduce today's witnesses.
        We will start with The Right Honorable Nigel Farage. Mr.
    Farage is a Member of Parliament from Clacton and the leader of
    the Reform U.K. Party. He is also a television host and was a
    leading proponent of the Brexit campaign.
        Mr. Lorcan 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 Reed is the President of The App Association, a
    trade association comprised of app developers and connected
    device manufacturers. He routinely testifies before Congress on
    matters of interest to his Members, including artificial
    intelligence, competition, and other issues.
        We have Professor David Kaye. Mr. Kaye is a Clinical
    Professor of Law at the UC Irvine School of Law. Professor Kaye
    previously served as the United States Special Rapporteur on
    the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion
    and Expression. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for
    appearing today.
        We will begin by swearing you in. Would you all please rise
    and raise your right hand.
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty 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--thank you. Please be seated.
        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. I think we'll just go
    down the line, and we will start with Mr. Reed, then Mr. Price,
    Mr. Farage, and then Professor Kaye.
        So, Mr. Reed, you're recognized, five minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF MORGAN REED

        Mr. Reed. My name is Morgan Reed, 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 on 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. Whether it's Clement Sauvage in France,
    Mitchel Volkering in The Netherlands, or Mark Thomas in the
    U.K., 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 ex ante regulation and
    compliance requirements from the 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 U.S. tech lead. Instead, it just
    creates leadership and 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
    undermanned, for us, offloading overhead is critical. A small
    business is trying to ship a product, not learning about tax
    laws in 160 countries. We 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 P.O.
    system. Small businesses need to focus their time on serving
    the customer to compete.
        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 to
    100,000 customers worldwide, that's a business. Nearly every
    one of the DMA's designated gatekeepers are actually gateways
    to a global market. You might say, ``Morgan, the internet
    itself is a global market.'' 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 our devices and off our
    shopping sites. DMA threatens to change this by forcing
    companies to roll out the red carpet for bad actors. As a
    result, consumers will rationally steer away from startups and
    small developers they've never heard of and toward 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, Duck Duck Go, companies you've heard of. 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. It 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 smart phone and out of your wallet, the DMA
    demands the world adopt a flea market model, where anybody with
    a plastic folding table and some boxes that fell off the back
    of the truck are given the same access to consumers as
    legitimate businesses.
        For small businesses, we want platforms to provide us with
    ever-improving tools, features, and pricing models to make it
    attractive. We don't love the big platforms. We do business
    with them. 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. We want them to do more to reduce overhead,
    more to protect our intellectual property, and do more to
    maintain those trust relationships.
        Into this 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 addition, the AI Act. These laws
    aren't there to lower friction. They are, as Teresa Ribera at
    the European Commission puts it, ``focused on creating a
    culture of compliance.'' That'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. 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.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.027

        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Reed.
        Mr. Price, you're recognized for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF LORCAN PRICE

        Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning,
    Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and the distinguished
    Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is
    Lorcan Price. I am a barrister and legal counsel for ADF
    International. 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. 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, and very much building
    on the remarks of the Chair because, when I met some 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 Paivi Rasanen, a Member of
    Parliament, is now in year five of a prosecution for simply
    posting a verse from scripture on Twitter. Our client Rose
    Docherty in Scotland, a 74-year-old grandmother, was arrested
    for offering to have consensual conversations with people. Adam
    Smith-Connor, an army veteran, was prosecuted for praying
    silently in his head in England.
        Just yesterday, you would have seen that the U.K. police
    arrested a comedian and fellow Irishman, Graham Linehan, a
    person I know well, for tweets about gender ideology. German
    pensioners are having their homes raided and are being
    prosecuted for insulting politicians. Indeed, one member of The
    Green Party in Germany has over 700 criminal complaints
    outstanding for insult.
        What's happened 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? Because of the worldwide reach of European law, the
    so-called Brussels effect changes regulation in every area that
    the European Union chooses to regulate. Now, they have entered
    the business of regulating speech. They're very proud of the
    so-called Brussels effect when you ask them about it.
        This new EU law is essentially an antispeech law. 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. Much of this is hidden in bland technocratic language in
    the DSA, and our written submissions go into some of the
    problems associated with it. 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 in
    Canada, they insist that the Digital Services Act is part of
    that. It's very clearly a global intent. It means that the
    European Union will set the global standard when it comes to
    speech. 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. The U.S. companies bear the
    brunt disproportionately of this. They're hijacked by the DSA
    to become essentially the EU's global censorship police whether
    they like it or not. The DSA contains expansive powers of
    investigation, huge compliance costs, and crippling fines if
    they're fined to be noncompliant 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.
        We know from COVID 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 U.S. company that the Germans are
    prosecuting a 14-year-old boy for mild online post. They want
    the identity of another post outside Germany, and they've
    launched criminal proceedings against U.S. employees of this
    company for refusing to pass over the identity information.
        That's the attitude we're dealing with. We've seen it from
    Thierry Breton, from others in the European Commission. They
    want 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. The EU wants to make itself the sheriff
    of the square, and it's armed itself with powerful tools. There
    are more to come, unfortunately, including the democracy
    shield.
        I agree with Ranking Member Raskin 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.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Price follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.048

        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Price. The Right Honorable
    Member of Parliament, Mr. Farage, is recognized.

                   STATEMENT OF THE HON. NIGEL FARAGE

        Mr. Farage. Well, thank you very much indeed. Good morning,
    everybody. Thank you, Chair Jordan, for inviting me here today.
    It turns out with news over the last 48 hours to have been
    really rather timely.
        I'm delighted to reacquaint with the charming Mr. Raskin.
    Delightful testimony you gave me earlier on with your speech.
    Hey, that's fine. You can say what you like. I don't care.
    Because that's what free speech is.
        In a sense, this has all been going wrong now for a couple
    of decades. We've kind of forgotten the Voltairian principles
    that we'll fight and defend to the death your right to say
    something that we fundamentally disagree with. That is the
    absolute foundation, if you think about it, free speech,
    democracy, and living in freedom. It's 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.
        I first became worried about all this with cancel culture,
    the idea that we can't have this speaker go to 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. At the moment, we're not finding the
    right solutions.
        I did myself begin to think that hardware might be one of
    the solutions; those laptops and headsets could be programmed
    so that many, many apps and many, many services are simply
    unavailable from these devices. What we've done is to go down
    the legislative route. It's extraordinary that I come from a
    land of Magna Carta. I come from a land that gave us the mother
    of parliaments. It doesn't give me any great joy to be sitting
    in America and describing the really awful authoritarian
    situation that we have now sunk into.
        J.D. Vance did us all a service at the Munich Security
    Conference back in February of this year. He really got this
    debate up and running. It's a vital one. We've run on since
    then. The Online Safety Act was put in place by the last
    Conservative government. I don't doubt for a minute their good
    intentions, but sometimes the road to hell is paved with those
    good intentions. We are now where we are.
        We have a couple of very famous cases. We, of course, have
    Lucy Connolly, who put out an intemperate tweet after the
    savage murder of those three beautiful young girls; she
    herself, a mother who had lost a child. It was intemperate. It
    was wrong. She removed it 3\1/2\ hours later. Sentenced to 31
    months in prison. She's now out, having served 40 percent 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.
        We, of course, have the extraordinary events that we
    understood yesterday of Graham Linehan, the comedy writer,
    comedic writer, and he put out some tweets months ago when he
    was in Arizona. 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 in the United Kingdom. Five of them.
    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.
        This legislation we've got will damage trade between our
    countries, threaten free speech across the West because of the
    knock-on roll out effects of this legislation from us, or from
    the European Union. I've come today as well to be a klaxon, to
    say to you, ``Don't allow piece by piece this to happen here in
    America.'' You will be doing us and yourselves and all freedom-
    loving people a favor if your politicians and your businesses
    say to the British Government, ``You've simply got this
    wrong.''
        At what point do 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. I thank you for the opportunity to come here today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Farage follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.054

        Chair Jordan. Well said. Thank you, Mr. Farage. Professor
    Kaye, you're recognized for five minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF DAVID KAYE

        Mr. Kaye. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and the
    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 Kaye. I'm a law professor at the
    University of California Irvine where I research and teach
    international law.
        I know something about censorship. From 2014-2020, I was
    the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and
    Expression. In 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 dissent. I even criticized
    democratic governments when they sought to force platforms to
    take down lawful speech.
        That is censorship, violations 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.
        It pains me that the United States, the country that had my
    back as special rapporteur, the land of the First Amendment's
    Make No Law, now leads the charge to undermine freedom of
    speech and of the press. The threat is real, live, and shocking
    given our Nation's historic commitments.
        The administration follows a well-worn path. A 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. In 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.
        The repeated assaults on the media as we've seen attacks on
    public broadcasting, frivolous lawsuits against media outlets,
    and the defamation of Voice of America.
        This is the tip of an iceberg of censorship that should
    concern this Committee and every American. Yet, U.S. officials
    who claim to be free speech warriors are spending their time
    looking abroad.
        Now, I know nobody who argues that EU and British laws on
    speech are perfect. Still, the EU Digital Services Act and the
    U.K. Online Safety Act respond to problems both sides of the
    aisle in Congress have found serious but have yet to address:
    The 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. It
    adopted new rules to empower users, including by requiring
    notice and an opportunity to appeal content moderation
    decisions.
        The Online Safety Act championed by Labour and Conservative
    Parties was widely popular as an attempt to hold Big Tech
    accountable. It does have elements that concern me. 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 establish censorship regimes.
        I encourage the Members of this Committee to consider two
    things.
        First, instead of criticizing ally democracies, consider
    the kinds of content online that you find objectionable. Maybe
    it's antisemitic or Islamophobic content; misogyny; child
    endangerment; and content glorifying terrorism or inciting
    violence. How do you propose to address those in a way that is
    consistent with free speech values? That's not an easy
    question. It can't be waved away with just three words,
    ``because free speech.'' The EU and the U.K. have made their
    choices, subject to democratic judicial oversight and acting in
    good faith, I 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 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. I look
    forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kaye follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1556.058

        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Professor.
        We'll now proceed under the five-minute rule. The Chair now
    recognizes the Chair of the Subcommittee, Mr. Fitzgerald.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chair Jordan.
        Well, one of the things we found out on our trip through
    Europe was that the U.S. 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 Markets Act, the DMA,
    could cost American companies up to a billion dollars every
    single year. That is not just a number on a page. Those 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. Reed, is it correct that these compliance costs affect
    our economy? What does it mean for America if Europe is allowed
    to impose these kind of costs on U.S. innovation?
        Mr. Reed. The short answer is yes. Absolutely.
        The more detailed answer is that unfortunately Europe has
    taken an ex ante approach to regulation. The United States has
    always done well with an ex post. As a small business
    entrepreneur, I actually want fraud to be gone after. I want
    deceptive practices to be reduced. Unfortunately, what we see
    in the EU is an ex ante process that ups my compliance
    requirements without actually giving customers the certainty of
    the result.
        It's absolutely raising costs. For American developers, we
    see one of the largest problems is how do you get to those
    European customers if the first tranche you hit is paying a
    compliance lawyer to meet all these tests.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you.
        Mr. Price, our Federal Trade Commission Chair Ferguson has
    warned that government regulation can stifle, obviously,
    competition and innovation, and in many cases, the government
    itself becomes the most dangerous of all the monopolies. Isn't
    it the DMA--is the DMA a perfect example of that? It is
    weaponizes and makes it burdensome with regulations. Can you
    give me your comments on the DMA? What do you think is the
    status right now?
        Mr. Price. Certainly, agree that European regulation
    generally slows down competition. It creates a situation
    whereby companies are unable to innovate with any degree of
    speed because they're constantly looking over their shoulder
    toward regulators around compliance. DMA, very good example of
    that. Not just the DMA. Of course, you have the General Data
    Protection Regulation, GDPR. You have the DSA, the Digital
    Services Act, and constantly more and more being added. It's
    been estimated, in the digital market space alone, since 2016--
    30 pages of regulation existed at the time. We're now over
    1,000 and growing.
        The European Union's response to American innovation is
    more and more regulation, generally around nebulous concepts
    like safetyism and protecting consumers, but very often just,
    particularly with the DSA, to create, unfortunately, a
    censorship industrial complex, as I outlined. DMA, very good
    example of that as well.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Reed, if I can 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 U.S.-EU
    trade deal. 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? Are there additional
    enforcement tools that Congress could provide to make that
    happen?
        Mr. Reed. Well, Congressman Fitzgerald, you've done great
    work in reaching out and sending letters to make it clear what
    the position of the U.S. Government is on these issues. The
    reality is that the Europeans themselves, through the Draghi
    Report, are recognizing that they have done a lot to harm 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 negotiations and other actions to get them to
    step back.
        We're here to talk about free speech. 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 regulations
    pulled back.''
        Mr. Fitzgerald. So, just to followup to that, then, as
    well. A 2024 Staff Report by the Housing Oversight Committee
    found that FTC Chair Lina Khan was using taxpayer dollars to
    send agency, quote, ``liaisons to the EU to assist with the
    implementation of the Digital Markets Act.''
        Mr. Reed, do you think it's appropriate for that to have a
    consultation or for the use of taxpayer dollars to help a
    foreign country implement laws that unfairly discriminate
    against U.S. companies?
        Mr. Reed. Well, we don't think taxpayer dollars should ever
    be used to unfairly discriminate against United States
    companies. We're hopeful that U.S. taxpayer dollars can be used
    to ensure open markets around the world and a safe environment
    for our entrepreneurs to succeed.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chair. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the Chair of the--Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee, gentleman who made a big announcement this week
    we're sorry to hear about, but we appreciate your service. You
    are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Mr. Chair, 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, laws 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. When
    it comes to the Trump Administration suppression of speech in
    this country, Republicans are curiously and dangerously silent.
    There is actually no corner of society 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.
        Since taking office, President Trump and Members of his
    administration have used the powers of the Executive Branch in
    their 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,
    a shortsighted move that will set back innovation in this
    country by decades. In some cases, including at my alma mater
    of Columbia, it has demanded onerous conditions that infringe
    our academic freedom.
        On these same college campuses, students are being
    kidnapped for writing op-eds, and others are being deported for
    participating in protests.
        The 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 said capitulated to its campaign
    of extortion.
        The President has even taken aim at the arts and
    humanities, launching a hostile takeover of the Kennedy Center
    and censoring exhibits at the Smithsonian Institution,
    attempting to whitewash American history and to stamp out free
    expression.
        He has also engaged in a dangerous campaign of harassment
    and intimidation on the media. For example, last October, he
    sued CBS for $10 billion for editing a ``60 Minutes'' interview
    with Kamala Harris in a way he didn't like.
        Although the suit is 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 Trump-controlled FCC for its proposed multibillion dollar
    merger and felt pressure to settle this baseless lawsuit.
    Ultimately, paid $16 million to settle the suit. Just days
    later, the FCC approved the merger. What a coincidence.
        This followed NBC settling on a similar baseless Trump
    lawsuit for $15 million because of corporate pressure. Now, The
    Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch face their own $10
    billion lawsuits from Donald Trump over the journal's reporting
    that shed new light on Trump's well-documented relationship
    with Jeffrey Epstein.
        I am not aware of any President in the past suing media
    companies or newspapers or television stations for free
    expression they didn't like.
        Professor Kaye, 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?
        Mr. Kaye. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. Congratulations on
    your announcement this week.
        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 accessed information. It'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. It's really important to
    think about these kinds of attacks, not only as those on
    journalists but on the entire information ecosystem.
        It's also important for us to realize that we can't pick
    and choose what censorship we like and don't like. The Chair's
    statement was really correct when he said censorship used by
    people in power to censor critics, and that's at the core. We
    should be examining where do we see that. We tend to see that
    quite a bit in this country in an unprecedented way.
        Mr. Nadler. In 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 has banned from government
    websites and uses to make funding decisions. Is this true?
        Mr. Kaye. I have seen those reports, and I understand that
    to be true as well, particularly the use of lists of words
    essentially to censor research that would be conducted by
    scientists at universities and at national academies in the
    United States.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Ranking Member
    is recognized for unanimous consent, I understand.
        Mr. Raskin. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a Minority
    fact sheet about the Majority's report on the Digital Services
    Act.
        Chair Jordan. We'll look forward to reading that. Without
    objection.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous--
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized for
    unanimous consent.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article,
    published by Reuters on October 29, 2024, titled, ``Fact Check:
    U.K. woman jailed for inciting racial hatred, not posting
    hurtful words,'' which confirms that Lucy Connolly pled 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.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. I'm sure it will be
    comments about that later.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California is recognized
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Professor Kaye, being a fellow Californian, I'm sure you're
    aware of and could correct the Ranking Member that our own
    Governor has sued Fox for $787 million. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Kaye. I'm not familiar with that.
        Mr. Issa. Well, I didn't think you would be, but neither
    was the Ranking Member, apparently.
        Mr. Farage, do you have the equivalent of what the
    Professor Kaye was talking about, which is the Article 19?
    You're a signator to that international convention, if you
    will, on free speech. Do you feel that it is being observed in
    the U.K.?
        Mr. Farage. We may be a signatory to it--and we may--and
    the Prime Minister today in the House of Commons, was talking
    about free speech. Indeed, when President Trump--I was with him
    in Scotland the other day. He talked about our proud history of
    free speech. What people say and what they do are two very
    different things. The argument is that the Online Safety Act--
    I'll repeat what I said earlier--may have been designed by the
    Tories with the best of intentions, but it's turned out to be
    the sledgehammer that misses the nut. It's not protecting kids.
    It is damaging--
        Mr. Issa. Going back to 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?
        Mr. Farage. It is correct. Our Constitution isn't in
    written form. It's based on common law that's evolved and
    adapted over centuries, and your Founding Fathers. The best
    bits--
        Mr. Issa. It appears in Europe and in the U.K., free speech
    is whatever the bloody members think it is at a given time, and
    it changes with the will of the people they elect. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Farage. Yes. I don't think at any point we've really
    had a proper debate about infringement of free speech until
    COVID. I think COVID changed the game.
        Mr. Issa. OK.
        Mr. Farage. The government, social media platforms, and Big
    Media, suddenly there were arguments that needed to be made
    that were banned.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Reed, to your knowledge--and I would go
    to the professor, but he seems to be ill-informed even on our
    own Governor's lawsuits. First Amendment--in the United States,
    you can sue for anything. Do you often win if you sue against
    institutions like Fox? Wall Street Journal? Isn't it true that
    effectively the First Amendment creates a tremendous shield
    against anything except malicious and deliberate lies?
        Mr. Reed. Not my area of expertise. We can absolutely talk
    about apps. As an American, yes, that is absolutely my
    understanding.
        Mr. Issa. OK. You have no such protection--just the
    opposite. You have no idea in Europe or in Britain about what
    is going to be allowed or not allowed--in other words, you
    don't know where to call balls and strikes. You just simply
    have to pay the fines when you get to them.
        Mr. Reed. Well, I only carry one passport. I am more aware
    of the American laws. That is my understanding. Correct.
        Mr. Issa. OK. Now, we do have a First Amendment, and we are
    a signator to Article 19. 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. I'm not going to tolerate censorship overseas and then
    have those people come to United States. Now, Professor Kaye
    may object to the idea that I'm not going to let people who
    have been involved in censorship come into the United States
    because it's unacceptable to get away with that overseas.
        Let's be reciprocal for a moment, for Mr. Reed and for
    everyone. If we're seeing Europe and the U.K. and other
    countries stifle what we are guaranteed in the U.S., and
    particularly arrest somebody for what they said while on U.S.
    soils, shouldn't this administration be just as strong and
    reciprocal that we will not tolerate that activity even off our
    shores? Isn't that ultimately what the United States must make
    available to the world? Essentially guarantee a First Amendment
    to anyone anywhere if they want to do business with the United
    States? Mr. Price.
        Mr. Price. The leadership of the United States on this
    issue has been transformative for the discussion in Europe.
    From the President, Secretary Rubio, and the Vice President,
    they have transformed the issue. I hope more comes.
        Mr. Issa. To the fringe Parliamentarian, as you were called
    and probably the future Prime Minister, what say you?
        Mr. Farage. Yes. For Mr. Nadler's benefit, it's a very big
    fringe, and we're doing rather well, but there we are.
        Look, if you were to follow, Mr. Issa, the logic of your
    argument that you were to ban people from entering America, it
    would pass legislation that was prejudicial against American
    companies or American citizens and would threaten them with
    potential arrest if they came across the other side of the
    pond.
        I think the practical difficulty with that is you'd have to
    ban the British Government, the entire Labour Party. I'm not
    sure in practical terms that it works, but I understand the
    sentiment.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady
    from California is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Let me be clear. I am not here to defend the European laws,
    and I've often criticized the approach of European countries to
    internet-related issues. It's really generally wrongheaded. I
    don't really think that's the point of this hearing.
        The real threat to the First Amendment isn't coming from
    Europe. It's coming from Republican-led States that have
    introduced bills to close the open internet and, most of all,
    from Donald Trump, who's actively trampling free speech here at
    home.
        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.
        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 Kaye, I have a series of questions for you.
        Do you think that arresting international students for
    being critical of U.S. foreign policy is an attack on the First
    Amendment?
        Mr. Kaye. Yes, absolutely.
        Ms. Lofgren. 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?
        Mr. Kaye. Right. That's true.
        Ms. Lofgren. Now, 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.
        This here has been mentioned by others. President Trump's
    FCC blocked the CBS merger until the network agreed to change
    its programming and install a so-called bias monitor. 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?
        Mr. Kaye. It does. 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
    intimidation, 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.
        Ms. Lofgren. 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?
        Mr. Kaye. It raises First Amendment concerns, but it's
    also--in a broader way, it's raising concerns about our
    tolerance of dissent, of this government's tolerance of
    criticism.
        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, the 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 toward that kind of open debate.
        Ms. Lofgren. The 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 government-ordered
    gift to Elon Musk.
        Isn't that a blatant violation of free speech standards,
    forcing private companies to promote speech they otherwise
    wouldn't?
        Mr. Kaye. It's certainly a kind of extensive use of the
    term of jawboning that has come up over the last several years,
    and it's a kind of pressure that absolutely interferes with
    free speech. It's also the kind of weaponizing of our Federal
    agencies in support of a particular actor, a particular
    businessperson.
        Ms. Lofgren. It seems to me that these actions affect not
    just the companies or the individuals that are the target of
    this abuse, but they're also to scare off everyone else from
    engaging in that behavior. Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Kaye. Absolutely. That is what we're seeing right now
    with just this essentially an 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 chill professors and students. That's essentially what we're
    witnessing right now.
        Ms. Lofgren. My time has expired, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent.
        Chair Jordan. An UC request from the gentleman from
    California.
        Mr. Issa. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that the Politico
    news that was dated June 27, 2025, saying ``Gavin Newsom Sues
    for 787 Million,'' be placed in the record.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. Mr. Price, has anything in
    the Digital Services Act changed in the last year?
        Mr. Price. No, sir.
        Chair Jordan. It hasn't been amended? It hasn't been
    changed at all?
        Mr. Price. No, sir.
        Chair Jordan. Everything Mr. Breton wrote one year ago--
    well, August 12, 2024, that's still in place, where he said to
    an American running an American company about an interview that
    was yet to happen, a future happening interview, threatened
    this individual, none of that has--nothing in the law has
    changed that would change the actions this individual took?
        Mr. Price. Nothing in the law.
        Chair Jordan. Just because Mr. Breton is gone doesn't mean
    Ms. Virkkunen can't do the same darn thing, right?
        Mr. Price. Precisely.
        Chair Jordan. Yes, and that's the concern. Mr. Price, is
    the statement ``we need to take back our country,'' is that
    statement hate speech?
        Mr. Price. 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 hate speech.
        Chair Jordan. Well, you may not, but the EU regulators do,
    because they had a workshop on May 25th where--and this is part
    of our investigation, material we've subpoenaed. They gave us
    this information, and they said it is hate speech. That's a
    concern, right?
        Mr. Price. Yes, sir.
        Chair Jordan. It could be made by an American and be termed
    hate speech, and there could be some ramifications for
    Americans' First Amendment liberties. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Price. Yes, sir.
        Chair Jordan. OK. Mr. Price, what's a trusted flagger?
        Mr. Price. A trusted flagger is an NGO or a private
    organization that's recognized under the DSA. If they identify
    or a complaint has been made--
        Chair Jordan. Wait, wait, wait. Recognized by who?
        Mr. Price. Oh, the terms of the DSA. Oh, and the national
    regulators and the commission as well.
        Chair Jordan. OK. They do what? They're recognized by the
    government. They're approved by the government, right?
        Mr. Price. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. What do they do?
        Mr. Price. If they identify content that they regard as
    illegal content, the companies have to give priority to
    removing that content.
        Chair Jordan. People that the government approves tell
    companies what they can allow on their platform and what they
    can't, right?
        Mr. Price. That is correct, sir.
        Chair Jordan. The same people who approve these folks are
    the same people who conducted the workshop and said ``we need
    to take back our country'' is hate speech. Is that fair to say?
        Mr. Price. That is correct, sir.
        Chair Jordan. That's the concern. What happens if these
    trusted flaggers approved by the government, the same
    government that says ``we need to take back our country'' is
    hate speech--by the way, that statement is made probably more
    by Democrats right now than Republicans. The head of the
    Democratic National Committee made that statement like thee
    months ago at a big Democrat rally or something they were
    having.
        The same people who say that's hate speech approve the
    trusted flaggers, who then tell the platforms what they can and
    can't have on their platform. If they don't agree with what the
    trusted flaggers say, there are civil penalties. Is that right?
        Mr. Price. Yes, 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.
        Chair Jordan. Those crippling fines or civil penalties can
    be what, 5-10 percent of global revenue, depending on the
    Online Services Act or the DSA?
        Mr. Price. Under the DSA, six percent.
        Chair Jordan. Six percent? Wow, that's a lot of money,
    because these are big companies, right?
        Mr. Price. Yes, sir.
        Chair Jordan. Now, Mr. Farage, it's not just civil
    penalties, though. This is where it gets really scary, because
    my understanding is they can--there's criminal penalties. In
    2023, in the United Kingdom, there were 12,183 arrests for
    offensive posts, 12,000 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
    Democratic National Committee, ``we need to take back our
    country,'' is hate speech.
        That's a scary scenario. Is that right?
        Mr. Farage. Yes. They're math statistics. Some of it comes
    under noncrime hate incidents. You've said something on social
    media. Someone's taken objection. You get the knock at the door
    from the police sort of warning you that if you do this again
    something may happen.
        This has now been broadened out. Mr. Price made the point,
    what is hate speech? How do you define hate speech? That's the
    problem, isn't it, with all these laws?
        Chair Jordan. Yes.
        Mr. Farage. That we finish up in a position where local
    police forces, et cetera, have to choose their own
    interpretations.
        Again, as I said to you earlier, the timing of this hearing
    today is perfect, because the head of the Metropolitan Police
    who arrested Graham Linehan at Heathrow 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 to, as the police, to do?''
        We're going to have a much more rapid debate about this,
    but my worry is it may get worse, if I may quickly.
        Chair Jordan. Yes.
        Mr. Farage. Because the Labour Government now is intending
    to pass a law that has a definition of Islamophobia. They're
    intending to put that into law. That effectively will mean that
    criticism of a religion, mocking of a religion would become an
    offense, and that's totally against everything. We've always
    given the Pope a hard time. We've always given the Archbishop
    of Canterbury a hard time. We're finishing up kind of with two-
    tier law and two-tier justice, and that's very concerning.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. I have one other question I'd like to
    get from maybe you and Mr. Price, if I could.
        Speaking of religion, tell me what performative prayer is.
    This is something we've seen in, or we've discovered in our
    investigative work. Maybe we'll start with Mr. Price and then
    go to Mr. Farage.
        Mr. Price. Yes, sir. We have a client at the moment who's
    being prosecuted in or who was arrested in Bristol, a Christian
    pastor preaching about the differences between Christianity and
    Islam. He was then assaulted by a group people identifying 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 terms of
    free speech and, unfortunately, across Europe. I have a whole
    file of cases here where people have been arrested for
    criticisms of Islam where they're being prosecuted. Things are
    getting pretty bad.
        Mr. Farage. Yes. That extends to abortion clinics, doesn't
    it? The abortion debate in Britain and Europe is different to
    the abortion debate in America. It's in a different place. 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.
        I'm afraid you now have to be a certain distance away from
    one of these clinics. If other Members of the public object and
    say that your praying there is causing them psychological harm,
    well, the police may intervene.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you.
        Mr. Kaye. Chair, may I comment on one of these issues very
    briefly?
        Chair Jordan. I'm fine if the Ranking Member--OK. I may
    have to ask you a question after you comment when you do that.
    Go ahead.
        Mr. Kaye. I realize I'm opening the door.
        Chair Jordan. Yes.
        Mr. Kaye. I just wanted to note on this question of what is
    hate speech. First, the question of identifying hate speech is
    not something that happens in a vacuum. In the U.K., in Europe,
    there are very strict rules around the definition of hate
    speech that connected not merely to speech but to incitement.
        It's incitement to violence or hatred or discrimination.
    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.
        Related to that, when you mention this hypothetical of
    ``take back our country'' and is that hate speech, my
    understanding is that came up in the context of a hypothetical
    related to persistent harassment of a Muslim girl, and that was
    the hypothetical.
        The question was, in that particular context, did that
    constitute a kind of incitement to some violence against this
    young girl. It's important to put some of these kinds of
    abstract questions into that kind of context.
        Chair Jordan. Professor, did you agree with the Biden
    Administration when they established the Disinformation
    Governance Board?
        Mr. Kaye. I didn't take a position on that. I do think that
    disinformation is an issue that--
        Chair Jordan. Do you think the government should be
    deciding what we can say and what we can't?
        Mr. Kaye. Absolutely not.
        Chair Jordan. OK. Well, that's good to know. I'll give the
    Ranking Member a little extra time if he so desires. With that,
    I'll recognize the gentleman from Tennessee.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        First, I was pleased to join on the codel. It was a very
    fine, good codel, and I appreciate the Chair and my friend and
    my classmate from 2006.
        One of the things I found most heartening about the codel,
    we had a tour of Parliament. Along with us were two
    Conservative Members who were--I think they were either in
    House of Lords--maybe one was in Lords and one was in the House
    of Commons, but they talked to us about the Magna Carta and
    about how it's the basis of our laws. There was a copy there
    and copies here and there and whatever, but how precious the
    Magna Carta is.
        They suggested to us that a legislator--this was in the
    House of Lords where he spoke--that a 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 out-of-control executive.
    Very telling for British Parliament Members to instruct us on
    what we should be doing, and I thank him for that.
        I'm a strong supporter of free speech and always have been,
    but I find this hearing a bit disingenuous because of the
    problems we have here in America. Free speech includes the
    speech of those with whom we disagree, people who say vile
    things. In my case, racist and antisemitic and Islamophobic-
    type speech is something I find foul, but it's protected by
    free speech, and offensive speech as well.
        That does not mean that there aren't limitations, however.
    Speech can be harmful, dangerous, and infringe on other
    people's rights. It isn't a free-for-all, though. The U.S. and
    our First Amendment does not have a monopoly on what
    constitutes free speech.
        There is speech protected by the First Amendment, like
    corporate political donations, which is misplaced and
    misapplied, and there are times when our legal system itself
    suppresses disfavored speech.
        I passed the SPEECH Act in the 111th Congress. I think Mr.
    Issa was my cosponsor. It dealt with the fact that Britain is a
    favored Nation for defamation actions. It's easy to get a
    defamation judgment there. We 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.
        I would think Mr. Farage could try to look at changing
    their laws on defamation and can contour more to what we see in
    the First Amendment, and that might be good for the people in
    England.
        Two of my good friends, 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. Work on protecting your English authors who from
    Shakespeare on, they've been pretty good.
        We used to be bipartisan in these efforts to look out for
    free speech, but President Trump has taken on free speech in
    ways that would never have been thought about.
        Ms. Lofgren brought some points to Professor Kaye. 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
    and felt it, is bringing us on the verge of an autocratic
    State.
        His actions in trying to bring law firms to their knees,
    colleges to their knees, Federal employees, students, et
    cetera, is antifree speech, antiopportunity, and fear for
    themselves and their futures if they speak out. Even
    Congresspeople could be subject in the future, I'm sure, with
    some of the ways we're seeing this Justice Department act with
    questions about their speech.
        Our President has sued every broadcasting company almost.
    They've gone after CNN. They've gone after NBC. They pick some
    of these fringe people to pick on the Ukrainian President about
    his attire. It's bizarre what's going on in our country, and
    I'm concerned. They try to silence and shake down those who
    don't conform to whatever the President thinks.
        We need to understand that his review of the Smithsonian
    exhibits and other--African American Museum, in saying there
    was too much emphasis on how bad slavery was. I don't know how
    you can find anything good about slavery. Edwin Starr, who's a
    singer, would tell you about slavery, like war, there's
    absolutely nothing good about it.
        We shouldn't be trying to--Professor Kaye, how would you
    compare, from your expertise, how we evaluate and compare with
    relative states of freedom of expression written in the United
    States. Where do you see the comparisons?
        Mr. Kaye. Well, right now we're at a very dismal place in
    the United States. I do think that it's also worth thinking a
    bit about some of the issues that Mr. Farage raised.
        For example, he mentioned the issue of a law against
    Islamo-phobia, but there's also a lot of discussion about laws
    against antisemitism 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, but you
    can't just sort of pick and choose which censorship, or which
    restrictions are OK, and which are not. You really need to have
    a general view as to what's appropriate.
        Again, the Chair's point about censorship being a focus on
    criticism is the appropriate one. To the extent that we can
    make that comparison, which country is really doing more or
    which countries are really doing more to tamp down, to silence
    critics. That's the harm to our democracy. Right now, I see
    that more in the United States than I see in Europe or in the
    U.K.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Cohen. I'd just like to say welcome. I have a lot of
    British friends and respect for Britain. I have a great time
    when I'm there, and I'm happy we won the war.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        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 absurd.
        Under the First Amendment, the general proposition is that
    government should not be regulating the content of its
    citizens' 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.
        The sum of the reality of the government regulation of free
    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'm reminded of Orwell's ``1984.''
        Think of the memory hole that people are trying to memory
    hole right now, some even on this panel, sir, who don't want
    you to realize how bad a government can be when it attempts to
    censor right here in the United States. For instance, President
    Obama--this is from an article. I'd ask unanimous consent.
        Chair Jordan. No objection.
        Mr. Biggs. President Obama has been the most aggressive
    administration in history, not only going after whistleblowers,
    but pursuing reporters who write their stories.
        How about this one, the Biden legacy. How about this whole
    stack--and I'll put these in just a second. It's 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.
        The actions of European governments 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 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. We've seen it here, and
    that's why I'm taking this opportunity to remind you that FISA
    must be reformed. The FISA must be reformed.
        Mr. Price, you alluded to this, and so I have this document
    right here that compares the GDP growth of ``GDP Growth
    Comparison: EU vs. US (1998-2023).'' The U.S. has grown about
    87 percent, almost 90 percent. The EU has increased its GDP by
    about 13 percent. You have almost a six X variable there.
        The question is, when you set these kind of draconian
    fines, and you set up a system that is amorphous and almost
    indefinable, might it not also have--more than just even the
    safety, ostensible safety of the society, might it lead to
    trying to regulate when you can't innovate?
        Mr. Price. That's very much the case, sir. We've seen it
    not just in the area of speech but, obviously, as we're
    discussing, the Digital Markets Act, data protection and so on.
        Europe is facing some very serious structural problems
    demographically, financially. 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.
        Into that then, they're throwing a very wide net out that's
    affecting all kinds of legitimate speech. We talked about my
    client, Paivi Rasanen in Finland, who was prosecuted for
    sharing a tweet from the Bible. It's absolutely outrageous.
    That becomes now the standard that the DSA will set, not just
    for Europe but possibly and predictably globally.
        Mr. Biggs. Similarly, Mr. Reed, that'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 essentially government censorship.
        Mr. Reed. Well, you hit it earlier when you said that their
    focus has been on regulating or adding legislation. It isn't
    one piece of regulation or one piece of legislation that has
    caused problems for our innovators both in the U.K., in the EU,
    and in America. It's been a stacking effect because, if you
    start with one regulation, I can handle that. I'll build that
    into my business. It's when you have one, then two, then four,
    and then six.
        What's been the biggest problem for growth has been their
    answer is that old quip the beatings will continue until morale
    improves. We often feel that way about regulation. Innovation
    will get regulated until we get more innovation. I don't think
    that will work out.
        Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Reed.
        Now I'll finish with you, Mr. Farage. What happened to the
    great countries of the West? 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?
        Mr. Farage. What went wrong in many ways is we forgot why
    we actually had those liberties and had those freedoms in the
    first place. We forgot that--as I mentioned or touched on
    earlier, we forgot the huge sacrifices that were made by
    citizens alive at that time to defend those principles against
    tyranny and against dictatorship.
        We've lost our way in understanding why we are as we are.
    That has permeated through the education system where I'm not
    sure we've been teaching good values.
        The slavery comment was made earlier. I completely
    understand, there's nothing good about slavery. Take our
    country. We spent decades driving slavery off the high seas.
    While we were perpetrators to begin with, we actually in the
    end drove it off the high seas. We need to teach our kids a
    sense of balance about our history and about the sacrifice
    that's been made. That's my feeling.
        Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair, I have some unanimous consent.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Biggs. (a) ``GDP growth comparison GDP Growth
    Comparison: EU vs. US (1998-2023).''
        (b) ``Biden's press freedom legacy: Empty words and
    hypocrisy.''
        (c) ``Massive government censorship during and about
    COVID,'' from the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
        (d) ``The Fifth Circuit agrees that Federal officials
    unconstitutionally coerced or encouraged online censorship,''
    under the Biden Administration.
        (e) ``Information during the pandemic suppressed.''
        (f) ``Feds blew $267 million fighting `misinformation'
    under Biden--as Trump vows to ban `censorship cartel.' ''
        (g) ``How the FBI violated the privacy rights of tens of
    thousands of Americans.''
        (h) ``The inspector general report on FBI's FISA abuse
    tells us one thing: We need radical reform.''
        (i) ``U.K. comedy writer Graham Linehan arrested over
    social media post criticizing trans activist.''
        (j) ``Why did Lucy Connolly receive a 31-month sentence for
    Southport tweet?''
        (k) ``Policing thought crime should have no place in the
    U.K.''
        (l) ``Britain's emerging police State.''
        (m) ``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
    Labour councillors.''
        (n) ``U.K. Steps up Free Speech Crackdown as Armed Police
    Arrest Comedy Writer Graham Linehan at Heathrow Airport.''
        (o) ``Britain's New Thought Police: How Labour Plans to
    Police your Online Speech.''
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chair, I'd like to offer two unanimous
    consent requests. I'm not going to challenge the forest as much
    as the gentleman is, but two records, letters to you, one to
    you and one to Commissioner Virkkunen pushing back on the
    framing of this hearing from 30 EU and U.S. academics.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you. Without objection. The gentleman
    from Georgia is recognized.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Farage, welcome to
    the United States of America. This isn't your first time here,
    correct?
        Mr. Farage. Correct.
        Mr. Johnson. You were here in 2024 in Milwaukee, weren't
    you?
        Mr. Farage. I've been coming here since 1982 on a very
    regular basis. I work for American companies.
        Mr. Johnson. For what purpose were you coming to Milwaukee
    for? Why did you come to Milwaukee?
        Mr. Farage. I've been to Milwaukee many times. I think that
    was some type of event. It was a convention.
        Mr. Johnson. In 2024, it was the convention, the Republican
    Convention.
        Mr. Farage. Yes. I think that's right. I think you're
    right.
        Mr. Johnson. The Trump convention.
        Mr. Farage. I think you're right. Very good.
        Mr. Johnson. Where Trump was coronated.
        Mr. Farage. Well, he won, didn't he? That's what happened.
        Mr. Johnson. He had already won. We already knew who had
    won.
        Mr. Farage. It's called political policy.
        Mr. Johnson. It was his coronation, and you attended. You
    also attended Trump rallies, correct?
        Mr. Farage. I've attended lots of Trump rallies.
        Mr. Johnson. Make America Great Again rallies, many of
    them.
        Mr. Farage. Yes, optimistic, happy, wonderful, and joyous
    events.
        Mr. Johnson. You publicly endorsed his--
        Mr. Farage. I thoroughly enjoyed them. I've even spoken
    about--
        Mr. Johnson. You endorsed him for President, and you
    attended his election night watch party.
        Mr. Farage. I did.
        Mr. Johnson. You consider Trump to be your mentor, correct?
        Mr. Farage. No.
        Mr. Johnson. He's not your mentor?
        Mr. Farage. No. Sorry.
        Mr. Johnson. He is somebody who you want the support of,
    and you have the support of.
        Mr. Farage. Yes, I do. I think he's a very, very brave man.
        Mr. Johnson. Because you're getting ready to run for Prime
    Minister of Great Britain, correct?
        Mr. Farage. Oh, I've been trying for years, yes.
        Mr. Johnson. As it stands right now, you head up a party.
    How many seats in the Parliament are there?
        Mr. Farage. Six hundred and fifty-one, if you include the
    Speaker, that is.
        Mr. Johnson. Six hundred and fifty-one.
        Mr. Farage. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. How many are a part--how many seats does your
    party hold?
        Mr. Farage. How many seats do the opinion polls say we're
    going to get next time? Is that the question?
        Mr. Johnson. No. The numbers don't lie.
        Mr. Farage. Oh, I see.
        Mr. Johnson. You only have four seats, right?
        Mr. Farage. I'm afraid so, yes.
        Mr. Johnson. You are indeed the leader of a fringe party.
        Mr. Farage. Oh, I'm a fringe, all right. Don't worry about
    that. Yes, absolutely. Everything I've ever done.
        Mr. Johnson. As a fringe party leader seeking to run for
    Prime Minister of Great Britain, you need a lot of money to
    blow up like the MAGA movement has blown up.
        Mr. Farage. What you need is a message of truth and a
    message of hope, and--
        Mr. Johnson. Well, you need money also, right?
        Mr. Farage. Money is helpful, but it's not the primary
    thing you need.
        Mr. Johnson. The first thing that came out of--
        Mr. Farage. No, you're wrong.
        Mr. Johnson. The first thing that came out of the Chair's
    mouth this morning during his opening statement had to do with
    Elon Musk.
        Mr. Farage. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. You're carrying water for Elon Musk today,
    aren't you?
        Mr. Farage. From what I can see, Elon Musk is abusive about
    me virtually every single week, but it's a free country, so
    he's entitled to--
        Mr. Johnson. You never stop trying to ingratiate yourself
    with him.
        Mr. Farage. Wrong, wrong. You're wrong.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, you are familiar with the fact--
        Mr. Farage. You're wrong.
        Mr. Johnson. You are familiar with the fact, Mr. Farage--
        Mr. Farage. I had a public fallout with Elon Musk.
        Mr. Johnson. --that Donald Trump's campaign benefited to
    the extent of $250 million from Elon Musk.
        Mr. Farage. Well, I mean how much did--
        Mr. Johnson. You are familiar with that, correct?
        Mr. Farage. How much did Mr. Zuckerberg give to the
    Democrats? This is what happens--
        Mr. Johnson. Well, he didn't give any money to the
    Democrats.
        Mr. Farage. Let me be clear.
        Mr. Johnson. He was sitting behind Trump with the rest of
    the tech bros. You are here today--
        Mr. Farage. I'm going to answer your question.
        Mr. Johnson. --to impress all those tech bros, including
    Elon Musk. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Farage. I'm going to answer your question very, very
    honestly.
        Mr. Johnson. You need money from Elon Musk to get elected
    Prime Minister of Great Britain. That's the bottom line. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Farage. We can sit here all day as long as the Chair
    allows us. I don't mind. I had a very public falling-out with
    Elon Musk early in the year over a political issue.
        Mr. Johnson. You're still trying to get some money from
    him, though. It's not about the prior dispute.
        Mr. Farage. I'm sorry. It was a fundamental--
        Mr. Johnson. You are trying to ingratiate yourself with the
    tech bros by coming over here and--
        Mr. Farage. Can I get a cup of coffee or something?
        Mr. Johnson. You're arguing--
        Mr. Farage. I've been sitting here for a long time.
        Mr. Johnson. 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.
        Mr. Farage. No, I'm not. That was a falsehood put out by
    the British Prime Minister today.
        Mr. Johnson. You didn't say in your statement--
        Mr. Farage. I have never suggested any of this kind--
        Mr. Johnson. Your statement, you don't call tariffs as
    tools to force Great Britain--
        Mr. Farage. My statement is very clear. My statement is--
        Mr. Johnson. You are not calling for tariffs and trade
    sanctions?
        Mr. Farage. It might surprise you. It might surprise you to
    know that trade. No. That trade--you may not know this, but
    trade between our countries is actually rather important. You
    are the biggest investor in our country. We're not the biggest
    investor in yours.
        Mr. Johnson. What you've done is--
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has
    expired.
        Mr. Johnson. What you did is come here to the United
    States--
        Mr. Biggs. Regular order, Mr. Chair. He's been rude. He's
    been disgusting. He's been hilarious.
        Chair Jordan. Hang on. Hang on. The gentleman's time is
    expired.
        I feel like we should give Mr. Farage a chance to respond
    to one of the many questions he was not allowed to respond to.
    We'll give you 30 seconds, Mr. Farage, and then we'll move on
    to our next one. Because I know Mr. Farage does have to leave
    in about an hour. We want to get through as many Members as we
    can.
        Mr. Farage. No. 1, 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.
        The 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. What I've made very clear--
        Mr. Johnson. You're fixated on--
        Mr. Farage. What I've made--now, this is my time, I think.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. You got 19 seconds.
        Mr. Farage. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        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, which is a danger to trade
    between our countries.
        The 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.
        Chair Jordan. You're done.
        Mr. Farage. I've not suggested sanctions at all in any way.
        Mr. Johnson. Good luck with your race.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California is recognized.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        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 was decreed the nominee of her party in
    spite of the fact she did not receive a single primary vote. I
    would be a little careful if I were him about talking about
    coronations.
        I do agree with my Democratic colleagues that we need to be
    on guard against suppression of free speech, whether it's
    coming from the Left or the Right. 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. 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. We're now discovering that the
    Biden Administration used the FBI to pressure tech companies to
    censor the communications of American people over a free
    discussion of everything from COVID policy and origins, the
    Russian collusion hoax, Biden family influence peddling, and
    climate change. I myself was the victim of this censorship when
    I warned of the damage that the COVID lockdowns were causing.
        Now, 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 commonsense and judgment of the people to know the
    difference.
        This assumes that the people have full and unfettered
    freedom to express themselves and to challenge the claims and
    opinions of each other. Now, 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?
        Mr. Farage. Yes, I agree with that. As citizens, we should
    be 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.
        The professor talked about incitement earlier, and, of
    course, we would be absolutely joined together on that. We
    don't want incitement. We're accepting--incitement. If people
    put out something irrational or inciteful but 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.
        Mr. McClintock. We have a word for that. It's demos kratos,
    rule by the people--Democracy.
        Mr. Farage. Yes, I'm with you on that. I also agree with
    you--the COVID. I touched on this earlier. It was during COVID
    when rational debate about many important issues, be it mask
    wearing, be it lockdowns, rational debate on these things was,
    frankly, stamped out. This was supported by big social media
    companies, many--not GB News, obviously, but many TV stations,
    et cetera. It's a very dark period that we're coming out of.
        Mr. McClintock. In 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.
        Just briefly, how did this happen to the U.K. and the EU,
    and what lessons should we be drawing here today?
        Mr. Farage. Well, we joined the EU half a century ago, or
    the EC as it was then called. It was a huge mistake, in my
    opinion. We forgot about common law, the kind of law that you
    guys have always enjoyed too. We sort of gradually transferred
    to a European way of thinking.
        We incorporated a Human Rights Act, which kind of meant
    really that--as opposed to being born free, under a human
    rights regime, the State gives you your rights, which you were
    supposed to be incredibly grateful, but they can take them away
    whenever they like.
        We lost our bearings. The U.K. lost its way. It became
    obsessed about doing things the European way, countries,
    frankly, that don't have that history of liberty, freedom, and
    democracy that we do.
        Mr. McClintock. Finally, what do you see as the shape of
    things to come? Are we going to regain these freedoms or lose
    them?
        Mr. Farage. Well, ultimately the people have to get what
    they vote for. 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 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 when it's practical to protect kids from
    serious harm online--but we will get back to the idea that I
    can insult you; you can insult me.
        Mr. Raskin and I can have our chats, but we do it in a
    spirit that's not inciteful and in a way that honors those who
    have built our great countries. Thank you.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Well done.
        The gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        It wasn't too long ago that Democrats and Republicans on
    this Committee together agreed to undertake a 16-month
    investigation into the anticompetitive 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.
        That included the American Choice and Innovation Online
    Act, or AC-IOA, which included similar commonsense structural
    solutions to what the EU included in the Digital Markets Act.
    It was a real recognition that these Big Tech companies are
    squelching competition and innovation, and that hurts
    consumers.
        It'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. Maybe 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-carat gold plaque
    to Donald Trump like the CEO of Apple just recently did.
        It 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.
        In fact, one of our witnesses here claims to represent--one
    of the Republican witnesses claims to represent small- and
    medium-size app developers, but his organization gets more than
    half of its funding from Apple, the very giant corporation that
    those same small- and medium-size 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. Well, what about right here at home on U.S. 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. Rumeysa Ozturk, a Ph.D.
    student at Tufts University, wrote an op-ed in the student
    newspaper calling for the university to divest from Israel. It
    was a simple exercise of her free--First Amendment free speech
    rights. She committed no crime. She didn't bully or harass
    anyone. She didn't incite violence toward anyone. The action
    was totally peaceful.
        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 Kaye, how does this kind of abuse utilizing the
    immigration system in this case for now, for now, can extend to
    U.S. citizens, to green card holders, to anyone else, how does
    this hinder the free speech rights of all Americans?
        Mr. Kaye. Well, we've seen already that Americans have
    been--American citizens have been caught in the enforcement of
    immigration laws over the last--and outside of the immigration
    laws over the last several months, but I think we can look at
    it from two perspectives.
        One is it's a clear violation of a student's free speech
    right, as you just explained it, when they're detained and set
    up for deportation solely because of an op-ed that they wrote.
    It's also an intimidation for anybody who would write anything
    further.
        Anybody who's in that same kind of visa situation now is
    not going to be writing that op-ed. That's not just harm to
    them. That's not just chilling their speech. That's also harm
    to all of us who would benefit from hearing those kinds of
    views.
        Ms. Jayapal. 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?
        Mr. Kaye. Well, it's the same answer. It's a deterioration
    of our public debate in this country. It's exactly this kind
    of--I think that Mr. McClintock had said before, putting side
    by side different ideas, and that's an interference with that.
        Ms. Jayapal. Quickly another example: In June, a Spanish
    language reporter named Mario Guevara 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 the speech of visitors, and arrests a
    journalist for covering a protest.
        How does that compare to free speech practices of other
    countries?
        Mr. Kaye. Well, it does compare with authoritarians, who
    regularly use law enforcement to transform journalism into a
    crime. This is a major global censorship problem, and we're
    seeing it in Georgia. We see it in this context that is not
    just a one-off. It's part of a systemic approach to a free
    media in this country. That's one and perhaps the harshest
    example, because I understand that the journalist remains in
    detention, but it's part of a systemic approach to speech.
        Ms. Jayapal. Similar to Russia and China, places like that.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back. I have some unanimous consent
    requests.
        Chair Jordan. Do you want to go now or--
        Ms. Jayapal. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. All right. Go ahead.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I ask for unanimous consent to
    enter into the record a letter from the Open Markets Institute.
    Another one, a letter from the TechFreedom Association raising
    concerns with the FTC's inquiry on censorship. A final one from
    The App Association, and it's titled, ``Apple is top funder of
    lobby group that says it represents small developers.'' I'm
    sorry, Mr. Chair, I have one more here.
        Chair Jordan. OK. Go right ahead.
        Ms. Jayapal. This is an article entitled ``The False Choice
    Between Digital Regulation and Innovation.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Quickly, Mr. Reed, is your association
    fighting Apple?
        Mr. Reed. Pardon me?
        Chair Jordan. Is your association fighting Apple?
        Mr. Farage. Fighting Apple?
        Chair Jordan. Fighting Apple.
        Mr. Kaye. We disagree with Apple on multiple issues as well
    as for all our sponsors. Our membership is the small businesses
    that many of you have met when we've had our fly in every year.
        Chair Jordan. OK, great. It seems to me that 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.
        Mr. Tiffany. Professor Kaye, was the Centers for Disease
    Control correct in 2020 about the handling of COVID? The Chair
    laid out all the things that we now know are debunked. Was the
    Centers for Disease Control correct in how they went about
    their business?
        Mr. Kaye. I'm not a scientist so I can't speak to that. I
    remember the time, like we all did, a time of great fear.
        Mr. Tiffany. Shutting down schools, things like that have
    set kids behind. See, because it's to Representative
    McClintock's point that, once this administration wanted 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 seminal issue that has come
    before this generation? Shouldn't they change those people?
        Mr. Kaye. Well, that's just not my understanding of why
    people have been taken out.
        Mr. Tiffany. Are you familiar, Professor Kaye, with the
    case Berenson v. Biden, which is a censorship case where Alex
    Beren-son, a reporter, was deplatformed on Twitter?
        Mr. Kaye. I'm not familiar with that one.
        Mr. Tiffany. I would suggest that you take a look at that,
    because the Biden Administration weaponized themselves against
    Mr. Berenson and stifled his speech on Twitter.
        What college are you a professor at, again?
        Mr. Kaye. University of California, Irvine.
        Mr. Tiffany. How many classes are you teaching this
    semester?
        Mr. Kaye. This, I teach one class right now.
        Mr. Tiffany. One class this semester.
        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.
        Mr. Farage. I've always had a good time in Milwaukee, no
    question. Wonderful breweries, friendly people. Love it.
        Mr. Tiffany. You'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 Chair, to instruct us to stifle the Ranking
    Member's speech? Did you--
        Mr. Farage. No, absolutely not. Of course not.
        Mr. Tiffany. 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?
        Mr. Farage. Well, I'll speak for the United Kingdom. If
    you're opposed to illegal immigration on a mass scale and the
    huge cost to the taxpayer and the risk to our communities,
    then--oh, and if you like the flag, our national flag, then
    apparently, you're far Right.
        Mr. Tiffany. That illegal immigration issue that was very
    informative to the election in 2024 in America, the same thing
    is happening in Europe. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Farage. It's a very similar argument in many, many
    ways. Therefore, the definition of far Right now applies to
    about two-thirds of the British population.
        Mr. Tiffany. About someone who is very famous from your
    country, Ms. J.K. Rowling, who wrote one of the finest series
    of books, the Harry Potter series, that has ever been in print,
    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 regard to transgenderism?
        Mr. Farage. Yes. She very much comes from a liberal wing of
    politics historically, but she's taken a view that women should
    be safe in women's spaces. That means changing rooms, et
    cetera. That's all she said.
        By the way, that's something that our Supreme Court
    recently did back up, the fact that there are fundamental
    differences. This is not to launch an attack on anyone that's
    trans, just to bring some commonsense. She has faced cancel
    culture and abuse on a huge scale.
        Mr. Tiffany. I would just--one other comment in regard to
    the Ranking Member's opening statement. He was saying that we
    are stifling speech here in America, including PBS, by
    defunding them. I would suggest that the Ranking Member look at
    the news that came out in the past week. It is very good news
    for PBS, where the Ford Foundation and other foundations have
    said they are 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, that is a great thing that we
    were able to do with the One Big Beautiful Bill.
        Final question for Mr. Price: How is the problem going to
    be fixed, and can America help?
        Mr. Price. Yes, America can help. The light, the spotlight
    that has already been shown 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 prosecutions, unjust
    prosecutions in Europe right now. I've outlined a lot of them
    in my written submissions. 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.
        Mr. Tiffany. We will continue those efforts.
        Mr. Price. Thank you.
        Mr. Tiffany. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    Maryland is recognized.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        When I was a professor of constitutional law, 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. If
    somebody doesn't like Left-wing speech, there's a bite. If
    somebody doesn't like Right-wing speech, if somebody doesn't
    like feminist speech, and if somebody doesn't like sexist
    speech. Everybody just wants to take one bite, but if we let
    everybody take a bite, at end of the day, there's no apple
    left. It's all gone.
        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 abhor.
        Now, Professor Kaye, we want to try to bring some
    objectivity to the conversation. I looked up the Reporters
    Without Borders rankings of every country in the world,
    according to press freedom: Norway was No. 1 and North Korea
    was number 179. It's like a totalitarian dungeon.
        The U.K. was number 20. The U.S. was number 57 under Trump,
    down from 45 where it was before. Russia, which some people
    here lionize, was at 171, right? 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?
        Mr. Kaye. I appreciate that question. I have a very long
    list that I could highlight.
        Mr. Raskin. Just tell us methodologically quickly how we
    should go about doing it if we want to undertake this in a
    serious way.
        Mr. Kaye. Absolutely. I would really use the lens of what
    do we need as a democracy to be well-informed, to make choices
    about our democracy, and 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. I would look at it through that
    lens, through the lens of what we need to have a democracy.
        Mr. Raskin. Got you.
        Mr. Farage, first, to be called charming by you, a man of
    your evident erudition and dazzling brilliance, is undoubtedly
    a lifetime achievement award for me. I will hold it closely.
        I wanted to ask you about your commitment to the freedom of
    speech universally. It's a principle that you advocate for
    everyone, not just for people who are in your party or people
    you agree with.
        You said that there should not have been a protest against
    the Gaza war in the U.K. 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?
        Mr. Farage. I 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 near November 11th,
    which was when we had big memorial services in London. A march
    being allowed to go ahead on that day would have been a
    mistake. Any other day, fine.
        Mr. Raskin. Oh, I see. Who gets to decide that?
        Mr. Farage. Well, actually something that is embedded in
    the country, something that is absolutely fundamental to--
        Mr. Raskin. That's why we have a written Constitution. You
    might take that idea back to the U.K. with you, because the
    freedom of speech applies 365 days a year here under the First
    Amendment, not 364 or 363, depending on some politician's
    heckling the government and telling them to shut down free
    speech.
        Mr. Farage. We have allowed mass pro-Gaza demonstrations in
    London weekend after weekend.
        Mr. Raskin. No thanks to you.
        Mr. Farage. This was one particularly sensitive day. That's
    all.
        Mr. Raskin. I got you. It was a sensitive day. 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. In any event--
        Mr. Farage. They have every right to do it.
        Mr. Raskin. You have made yourself clear, Mr. Farage.
        Mr. Farage. They can do it 364 days a year if they want.
    Not on that day.
        Mr. Raskin. You have made yourself clear to your
    constituents in Clacton.
        Let me ask you this: You've banned journalists from your
    political events that you disagree with, haven't you?
        Mr. Farage. No. In fact, I'm the only political--
        Mr. Raskin. Really? At your convention, you didn't ban
    journalists and revoke their credentials?
        Mr. Farage. At the average press conference, I take 25
    questions.
        Mr. Raskin. No, that wasn't my question. Mr. Farage, we're
    politicians, so we see what you're doing. I'm asking you a
    direct question.
        Mr. Farage. Well, thank you. I'm very pleased that you do.
        Mr. Raskin. I'm asking you a direct question, and 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--
    why did you tell the local government not to do interviews with
    your local newspaper?
        Mr. Farage. I am the most open person to any journalist.
        Mr. Raskin. Undoubtedly, you're the handsomest man in the
    world, but I'm asking you a different question.
        Mr. Farage. I do it every day.
        Mr. Raskin. 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
    convention?
        Mr. Farage. I don't.
        Mr. Raskin. OK. You say you've never done that?
        Mr. Farage. I 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 I--
        Mr. Raskin. I see. It was somebody else who did it.
        Mr. Farage. I take more questions from journalists than all
    the other leaders added up together.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Price, let me ask you. You're an honest
    man. 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 and Federal courthouses, 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?
        Mr. Price. There's a lot of information you put into that.
    It's good to talk to you again after London--
        Mr. Raskin. Yes. Have you followed that at all?
        Mr. Price. I haven't, I have to be perfectly honest with
    you. No.
        Mr. Raskin. I see. 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?
        Mr. Price. There are plenty of people here better informed
    on American matters than I.
        Mr. Raskin. We are. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chair, thank you for your indulgence. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        My guess is Mr. Farage takes press questions probably as
    often as President Trump does. These are two guys who aren't
    afraid to talk to the press and take any question that comes to
    them. We've seen that displayed time and time again.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley, is recognized.
        Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It was an honor to be with
    you and the Ranking Member as we had the chance to see
    firsthand what's going on in the EU and the U.K. Maybe this
    Raskin-Farage show could become a recurring event. It's very
    interesting on both occasions.
        I'd actually like to direct my questions to you, Mr. Price,
    at first. It's good to see you again.
        Those of us on the trip were really alarmed by the ways in
    which the tide is turning against free speech in the U.K. and
    the EU. That there actually was quite a bit of bipartisan
    agreement among the Members of our delegation on a number of
    these issues.
        I was hoping you could give us a little context of what you
    think explains this.
        We understand that not every country needs to have a First
    Amendment or needs to have the exact same standards or the
    exact same exceptions or the exact same way that the law is
    applied. We've always felt it important that we have an
    alliance with our European allies around the issues of freedom
    that stands in contrast to authoritarian regimes around the
    world like in Russia and China, places where they don't have
    free speech. To the extent that these values are fraying among
    our allies, then it really harms our ability to stand up for
    the values of freedom around the world.
        What do you think is going on? How can we sort of
    strengthen our alliance with our European allies around the
    issue of freedom of speech?
        Mr. Price. Thank you, sir.
        Well, what we've seen, sadly, over many decades--and it's
    accelerating--has been a consistent use of overbroad, vague
    laws to crack down on speech that's regarded as provocative or
    unorthodox. I can give you and I have given examples of the
    clients that I'm involved in representing where they've been
    simply speaking about their faith publicly or where they've
    been offering to talk to people.
        Things have reached crisis point, though. This is why it's
    important that Vice President Vance and the administration have
    intervened.
        One thing I would tell you, without divulging any contents
    of conversations, but Representative Raskin and I had quite a
    good conversation about just how bad things had become in
    Europe. 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.
        With the DSA, though, we find the European Union stepping
    into speech, regulating it, and bringing that restrictive model
    global. This is where the work that is happening here is
    crucial, because we can't allow that to happen, because we're
    going back to COVID-style censorship all over again.
        Mr. Kiley. Thank you.
        Of course, it's doubly concerning when this actually
    implicates the free-speech rights of Americans. I would hope
    that, moving forward, we can try to work with our counterparts
    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.
        Mr. Reed, I also wanted to ask you about the DMA, because
    based on--I know you represent smaller app developers, but we
    also spoke with folks who represent Apple and Facebook and
    others, and it's a matter of public record, the way that these
    companies are now sort of uniquely targeted under this law and
    the similar law in the U.K.
        Honestly, it caused me to sort of see some of the ongoing
    negotiations around tariffs and other issues through a somewhat
    different lens. Because the way that American companies are
    being targeted with the DMA really is a tax--or imposes--or is
    a direct transfer of wealth from our country overseas. These
    are some of the sort of nontariff barriers that American
    countries (sic) are now facing. Could you give me your
    perspective on that and the DMA more broadly?
        Mr. Reed. Right. It's ironic that, as you say, it's a
    nontariff trade barrier, but the ultimate biggest loser is
    usually the small- and medium-size companies.
        Earlier, we heard a Member of this Committee talk about
    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. The problem when that happens, if
    any of you have run a small business, is the small guy gets
    crushed.
        What's happening with the DMA in Europe is, their desire to
    put pressure on the U.S. companies means that there are fewer
    services, fewer features, and less trust available for the
    smaller business to take advantage of. That's how we get
    crushed.
        That ends up being, as you say, a nontariff 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.
        Mr. Kiley. Thank you. That is going to be an important
    issue for us to remain focused on, as to how we can alleviate
    these barriers that our companies are facing that honestly are
    hindering innovation in Europe as well.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields--
        Mr. Kiley. I yield back to the Chair.
        Chair Jordan. I just want to be really clear on the most
    recent situation. Maybe I'll direct this to Mr. Farage.
        Graham Linehan is an Irish citizen who posted something
    while in America and then gets arrested when he goes to the
    U.K. for something--for some, quote, ``offensive'' post online.
    Is that accurate?
        Mr. Farage. That is absolutely right.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. That's where this is all headed. That's
    exactly where this is all headed.
        Mr. Farage. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California who accompanied
    us on the trip, and we were so glad that he did, is recognized
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also appreciate being
    invited on the trip and spending time with you and Ranking
    Member Raskin. Very informative.
        Interesting, looking at the DMA, winners and losers,
    unintended 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.
        As a Californian, I found it very interesting that a lot of
    the European entrepreneurs move out of Europe, move to the
    U.S., specifically California, to grow, and then possibly move
    back to Europe.
        I'm a Californian, so the health and welfare, the interests
    of California firms are of interest to me. Seeing hundreds of
    millions of dollars in fines and the DMA's nebulous violations
    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 entrepreneurs. We have
    the most successful entrepreneurs in the world today. Yet, they
    are essentially being targeted by the EU and other foreign
    regulations.
        California. This money is better, again, invested in
    creating jobs in California. 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. California is the number-
    one producer of AG products in the world, No. 1 in terms of
    venture capital in the U.S., and number-one manufacturer. We
    pay $100 billion more to the U.S. Federal Government than we
    get back on an annual basis.
        Despite all the challenges we have in California, we
    actually know how to do it right.
        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.
        California, we actually can manage pretty well. The best-
    managed State, I would argue, in the Union.
        Mr. Reed, I want 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?
        Mr. Reed. The ex ante regulation creates barriers of
    entry--
        Mr. Correa. What do you mean by ``ex ante''? Explain that
    to me.
        Mr. Reed. In simple terms, it means that the European Union
    is determining the behavior before the bad act has happened.
    It's before it happens--
        Mr. Correa. They're fining before the actual behavior?
        Mr. Reed. They're not just fining; they're setting the
    rules by which you could be fined. The best way to think about
    it is, they are saying, ``Mother, may I?'' if you remember the
    game ``Mother, may I?'' They are asking companies to go forth
    and say, ``Can we do this?'' Then the Commission says, ``Well,
    yes, you can,'' or ``Yes, you cannot.''
        We traditionally in the United States have taken an ex
    post--meaning, did you deceive someone, did you lie, did you
    cheat, did you steal, and then you're punished. Unfortunately,
    the EU is taking a ``Mother, may I?'' approach rather than a
    punishment approach. That harms California businesses because
    it makes it a lot harder to get in the door.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Price, you're from Irvine.
        Mr. Price. Sorry--
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Price?
        Mr. Price. Yes. I'm Irvine.
        Mr. Correa. Tell me a little bit about California firms and
    how the DMA--
        Mr. Price. OK.
        Mr. Correa. Well, Irvine, by the way, a lot of biotech and
    high tech?
        Mr. Price. I think you might be referring to Professor
    Kaye.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Kaye. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Mr. Kaye,
    Irvine.
        Mr. Kaye. Yes. Yes, I teach at the University of California
    at Irvine. I actually wanted to respond to two of the points
    that you're making in part because--
        Mr. Correa. You've got about 20 seconds. Go.
        Mr. Kaye. Thank you. 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.
        First, the DMA doesn't specifically discriminate against
    American companies anymore than it does against California
    companies; and second, is that it's important to think about
    the--
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Price, what would you say to that?
        Mr. Price. In relation to discrimination?
        Mr. Correa. Yes.
        Mr. Price. They designed the rules in such a way that they
    almost perfectly encompass American companies, particularly
    under the DSA. If you were studying the rules and they just
    happened to throw a net over a particular target group, you can
    legitimately infer from that this was the intention.
        Mr. Correa. The intention was discrimination?
        Mr. Price. The intention is to throw a dragnet over U.S.
    companies and turn them into a--
        Mr. Correa. The intention is discrimination against
    American firms.
        Mr. Price. That's precisely what the outcome is.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Before I yield,
    I also have some articles I'd like to submit for the record, if
    I may.
        Chair Jordan. Sure. Yup.
        Mr. Correa. First, a letter by Chair Fitzgerald and myself
    to President Trump dated April 9th of this year outlining our
    concerns with the Digital Markets Act.
        Second, a report by the European Commission dated September
    24th, ``The Future of European Competitiveness,'' which is
    failing to translate into innovation.
        Third, a statement by Chamber of Progress dated February
    10th, ``How Digital Markets Act has become Europe's Digital
    Curtain.''
        Fourth, an article by the Information and Technology
    Foundation dated June 30th, ``Six Ways the DMA is Backfiring on
    Europe.''
        Fifth, an article by Washington Examiner, July 28th, ``EU
    Regulations Impose Heavy Costs on U.S. Companies.''
        Sixth, an article in The Wall Street Journal, ``The Tech
    Industry is Huge--and Europe's Share of It is Very Small.''
        Thank you, sir.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. Thank you. The gentleman
    yields back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair. I thank you for holding this
    hearing. I thank the witnesses.
        Mr. Price, you referenced Paivi Rasanen earlier, correct?
        Mr. Price. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Roy. Can you just really quick, in 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 government?
        Mr. Price. That's correct, sir.
        Over five years ago, she posted a tweet with a verse from
    scripture, and in that tweet she objected to her church, the
    Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church, using church funds to fund
    the Helsinki Pride Parade. For that, then, criminal proceedings
    were launched against her.
        Mr. Roy. She had been dealing with that for 4-5 years,
    correct?
        Mr. Price. That's correct, sir. Her case is before the
    Supreme Court at the end of October.
        Mr. Roy. Facing jail time.
        Mr. Price. Facing significant fines.
        Mr. Roy. For having expressed her faith with respect to
    issues involving marriage in the context of a Bible verse,
    correct?
        Mr. Price. That's correct, sir.
        Mr. Roy. Now, as the Chair illuminated a moment ago, we've
    got this issue involving Graham Linehan, who here in the United
    States made a joke and then is arrested in the U.K., correct?
        Mr. Price. Yes, he's being arrested--or he was arrested for
    comments that he posted while here.
        Mr. Roy. That's correct, Mr. Farage? You agree?
        Mr. Farage. It is.
        Mr. Roy. That joke had something to do with, as I've looked
    it up, trans-identified males in female-only space, and he made
    some joke about that issue.
        Mr. Farage. That's exactly right.
        Mr. Roy. 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 Connolly and her fate, which I understand she got
    sentenced to something like 31-32 months, for having put out a
    social media post. Now, that social media post has been alleged
    to be tied to some incitement. She deleted the post. The post
    was in response to violence and on the heels of a whole lot of
    issues involving crime in the U.K. Whatever the connection is
    we're saying, there is crime in the U.K.
        Now, here's my question, Mr. Farage: How do you feel from
    the standpoint of borders in the U.K.? Are open borders healthy
    for either United States or the U.K.?
        Mr. Farage. No. They're disastrous.
        Mr. Roy. Are they having a deleterious effect with respect
    to crime and culture in the U.K.?
        Mr. Farage. 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.
        Mr. Roy. 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.
        My question is, I wonder what's going to win out? What's
    going to win out when the questions of Islamophobia and the
    tenets of Islam mash up against transphobia? What will the
    determiners of truth in the U.K. Government decide? What 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. Farage?
        Mr. Farage. In the Lucy Connolly 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 sea of speculation.
        It turned out, ultimately, that the man that committed
    those murders was, in fact, U.K.-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?
        I think that there is a growing silent majority, certainly
    in my country, who object to the two-tier concept that Lucy
    Connolly gets 31--and, by the way, there were mitigating
    circumstances for what she said with her own personal
    situation. She's arrested very quickly. She's threatened that
    if she pleads not guilty, she'll go straight to prison and be
    on remand until the trial in goodness who knows when. Without
    defending what she said--but she recognized her error in a
    moment of anger and passion and upset, and she withdrew it 3\1/
    2\ hours later.
        That the answer, Mr. Roy, is that the silent majority will
    win. The silent majority will win, good will triumph over bad,
    and commonsense 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 more widely than it is now. In the end, commonsense and
    decency will win.
        Mr. Roy. Is sharia law consistent with Western values?
        Mr. Farage. No.
        Mr. Roy. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    Florida is recognized.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Farage, thanks for being here, coming across the pond.
    I'm sorry to hear you're leaving the hearing early.
        Mr. Farage. Well, it's not a question of leaving the
    hearing early, but I do have other things to do.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Oh, where are you going?
        Mr. Farage. I'm so sorry about that.
        Mr. Moskowitz. That's OK. Where are you going?
        Mr. Farage. It's not lunch, I promise you.
        Mr. Moskowitz. It's not lunch. You're not going to have
    lunch?
        Mr. Farage. I don't think so, no.
        Mr. Moskowitz. No lunch.
        Mr. Farage. Sad, isn't it?
        Mr. Moskowitz. You're meeting with the President?
        Mr. Farage. I can't remember what the schedule is. It's
    possible--
        Mr. Moskowitz. You can't remember if you're meeting with
    the President.
        Mr. Farage. I'm being very polite, and I'm not going to
    tell you what I'm doing this afternoon. I can assure you that--
        Mr. Moskowitz. This is the free-speech hearing. You're not
    going to tell me what you're doing this afternoon?
        Mr. Farage. Oh, free speech is one thing; discretion is
    quite another too.
        Mr. Moskowitz. OK. All right. You're leaving to have lunch
    with the President. Mr. Farage, I have a question. Have you
    heard about the Epstein thing that's going on here?
        Mr. Farage. I have.
        Mr. Moskowitz. You have. What do you think about it?
        Mr. Farage. I'm not going to give comments on anything
    happening in America. I'm here as a witness--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Perfect.
        Mr. Farage. I'm here as a witness--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Let me--
        Mr. Farage. I'm here as a witness for what is happening in
    the United Kingdom and in the European--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Perfect. Let me just go through it. It's
    been nine months since we've been meeting in these hearings. We
    have not had Pam Bondi here, even though we have jurisdiction
    over the Department of Justice--not Pam Bondi--
        Chair Jordan. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Moskowitz. --not Kash Patel--I will, 100 percent. We'll
    go back and forth. Let me just do my thing and then we'll--
        Chair Jordan. OK. Well, I'm just going to correct what--
    Kash Patel is coming in two--I'll give you an extra 10 seconds.
    Kash Patel, the Director of the FBI, is coming in two weeks,
    and the Attorney General is coming in four weeks.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Fantastic. Still, we're not doing that this
    week, the week we're having votes on the Epstein thing. Pam
    Bondi gives the influencers, these Republican influencers, a
    binder. It says, ``Part 1 of the Epstein files.'' I don't know
    if you saw it. It was quite spectacular. The Attorney General
    then says, ``the Epstein list is on her desk.'' Then, DOJ
    issues a memo, says, ``there is no list.'' Do you have any
    questions about any of that?
        We've had no hearings on any of that, at all, that, ``the
    list is on my desk,'' then ``there is no list,'' then ``we gave
    binders to Republican influencers.'' This Committee has had no
    questions on any of how that transpired at the Department of
    Justice. Then--hold on.
        Mr. Farage. Well, it sounds like you're going to in the
    next few weeks and that's a jolly good thing.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Hold on. No, no, no--oh, Mr. Farage. Mr.
    Farage, we can talk soon, but not yet, OK?
        Mr. Farage. All right.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Then, the President comes out and says,
    ``the whole thing's a hoax.'' He blasts his own base. He blames
    Barack Obama. He hasn't been President for a very long time.
        The Republicans 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. Congress leaves a day early.
        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. Comer
    does a document dump where 97 percent of these documents are
    already public. How long has he had those documents? Why hasn't
    he released them for the last six weeks? Does it the day of the
    vote.
        Republicans drop a nonbinding resolution trying to kill the
    Massie discharge petition. The White House said passing the
    Massie discharge petition is a ``hostile act.'' Wow. That's a
    lot of distraction, deflection, and misinformation. Wait, wait.
    Passing a discharge petition to release the Epstein files, the
    White House said, ``would be a hostile act.'' Nope, we have no
    questions about that. Why is it that we're spending so much
    political capital to keep this list from coming out? Do you
    think the list should come out? Do you think we should know the
    people who dealt with Mr. Epstein, Mr. Farage?
        Mr. Farage. I thought I was coming to a hearing on free
    speech, not process.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Oh. Listen--but here's the good--
        Mr. Farage. It sounds like you're discussing process--
        Mr. Moskowitz. No, no. Do you think the list should come
    out?
        Mr. Farage. I have no opinion on it. I don't know at all--
        Mr. Moskowitz. We have victims that were sexually abused by
    potentially people in power, and we don't know who's on the
    list.
        Mr. Farage. I'm very happy to discuss that with you another
    time--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Hold on, Mr. Farage. We don't know who's on
    the list. 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 wheather 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 have no idea.
        Do you think the list should come out? Do you think people
    in power should be held to account for these victims who have
    been sexually abused and assaulted? Do you think the list
    should come out?
        Mr. Farage. I'm very happy to come to a different hearing
    where you talk about legal process--
        Mr. Moskowitz. OK.
        Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for a quick question?
        Mr. Moskowitz. I will.
        Mr. Raskin. Were you aware that he has already called for
    the Epstein file to be released?
        Mr. Moskowitz. Oh, I--
        Mr. Raskin. It has been reported that he has called for it
    to be released.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Oh, yes, right here. Just to refresh your
    memory I happen to have this.
        Mr. Farage. Yes, but that's not what we're--
        Mr. Moskowitz. How random.
        Mr. Farage. That is not--look, you could ask me, if you
    like, about Social Security policy--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Do you agree with yourself?
        Mr. Farage. We are here--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Do you agree with yourself--
        Mr. Farage. We are here to discuss free speech.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Hold on. It's awkward for your lunch after
    this? Do you agree with yourself?
        Mr. Farage. No, it isn't at all.
        Mr. Moskowitz. OK. Mr. Chair, I'm just curious. This
    Committee has jurisdiction over the Department of Justice.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Why have we allowed Comer to cover this up
    for the last couple of months?
        Chair Jordan. As I said--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Why is this Committee not taking
    jurisdiction?
        Chair Jordan. 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've got lots of questions for the FBI
    Director, 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. Farage just talked about.
        The gentleman from Virginia--
        Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chair, unanimous consent--
        Chair Jordan. Unanimous consent?
        Mr. Moskowitz. I'd like to enter the Politico article into
    the record that Mr. Farage said the Epstein files should be
    released.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from
    Virginia is recognized.
        Mr. Cline. I thank the Chair. I want to talk about
    censorship tools that are being used by Europe and
    protectionist measures that have major consequences for U.S.
    companies and free expression worldwide. I'm glad to have you
    all here to get your views on those issues.
        Mr. Farage, you've called the Online Safety Act a
    borderline dystopian censorship regime. Many agree, including
    myself, that the law badly overreaches.
        One of the most serious criticisms is that it empowers
    Ofcom to undermine encryption and open the door to not just
    government surveillance of posts online and public statements
    but private messages, raising alarms not just in the U.K., but
    beyond U.K. borders. Vice President J.D. Vance has warned this
    could threaten Americans' privacy as well.
        Do you recognize that this is not just a domestic issue for
    the U.K., but a global one? If you become Prime Minister, what
    assurances would you give allies that the U.K. will not
    undermine end-to-end privacy standards?
        Mr. Farage. You have my absolute word that a Reform
    government will repeal the Online Safety Act and will go right
    back, actually, to legislation back to 2010 under which these
    whole concepts of hate speech have begun to be interpreted in
    U.K. law, and we will do that.
        Do we want to protect kids? This is the big question. Yes,
    we do. We need to find means. We need to find ways. I half-
    suggested earlier that hardware could be part of the solution.
    Yes, we want to protect--to encourage and let free speech
    flourish.
        Mr. Cline. 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?
        Mr. Farage. Well, as I've said, 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? Why is there the establishment,
    under the act, of an elite police force unit to monitor what
    you've said online?
        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.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you.
        Mr. Price, the EU's Digital Services Act imposes liability
    for so-called systemic risks. How does that chill religious or
    political speech? Do you see conflicts with First Amendment
    principles?
        Mr. Price. Yes, that's correct. The systemic risk provision
    constitutes a form of content moderation that they are
    misrepresenting, frankly, in their letters to you.
        Where the systemic risk provisions talk about, in fact,
    damage to what they call ``civil discourse''--and we've already
    seen prosecutions, including clients of ours, who have been
    prosecuted for, among other things, praying silently,
    discussing the differences between Christianity and Islam,
    tweeting a verse from the Bible.
        If these constitute systemic risks to civil discourse, the
    EU has the power in terms of this content moderation provision
    to step in.
        Mr. Cline. ``Damage to civil discourse'' seems a little
    broad, doesn't it.
        Mr. Price. Absolutely.
        Mr. Cline. Mr. Reed, the EU's Digital Markets Act and the
    U.K.'s Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Act are sold
    as procompetition, but don't compliance costs just burden small
    app developers?
        Mr. Reed. Absolutely. The problem is that--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.
        One of our deepest concerns is, by removing some of the
    capability of the platforms to curate and 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 and harder to know what apps are on your kid's
    device and harder for you to control it.
        We absolutely see that not only are there problems with it
    on encryption, which we agree with you 100 percent, but we also
    think it weakens our ability as parents to be in charge of the
    devices our children are using.
        Mr. Cline. Yes, these rules don't help parents and
    consumers, if you will. They just shift power from platforms,
    parents, and consumers to regulators, correct?
        Mr. Reed. Correct.
        Mr. Cline. Do these regimes create a level playing field
    for U.S. firms, or do they advantage European competitors at
    the expense of American innovation?
        Mr. Reed. 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 Correa noted it as well.
        Europe's economic potential has slowed, while the United
    States has grown incredibly. We've gone from almost equal in
    2008 to a 50-percent increase in the size of the U.S. economy
    between 2008 and now.
        We think a lot of it comes from the small technology
    companies that have been creating amazing devices, amazing
    products, and amazing applications that you're all using. We
    are disappointed that there aren't the same opportunities for
    the U.S.--for our EU members.
        Mr. Cline. Thanks. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady
    from Pennsylvania is recognized.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        For years, political extremists, including some of our
    colleagues, have claimed, without evidence, that so-called
    conservative speech is being canceled. The speech at issue is
    not conservative political speech; it's hate speech, including
    incitement to violence, threats and harassment of particular
    people or groups, and lies about almost everything, from
    election results to healthcare. There's nothing conservative
    about any of that.
        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.
    Seriously? There is an all-out assault on the First Amendment
    in the U.S., 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 un-American
    attacks. Because the truth is, they're all for free speech, but
    only if it's the speech they agree with.
        I'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.
        We have 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.
        Professor Kaye, 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. In
    your testimony, you said that the situation in the U.S. raises
    serious alarms. Can you elaborate on that?
        Mr. Kaye. Yes. Well, everything that--thank you for the
    question.
        Everything that you just mentioned is alarming. The
    assaults on the press, on universities, on public protest--all
    those things are the kinds of things that historically the
    United States has fought against.
        Ms. Scanlon. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Kaye. All those things are very problematic.
        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?
        The DSA sees a problem, which is a problem shared or
    perceived on both sides of the aisle, which is massive platform
    power--
        Ms. Scanlon. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Kaye. --and also, the kinds of content that you alluded
    to. 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 actually a tool to give us
    information about what's happening online.
        That's in just sharp contrast to the kind of issues that
    we're seeing in this country, which are very much focused on
    criticism and content.
        Ms. Scanlon. Yes. My colleague, Ms. Jayapal, talked about
    the fact that we had a very robust investigation of Big Tech in
    prior Congresses, which has kind of been shut down by a new
    alliance between Big Tech and the Republican Party.
        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?
        Mr. Kaye. Yes, absolutely.
        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 mandated by law in the United States.
        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. Mr. Farage has suggested
    the possibility that hardware could be part of a solution to
    deal with children's access to harmful information. There's
    something possibly there, but it's another form of censorship.
        Ms. Scanlon. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Kaye. We should just recognize that restrictions are on
    the table in the United States, in the U.K., elsewhere.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time--
        Mr. Kaye. I think the Europeans have adopted an approach
    that makes quite a bit of sense--
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time has--we're trying to
    get to as many Members as possible. The gentlelady's time has
    expired.
        The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
        Chair Jordan. Mr. Farage has to leave in a few minutes, so
    we want to get to as many Members as possible.
        Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Before I begin, my friend who's not here now, Mr. Moskowitz
    from Florida--there's kind of a little 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. As
    the Chair so correctly said, the Attorney General's going to be
    here, the FBI Director's going to be here, and we can talk
    about it until the cows come home.
        Second, I believe it was you, Mr. Farage, that said COVID
    changed our world in many ways, more than just the biological
    disease. What it did to us psychologically, governmentally, and
    philosophically was really bad. We're still not out of it yet
    because of what happened then.
        We're losing our freedoms. We are losing our freedoms. It's
    not because of an American Congress. It's not because of
    American courts. It's not because of American Republicans. 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 un-American.
        I am unabashedly--and 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. It's backward, it's bizarre, it's perverse,
    and it's weird. That's what we would call it in New Jersey;
    it's just weird. It's not good. It's the opposite of everything
    that the United States of America fought and stands for.
        It's a globalist mindset. We can all talk about the issues,
    but I'm going to keep talking about globalism versus American
    except-ionalism and individuality. I 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, Americanism, exceptionalism. Or is it
    globalism?
        The EU's Digital Services Act and the U.K.'s Online Safety
    Act are the pinnacle examples of how upside-down things have
    gotten in the effort to globalize our society. That is the
    ultimate showdown. It is resulting in our loss of our freedom,
    losing our influence. The only winner here are some countries
    in Europe, Russia, China, and others.
        Europe 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. We never thought that
    Americans would be stripped of that. That's why this moment is
    so serious. It's more serious than most Americans and people
    realize right now.
        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. If we lose
    our First Amendment rights and our freedom of speech, we have
    lost everything, and nothing else matters.
        Internet technology is being used as a vehicle to make this
    happen.
        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. More than hearings and talking about it, what
    is it, tangibly--this is a hard question--that we can do to
    stop it? What is it?
        Mr. Farage, I'll start with you.
        Mr. Farage. The debate we've had here--nobody here from any
    side of the debate has told me that the Online Safety Act is a
    wonderful piece of legislation right across the spectrum.
    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: I know these companies are
    very big and very powerful, many of the tech firms, but
    governments talk to each other, yes? It needs the American
    administration and businesses to have an honest conversation.
        Brussels, you won't get a hearing. They are fundamentally
    anti-American, frankly. 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.
        I am calling for, as a result of what's happened--it's
    clearly got--the legislation's clearly doing the wrong thing.
    It is cause for proper intergovernmental debate.
        Mr. Van Drew. I hope that we have--and, by the way, we have
    censorship in America. Watch ABC, NBC, and CBS. I'm in the
    meetings, I'm in the discussion, I see and hear what happens.
    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.
    That's the truth. We have it already, and I pray to God we
    don't lose America.
        Mr. Chair, indulgence, then I'll shut up. Mr. Price didn't
    get a chance.
        Chair Jordan. Quickly.
        Mr. Van Drew. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Price. You talked about putting pressure on--and I
    agree that Brussels is a cold house for free speech. 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. It's the Irish
    Media Commissioner, ``Coimisiun na Mean'' in the Irish
    language, which is the ground zero, really, for a lot of this
    regulation.
        Here's where the U.S. can do a lot, because there are
    strong bilateral relationships between Ireland and the United
    States, is to put pressure on the Irish Government to stop the
    bullying of tech companies. Already, X is in the Irish Supreme
    Court soon against the Irish Media Commissioner, so they're
    already starting to crack down. I would hope that you use your
    good offices here to put pressure on the Irish.
        Mr. Van Drew. Yep.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from--
        Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, I have a point of parliamentary
    inquiry.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Goldman. Why is the witness leaving this hearing early
    and certainly without--
        Chair Jordan. Because he has an engagement he told us
    about. This is not unusual. It's happened before under Democrat
    leadership of the Committee and under Republican leadership of
    the Committee.
        We're trying to get through as many people as we can.
        You've had many of your witnesses who did not ask Mr.
    Farage a question--many of your colleagues. You could've
    coordinated with them. You didn't go in order. We didn't
    necessarily go in order because we wanted to get as many people
    up front asking Mr. Farage questions.
        Mr. Goldman. Could we ask him if he would be willing to
    stay for--
        Chair Jordan. That is totally up to the witness, but 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
    Europe, so--you could've gone on that trip and had a chance to
    interact with--
        Mr. Goldman. I wasn't invited, but next time--
        Chair Jordan. Oh, you were definitely invited. Everyone was
    invited from the Democrat side. The whole Committee was
    invited. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Georgia
    for questions.
        Mr. Farage, if you can stay longer, we would definitely
    welcome that.
        Mr. Farage. When I Chaired this event in the Palace of
    Westminster, we had an hour for it, because time was very
    tight.
        Chair Jordan. Yep.
        Mr. Farage. That was perhaps the source of the slight
    disagreement Mr. Raskin and I had.
        Mr. Raskin. See, a little bit of confusion on that.
        Mr. Farage. We would've given this--
        Mr. Raskin. Each side got an hour, but the whole thing was
    limited to an hour. Your side went, and then you called it
    off--
        Mr. Farage. I was given the instruction--this we've been
    given three hours, and I apologize, but, no, I can't stay
    longer.
        Chair Jordan. OK.
        Mr. Goldman. I could send the Constitution down to the
    White House for the President to read it while--
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman is not recognized. The
    gentlelady 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.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our
    witnesses today.
        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. 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.
        The 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 increases future
    opportunities for our Republican constituents as well--and
    using Federal investigation powers to retaliate, 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 the rights of the American
    people.
        The U.S. District Judge Sooknanan found First Amendment
    violations in the government investigation into Media Matters,
    which she 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. The cases,
    they just go on and on and on.
        U.S. District Judge McFadden, a Trump appointee, ordered
    that the Associated Press's access to the White House press be
    reinstated, ruling that denying their access because of
    differing viewpoints was a clear violation of the First
    Amendment.
        If the Majority want to talk about attacks on the First
    Amendment in other parts of the world, they need to start right
    here in our administration.
        The 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. You want to improve it. This
    means people will speak out and disagree on actions taken in
    their country and offer critiques to our leaders and, yes, the
    politicians. That's a constitutionally protected right.
        If the First Amendment is our guardrail, then this
    administration is truly trying to push us off the road. This
    government should be strong enough to accept any criticism
    without violating people's rights and offending the man in the
    White House.
        Professor Kaye, 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?
        Mr. Kaye. Thank you for that question.
        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, it portends really very problematic and dark days
    ahead. Will we be able to have access to information that makes
    us informed parents or informed citizens able to make voting
    decisions? That's the kind of future that we should expect if
    we don't recognize this situation.
        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--at 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 inconsistent with free-speech values. Having
    that kind of honest discussion and then some real constraint is
    where the Committee should be heading.
        Ms. McBath. Thank 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.
        Chair Jordan. There's no time left to yield. I thank the
    gentlelady. The gentlelady yields back.
        I do have to run to another commitment. I will be back in
    20 minutes. We will have Mr. Knott take over as Chair.
        Mr. Farage, if you have to leave, I look forward to
    visiting with you sometime later, hopefully--
        Mr. Farage. I do, but thank you very much for--
        Mr. Goldman. Mr. Farage, could I--
        Chair Jordan. Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Goldman. Could I just ask you to stay for--one more,
    Mr. Farage?
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Farage, I enjoyed Milwaukee at the Harley-Davidson
    plant with you. That was a great evening. All right. A question
    for both Mr. Price or Mr. Farage.
        One requirement for speech to be censored as a false
    communication offense under the OSA is that speech must cause
    nontrivial psychological or physical harm. What is nontrivial
    psychological harm?
        Mr. Farage. I honestly don't know. That's the problem with
    this legislation. It's so open-ended it could mean anything. It
    leaves this entirely in the hands of local police forces to
    make their decisions.
        The other disturbing element of this is that much within
    this act can be changed on a whim by a government minister, or,
    at the other end, it can be interpreted by Ofcom in ways that
    it sees fit.
        This is not good legislation. It's totally open-ended. It
    could literally mean whatever you want it to mean.
        Mr. Moore. 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 here. Are there certain people
    being targeted, do you think, with OSA?
        Mr. Farage. Well, that's the fear, isn't it? The fear is
    that certain communities will be acted on more harshly than
    other communities. That creates the impression of a two-tier
    country. That breaks down trust in law and order, the
    democratic system, and everything else.
        What was interesting overnight was that the boss, Sir Mark
    Rowley, 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,
    could you just define more clearly what you want this
    legislation to mean?
        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. It needs to be gotten rid
    of, and we need to start again.
        Mr. Moore. Mr. Price, talking about affecting American
    businesses, I guess Europe is 440 million people, the U.S. 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.
        How does this play out for our companies, Mr. Price, and
    for free speech in Europe in general?
        Mr. Price. Well, on the corporate side, they're facing a
    really complicated piece of legislation. As Mr. Farage
    outlined, the provisions that are confusing in the Online
    Safety Act in the United Kingdom, there are similarly extremely
    confusing provisions in the Digital Services Act. 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 the European Commission, though,
    really has been quite threatening. You'll recall the Thierry
    Breton letter, of course, about Elon Musk's interview with
    then-candidate President Trump.
        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. When 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.'' You
    have Thierry Breton saying, as well, ``You can run, but you
    can't hide'' if you leave the codes of conduct.
        The whole thing is designed to force compliance, and the
    hammer that they have, of course, is these enormous, crippling
    fines.
        Mr. Moore. It's 10 percent on global revenue, if I
    understand correctly. For some of these companies, that's a
    pretty tremendous fine.
        Mr. Price. Absolutely, yes, of turnover.
        Mr. Moore. I guess, as we're looking through this, it's
    almost like people could claim that they were offended or hurt,
    that you hurt their feelings, and then all of a sudden you're a
    target of this investigation.
        Is that right, Mr. Farage? Is that kind of--
        Mr. Farage. Yes. Frankly, under free speech, we should be
    allowed to cause offense. I should be able to offend you, you
    should be able to offend me, provided we know what the limits
    are. The limits I think we fully understand--of incitement, for
    example. Then, we have to get back to a much freer way of
    living. If people say rude things and we don't like them, well,
    we just ignore them and get on with our lives.
        Mr. Moore. Like today when you were accused of Russian
    collusion, I guess. That was pretty offensive--
        Mr. Farage. Well, I remember the Russian hoax very, very
    well. We had shades of it earlier on this morning, but not much
    more than that, I am pleased to say.
        Mr. Moore. That's what I was thinking.
        Well, thank you. Mr. Chair, with that, I'll yield back.
        Mr. Farage. Thank you. We're going to have to go, Mr.
    Chair, but thank you very much--
        Mr. Goldman. Mr. Farage, you can blame it on me. One more.
    Oh, you're avoiding me.
        Mr. Knott. [Presiding.] Mr. Farage, thank you. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Goldman.
        Mr. Goldman. I'm sorry to see you leave, Mr. Farage. I
    actually had much that we agree on and was looking forward to
    your testimony, because it's very nice and refreshing to hear
    from my GOP colleagues that they are worried about
    authoritarianism. Mr. Biggs and Mr. McClintock both said that
    earlier.
        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 all Federal workers, at
    risk of otherwise being fired--the list goes on and on--it 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 authoritarianism.
        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. Farage said, quote,
    ``When the government starts regulating speech, it is rarely
    those that agree with the government who find themselves in
    court.''
        Mr. Farage, 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. Raskin, I will then maybe just--you can stand in
    for Mr. Farage for a minute here. I know you are a champion of
    free speech. I'm not sure it's the same free speech that Mr.
    Farage is supporting.
        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. Farage
    and all our Republican colleagues would be very, very concerned
    if an administration here in the United States was
    investigating criminally individuals who made the colossal
    mistake of speaking out against the President.
        That would be a clear violation of Mr. Farage's principle.
    Is that right?
        Mr. Raskin. He was talking about the importance of
    political dissent. This is a test, Mr. Goldman 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
    McIver from New Jersey. I 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 on a prearranged 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 our colleague from New York--I'm spacing
    on his name Mr. Santos--
        Mr. Goldman. Mr. Santos. Our friend.
        Mr. Raskin. --because they wanted to expel him without his
    having a conviction or an ethics process, and I said that
    wasn't fair. I passed a micro-test there. I would hope some of
    our colleagues would--
        Mr. Goldman. I agree.
        Mr. Raskin. --agree and don't prosecute our colleagues just
    for doing their jobs.
        Mr. Goldman. Well, 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 by anyone until
    there's an indictment, because that person or those individuals
    can't defend themselves. 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 Letitia James, who filed a
    lawsuit against Donald Trump and his business, she is now under
    investigation.
        Miles Taylor, who literally did the only thing that he did
    was write an op-ed and a book criticizing the President of the
    United States, he 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.
        The 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. I yield back.
        Mr. Knott. Thank you, sir. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentlelady from Wyoming.
        Ms. Hageman. 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.
            Under pretense of pruning off the exuberant branches, he would
            be apt to destroy the tree.

        Mr. Farage talked in his opening statement that--noted that
    Europe's regulatory regime risks exporting restrictive
    standards that could violate Americans' constitutional rights.
    I'd like to expose that and discuss that a little bit further.
        He noted that the oh-so-benignly 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 government-backed
    censorship, especially speech which is critical of government
    policy.
        As an egregious example, we have learned that the OSA has
    been used against Katie Lam, MP for Weald of Kent, to block
    videos of her speeches made in Parliament critical of the
    fallout from the country's immigration policies.
        Mr. Price, are you familiar with the circumstance where
    actual speeches in Parliament or other public figures are--
    their speeches are being censored by the government under this
    claim of protecting minors or protecting people from hearing
    the speech?
        Mr. Price. I'm familiar with censorship of public protests.
    That's already happened in the United Kingdom. The Online
    Safety Act has placed blocks on those to so-called--to protect
    children--that's the claim--but it has prevented adults from
    accessing it as well.
        Ms. Hageman. The Times has also reported that using the
    Communications Act of 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act
    of 1988, there have been--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?
        Mr. Price. I am, yes.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. 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
    planning to do even more to address what they describe as
    online harm.
        Have you heard that as well?
        Mr. Price. I have, yes.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, that there's something that just
    happened this week, and a few of the Members have referenced
    it, but it involved the Irish comedian and writer Graham
    Linehan, who was arrested in Britain apparently for social
    media posts about transgender issues. Did you hear of this
    circumstance?
        Mr. Price. Yes, I did. I know Graham personally.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. 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, was told that
    he did not have a seat, was put on a later flight, and when he
    arrived at Heathrow, he was met by five armed police officers.
        Are police officers in England typically armed?
        Mr. Price. They're not, no.
        Ms. Hageman. Did you find it strange that he would be met
    by five armed police officers?
        Mr. Price. At airports, counterterrorism police are usually
    armed and--or, there is a special wing of the Metropolitan
    Police that has an armed support unit.
        Ms. Hageman. Is he considered a terrorist?
        Mr. Price. We're not--I'm not clear what provision he was
    arrested under legislation, but there is a power in the
    Terrorism Act to arrest people at airports and seize their
    devices.
        Ms. Hageman. Sure. Was he identified as a terrorist because
    of his online posts?
        Mr. Price. It's not clear yet if he was arrested under that
    provision, but it has very wide-ranging powers and it is used
    on occasion to detain people at ports.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. 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 a grave risk to the country to
    arrest Mr. Linehan at the airport because of his Twitter posts.
        Is that right?
        Mr. Price. It's not clear if they used it yet, but that is
    a power that they frequently--
        Ms. Hageman. OK.
        Mr. Price. --that is used to seize people's devices at
    airports.
        Ms. Hageman. Can you describe more of what happened with
    this incident involving Mr. Linehan? Do you have familiarity
    with the facts?
        Mr. Price. I've read his statement, yes.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Could you please explain what happened?
        Mr. Price. It appears that he was detained on arrival in
    Heathrow and then arrested, searched, subjected to a long
    series of questions, most of which revolved around his beliefs
    on gender ideology and transgender issues.
        Some of the questions from the police, according to Mr.
    Linehan, were extremely ideological in nature, and they talked
    about people who are ``assigned'' a gender at birth, which, as
    he pointed out himself, is activist language that the police
    should not be using.
        Ms. Hageman. 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?
        Mr. Price. Yes. We've seen extraordinary bail conditions
    even placed on clients of our own. We had a client, Pastor Dia
    Moodley, who was given a bail condition that he was not allowed
    to preach about the differences between Christianity and Islam
    on the basis of that he would be bailed. We have seen bizarre
    and wide-ranging bail conditions set on people before under
    speech offenses.
        Mr. Knott. Time has expired.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Knott. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    North Carolina.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. Thank you to all the
    witnesses for your testimony and for your patience. It's been a
    long hearing.
        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, but I
    don't always get what I wish for.
        The freedom of speech in this country is under threat.
    There is no question about it. 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. It's enshrined in our
    Constitution, and it's being ignored.
        The gravest threats to speech and innovation are coming not
    from our democratic European allies, but from the authoritarian
    and unconstitutional 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.
        The 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 presidents they
    don't like. They threatened to strip universities of patents
    for discoveries made in their labs--unprecedented.
        This administration has also refused to restore these
    important grants, which fund research for everything from
    breast cancer to infant mortality, unless the schools allow the
    government to exert control over faculty hiring, academic
    programs, and student admissions.
        Professor Kaye, how have the Trump Administration's attacks
    on our Nation's preeminent research universities harmed the
    ability to innovate?
        Mr. Kaye. I think that's an excellent question. We've seen
    it across the board, these attacks on universities.
        If we think about universities--and there is a connection
    here to freedom of speech. If we think about 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.
        It goes after them not only by withholding grants that have
    already been awarded; 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 very significant
    interferences with the potential for innovation in our country.
        Ms. Ross. Well, thank you for that.
        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 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.
        How have AI models that scrape everything that they can,
    whether copyrighted or not, impacted innovation and even our
    newspapers, which are having to sue for the copyright for the
    content that they create?
        Mr. Kaye. Well, this is, as you know, a pretty complicated
    area. I would highlight, just to bring it to European
    regulation for a moment: 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, Europe has actually adopted an
    AI Act, which, again, we might not agree with all 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.
        That's an approach that we can learn from, actually, and
    that we haven't so far.
        Ms. Ross. I want to just--because I know I only have a
    second left--I really want to give a lot of credit to
    Congressman Issa, because he has been having excellent hearings
    on this very issue. Unfortunately, the larger Judiciary
    Committee has taken no action.
        I would encourage the larger Judiciary Committee to follow
    Congressman Issa's lead about protecting our creators.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Knott. Thank you, Representative Ross. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We're here to talk about ongoing concerns with European
    censorship, British censorship, and its effect on American
    speech or broader free-speech principles that hurt certainly
    citizens but American companies both domestically and abroad.
        What I'm hearing today, at least from the witnesses, is
    rather alarming--this Orwellian-in-nature approach that Europe
    has taken, the hostility to free speech, to satire, and to
    maybe speech that you disagree with. I want to talk about that
    as it pertains to the U.K., the EU, and certainly the U.S.
        Mr. Price, Prime Minister Starmer said that the U.K. does
    not have a free-speech problem. Do you agree with that
    statement?
        Mr. Price. No, I do not.
        Mr. Fry. In what ways do you disagree with the Prime
    Minister?
        Mr. Price. We have seen numerous prosecutions in the United
    Kingdom for totally nonviolent speech. We have clients my own
    organization is acting for who have been arrested for silently
    praying, for offering consensual conversations, and for
    preaching about the gospel. I can go on. There are numerous,
    numerous examples.
        Mr. Fry. The 12,183 prosecutions is at least what I've
    read. Does that sound about accurate to you?
        Mr. Price. That sounds accurate.
        Mr. Fry. Which is a 50-percent increase from prepandemic
    levels. What does that tell you about maybe the focus of the
    British Government as it pertains to speech right now?
        Mr. Price. Sadly, it shows that the United Kingdom, just
    like the rest of Europe, has entered a spiral of censorship,
    and it's getting worse. It's gotten to the point where even our
    oldest and closest ally, the United States, has had to
    intervene and point that out. As I've said on numerous
    occasions, I'm extremely grateful to all of you for doing that.
        The problem, frankly, is being now compounded and set in
    stone by things like the DSA from the European Union and the
    Online Safety Act in the United Kingdom.
        Mr. Fry. Let's talk about the Online Safety Act for a
    second. Maybe it's intended to protect children, and I think
    everyone lauds that. Mr. Farage talked about that, that nobody,
    Right or Left, wants their child exposed to bad content online.
        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
    correct?
        Mr. Price. Yes, that's correct. We've seen, for example,
    Section 62, which is designed to protect children, being used
    to censor videos of protests near asylum centers.
        Once you reach a point where 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 censorship.
        Mr. Fry. Right. At least in the case of the comedian, the
    Irish comedian that was recently arrested I viewed--I was not
    aware of his content before and then looked at it, and it
    seemed to be satirical in nature or maybe hyperbolic and not
    necessarily to be treated literally. Is that your
    interpretation of that too?
        Mr. Price. Yes. In fact, I told Graham Linehan, when I was
    growing up, I wasn't allowed to watch his comedy on TV.
    ``Father Ted'' was the show that he's probably most famous for.
        What I would say is, he's an excellent satirist, and he's
    in the long tradition of Irish satire, starting with Jonathan
    Swift, really, and all the way up to today.
        Mr. Fry. Isn't that part of British society, though, is
    satire is embedded in the culture? Like, you've embraced this
    for hundreds of years, right?
        Mr. Price. Yes. I would just add, Irish and British.
        Mr. Fry. Irish and British. Excuse me.
        Mr. Price. Yes. Very much so, yes. It's a concept--really,
    we haven't seen political extremism in the British Isles in the
    way that we did in Europe because we have a healthy way of kind
    of laughing at and poking fun at our leadership. Whether it's
    cartoons about the king in the 1800s all the way up to ``Father
    Ted'' and Graham Linehan's work today, that's a great
    tradition.
        Mr. Fry. Isn't there growing frustration with the Irish
    people, the British people, maybe broader European cultures,
    that the government is more focused on speech than it is, say,
    the migrant crimes that are happening right under their noses?
        That seems to be, from my view across the pond, that
    particularly the British people, they're fed up with the
    nonenforcement of immigration laws at the expense or maybe
    because in large part they're focused on what people are saying
    online. Do you share that?
        Mr. Price. I completely agree with that. This is a
    discussion I had with Representative Raskin in London. This is
    about shutting down growing discontent in Europe with the
    decisions that our political elites have made. We've reached a
    crisis point where it's no longer possible to conceal the level
    of public anger. These censorship maneuvers are an act of
    desperation, and they won't work.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
        Radically shifting to Mr. Reed for a second, in a different
    approach: In the app industry, does the DMA incentivize Chinese
    copycat companies to flood the market? If so, how does that
    impact American companies in European markets? What are the
    associated data privacy implications of that?
        Mr. Knott. You may finish.
        Mr. Reed. Being aware of the time. Yes. The problem is
    Article 6, Section 4--
        Mr. Fry. You have unlimited time. Pay no attention to the
    Chair.
        Mr. Reed. OK. I always pay attention to the Chair and the
    Ranking Member.
        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. 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.
        The Article 6, Section 4, and Section 7, really say they
    must put on anyone's product. 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. 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.
        From my Members' perspective, their concern is, hey, I want
    to be sold at the store that people feel comfortable buying at.
    The more you degrade the quality of experience and the more you
    degrade or allow it to be broader, we run into a problem.
        Mr. Knott. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Reed. Thank you. I'm sorry for the time.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Knott. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
        Mr. Raskin. Apparently, the whereabouts of our missing
    witness have been ascertained. He is appearing on GB News,
    which I guess is the network he works for, outside of the
    Rayburn 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.
        Would that be alright, if we sent someone to go alert him
    that there are still Members waiting to do their questioning,
    just out of courtesy and respect for our colleagues?
        Mr. Knott. Well, the Chair will make note that the witness
    has appeared voluntarily and he has left voluntarily. In terms
    of going and asking him to come back, no objection there.
        Mr. Raskin. OK. If we could do it, if we could find him.
        I'd like to submit for the record this clip from GB News:
    ``British Free Speech Under Threat? Nigel Farage Says U.K. is
    an Authoritarian State Like North Korea.''
        Mr. Knott. Without objection.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
        Mr. Knott. Does the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Raskin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Knott. The Chair recognizes the Representative from
    Vermont.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I spent my August traveling around my State listening to
    Vermonters 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 and their future.
        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? Are my kids safe online? Over and over again.
        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.'' What he wanted to say
    is, what are you doing about it? What are you doing about it?
        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?
        It's clear we need real attention on this. We need to focus
    our attention. We do need to regulate corporations behind these
    problems. We need real public oversight, yes, over the gun
    makers, yes, 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.
        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 teens'
    eating disorders. We're not working together to hold Big Tech
    accountable. No. We're here talking about how other countries
    are being too mean to Big Tech. It's gross.
        Professor Kaye, thanks for being here. Can you briefly
    describe how the EU's Digital Services Act regulates social
    media content for children?
        Mr. Kaye. The DSA is a very big piece 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-long process
    of, democratically, Europe trying to figure out what's the
    response to the massive power of Big Tech over their
    information environments.
        To give one example, they provide a mechanism that actually
    requires 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.
        That is really only doing that basic risk assessment that
    we should imagine all companies would do.
        Ms. Balint. Exactly.
        Mr. Kaye. Then, based on that, they're supposed to--they're
    actually obligated to take mitigating measures against them.
        Ms. Balint. Yes.
        Mr. Kaye. That's one example.
        Ms. Balint. Yes. This is bare-minimum stuff here, right?
    Bare minimum.
        Mr. Kaye. Yes.
        Ms. Balint. Risk assessment: What are we subjecting our
    children to?
        Mr. Kaye. Correct.
        Ms. Balint. In your assessment, does the EU prioritize
    protecting kids and teens from content related to suicide and
    self-harm?
        Mr. Kaye. The DSA is not content-specific, right? It
    doesn't require any company, for example, to take down any
    particular kind of content. 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
    regulation as it was adopted.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you. I really appreciate you being here
    to balance this out. Look, we've got to follow the money here,
    OK? I want to draw your attention here to the visual here, OK?
        Trump Inauguration Fund: Amazon, a million; Meta, a
    million; Google, a million; Microsoft, a million; Apple, a
    million; OpenAI, a million. The list goes on.
        This hearing is not about making the internet a safer place
    for kids. It'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. If 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.
        Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The gentlelady--
        Ms. Balint. I was told I would have more time because there
    was a Member that went over by a minute.
        Chair Jordan. Sure. Go right ahead.
        Ms. Balint. We should be looking at any country around the
    globe who is actually trying to do something. No, should we
    copy exactly what they're doing? No. 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.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
        I would just remind the gentlelady 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. We do think this Committee has had a huge impact on
    protecting free speech.
        The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Today, we are examining a growing threat--the way that
    Europe and the U.K. are using so-called digital safety and
    competition laws to undermine American values and American
    innovation.
        The EU Digital Services Act and the U.K.'s Online Safety
    Act go far beyond legitimate regulation. They empower foreign
    bureaucrats to label political dissent, even ordinary phrases
    like ``take back our country,'' as hate speech, and they
    pressure U.S. platforms to apply those censorship rules
    globally.
        At the same time, the EU's Digital Markets Act and the
    U.K.'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. We 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 to be applied
    impartially and fairly and consistently.
        I'd like to return to the discussion of the OSA and
    specifically the requirement under which speech to be censored
    as a false communication, it must cause, quote, ``nontrivial
    psychological or physical harm.''
        Would you share with us your perspective on the use of
    phrases such as ``nontrivial psychological harm'' and your view
    of whether it is possible for these terms to be applied
    uniformly, fairly, and consistently?
        Mr. Price. I'm afraid I really can't. You've hit the nail
    on the head, really, in terms of your question. These terms are
    extremely vague. It's a longstanding principle of the common
    law that vagueness in the criminal law is repugnant.
        Ms. Lee. Sir, is it your view that this is actually an
    appropriate or even enforceable regulatory scheme?
        Mr. Price. It's not appropriate, but they certainly intend
    to enforce it.
        Ms. Lee. OK. Thank you. Mr. Reed, 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?
        Mr. Reed. Well, 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 from the tools they
    build for my members, from the frameworks that they build for
    the small businesses--ironically, oftentimes, these small guys
    are the ones who are going to compete with them--because it
    allows them to say, well, to comply with the DMA, we need to
    remove various functions.
        This isn't a hypothetical. What we've seen so far in our
    discussions is, they want to remove link-throughs, 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-size
    guy, not the billionaire, but the truly small guys actually
    need that foothold to step up. What it creates is an
    environment where, sure, there will be some billionaire
    companies that will do well out of the DMA, but the
    thousandaires, those of us who are trying to get to that next
    level, are the ones who get crushed between the two
    giants.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you. I yield the balance of my time to the
    Chair.
        Chair Jordan. I thank you. 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 Connolly said things that she shouldn't have,
    probably--or, not ``probably''--definitely. I mean, what did
    Mr. Farage say, ``intemperate statements''? She took them down.
    She got more prison time than young violent offenders got.
        Ms. Rose Doherty, I believe, was praying silently outside,
    and she got charged. Is that all accurate?
        Mr. Price. The only point I would add is, Rose Doherty, a
    74-year-old grandmother, was arrested for holding a sign that
    said, ``Here to talk, only if you want.''
        Chair Jordan. Oh. She was praying silent---not saying
    anything, just a sign, right?
        Mr. Price. Just a sign, sir. Yes, sir.
        Chair Jordan. Oh, wow. Wow. If an American comments on this
    in a way that the DSA defines as disinformation,
    misinformation, hate speech, they can have their speech taken
    down as well. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Price. That is entirely accurate within the terms of
    the DSA.
        Chair Jordan. That's the State of play.
        Mr. Reed, I would just point out, when Ms. Virkkunen, the
    guy--the lady who took Mr. Breton'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.'' My response was, ``That's because
    you don't have any companies.''
        The way you define it, according to Mr. Price--and you
    understand--it only includes American companies and one Chinese
    company. Is that right?
        Mr. Reed. Well, the irony 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.
        Chair Jordan. Yep.
        Mr. Reed. You hit it on the head. A lot of our Members come
    here to get money to go back there to build products.
        Chair Jordan. Yep. I'm sorry. They called votes. I do want
    to move quickly, and I shouldn't have went over. Mr. Garcia is
    recognized.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We are here today for two reasons: (1) Republicans are in
    the pocket of Big Tech; and (2) they want to distract us on the
    war on free speech and expression in the U.S.
        We all remember Trump's inauguration. The tech oligarchs
    were all there--Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Cook, and Pichai--and
    they looked like they won the Presidency. Because they did.
        They got what they paid for. Since taking office, Trump put
    out an AI action plan that could've 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 accountable. By the way, one successfully
    got back to work today, first day back. That's Rebecca
    Slaughter.
        Trump and his loyalists in Congress are also serving their
    corporate overlords by attacking the countries that actually
    try to rein in Big Tech. That's not innovation; that's
    corruption and oligarchy.
        The American people do not want corruption and oligarchy.
    They 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.
        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. They have extorted media companies to
    punish news coverage they don't like. 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.
        At 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. Kaye, thank you for being here today.
        As I mentioned, this administration is using the
    immigration system to suppress speech, as we've seen--Mahmoud
    Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Mario Guevara, and many others being
    targeted and detained because of their speech and, in Guevara's
    case, his reporting. Could you please comment on the ongoing
    weaponization of immigration to trample freedom of expression?
        Mr. Kaye. Yes. Each of those examples is accurate. As we've
    heard so many different examples of crackdowns or alleged
    crackdowns on different kinds of speech in the U.K. or in
    Europe or in the United States, we just have to be honest that
    there are crackdowns happening in the United States.
        It's entirely accurate to say these kinds of content-based
    restrictions and punishments in the U.S. are very serious
    interferences with freedom of expression. It would just be
    important to acknowledge that as we're talking about other
    kinds of restrictions as well.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you for that. It's really important that
    we not allow arsonists to pretend that they're firefighters,
    and we must not let Republican lies prevail.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        We will do one more. Then, unfortunately, we have to recess
    for votes. I know guys have been sitting there for three hours.
    You need a well-deserved restroom break. We'll see if we've got
    some refreshments for you back there, hopefully.
        Mr. Harris is recognized, and then we'll take a quick
    recess.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this
    important, important issue.
        To all of you that have shared on this panel today, greatly
    appreciate your patience and your thoughtful answers.
        I've served as a pastor for 36 years, and so, obviously, I
    have a heightened sensitivity to the whole issue of when
    governments and institutions begin to talk about hate speech
    and the censorship of hate speech.
        I guess one of the questions that I'm concerned about
    today--and I'll ask you, Mr. Price, because of your experience
    in this area, particularly with ADF. Would you consider posting
    a Bible verse hate speech?
        Mr. Price. No.
        Mr. Harris. Is saying there are only two genders hate
    speech?
        Mr. Price. I certainly wouldn't consider that hate speech.
        Mr. Harris. Yet, the U.K.'s Online Safety Act, among other
    things, is requiring companies to take actions against content
    which, quote, ``incites hatred against people.''
        I guess my question is, again, Mr. Price, who is in charge
    of determining what constitutes content which incites hatred
    against people?
        Mr. Price. The regulator of the Online Safety Act is Ofcom,
    which is the statutory body.
        The legislation itself includes what they call ``priority
    content.'' That's content that would be age-restricted. It
    encompasses things that are illegal outside--or in real life,
    not online.
        The problem with that is that our Pastor Dia Moodley that I
    mentioned earlier, he was threatened--he was arrested under the
    Public Order Act, which talks about stirring up religious
    hatred, for comparing Islam and Christianity.
        On the basis that the Online Safety Act restricts something
    that's deemed to be a crime outside, that kind of content would
    be restricted. That's extraordinary overreach.
        Mr. Harris. Is hate speech, quote, ``objective''?
        Mr. Price. This is where I might just pick up on something
    Professor Kaye said earlier in relation to hate speech. The
    problem with it is, it's a tautology, saying that incitement to
    hatred is speech that creates hatred.
        There have been attempts by the United Nations, like the
    Rabat Plan of Action, to try and, on the prosecution side, set
    out a more clear framework for it. As far as European courts
    are concerned, that their jurisprudence in this area is
    essentially incoherent.
        Mr. Harris. Right. 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 they'll never be able to agree on what actually
    constitutes bad speech. At the end of the day, the best remedy
    for bad speech is good speech, not censorship, in my opinion.
        I'll also ask: There is currently a clash between social
    media platforms that value free speech and the laws of the
    U.K., causing some companies to alter their terms of service.
        Mr. Price, are American social media companies expected to
    comply with U.K.'s Online Safety Act?
        Mr. Price. Yes, sir, they are.
        Mr. Harris. How does this impact the way in which companies
    set their terms of service?
        Mr. Price. We've seen this again and again when it comes to
    regulations from European regulators, either from Brussels or
    London, where companies, of course, commercial enterprises,
    setting and designing a system that complies with EU law often
    means setting something for their entire operations globally.
        We saw that again and again with GDPR. Every time you have
    to click ``I don't want cookies'' or something--and Americans
    are exposed to this--that's as a result of--it's a complicated
    enough process, but--of European regulation reaching into your
    online activity.
        Mr. Harris. Well, again, this is a critically important
    issue.
        You've done some incredible work, I know, with Alliance
    Defending Freedom, and I know, Mr. Price, you have defended
    witnesses criminally charged for praying near abortion clinics.
    One of those examples was Father Sean Gough, a Catholic priest
    who was charged for praying and holding a sign that read,
    ``Praying for free speech.''
        The U.K. authorities allege that silent prayer near
    abortion clinics constitutes an attempt to coerce women who are
    considering abortions.
        I just ask, is silent prayer coercive?
        Mr. Price. No, sir.
        Mr. Harris. Should silent prayer and holding signs result
    in legal consequences?
        Mr. Price. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Harris. So, when prolife activists are prosecuted for
    engaging in peaceful prayer and protest, what kind of message
    does that send to other prolife activists in the U.K.?
        Mr. Price. It shows an extreme degree of intolerance; it
    shows police overreach.
        Ultimately, we have to go back systemically--the problem is
    these laws that are being created. They are incredibly vague,
    overbroad, whether it's by European regulators or U.K.
    regulators. They're having a real impact on people's lives and
    their human right to free speech.
        Mr. Harris. Well, as this Committee has discussed
    previously, the FACE Act here in the United States has been
    used to go after prolifers, and I just pray we don't reach the
    point that such activists are arrested for silent prayer, as
    we've seen there.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Committee will
    stand in recess for 15 minutes, more or less. Restrooms and
    refreshments in the back for you guys.
        Thank you so much.
        [Recess.]
        Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. We have a
    few more--again, I want to thank our witnesses. You've been
    very patient, very good. We appreciate you being here.
        We're going to start with the gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Then, we'll go to the gentleman from North Carolina, unless a
    Member of the Minority party shows up and then we'll go with
    them. We'll finish up from there.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Grothman. It's my opinion--first, I had a few comments
    I wanted to have for Mr.--Farange (sic), we call it?--before he
    left.
        Chair Jordan. Farage.
        Mr. Grothman. I have always known--there are 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 eccentricities, 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 cracked down on free speech in England. Because they are
    great, aren't they? There was just a general comment.
        Now, Mr. Price, there are a variety of things we're trying
    to get at in this hearing, and some of it is financial and how
    regulations can hurt companies. The most important thing is to
    wake up the world in what's going on in Britain, OK, and other
    countries in Europe. I don't think the average American is
    aware of that.
        It's important they be aware of it, because, in general,
    stupid-idiot ideas begin in Europe, and then they go to
    California and New York, and then they seep their way across
    the United States.
        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 wound 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.''
        What do you say to wind up having to go to prison in
    Britain today? Exactly what do you have to say? While you're
    still in the U.S.
        Mr. Price. Yes, sir. I am going back to the U.K., though,
    and after what happened to my fellow Irishman, Graham Linehan,
    I might just be careful.
        One thing I would say is that the overbroad laws that we've
    been discussing, and the implementation or the enforcement of
    the law has reached a point where we now have perfectly
    legitimate speech being caught up in criminal prosecutions.
        For a Christian pastor like Dia Moodley 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. The fact that he was ultimately
    arrested under the Public Order Act there for stirring up
    religious hatred, a charge they later dropped, and not the
    people who are assaulting him gives us an idea of how bad
    things have gotten in the U.K.
        We were delighted, of course, that Vice President Vance, in
    his Munich Security Conference speech, drew attention to this
    other class of cases involving prosecutions for praying
    silently or for holding a sign offering consensual
    conversations in vicinity of abortion clinics, which is an
    extraordinary assault on freedom of speech and, I would say,
    freedom of religion as well.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. When I was looking this up, I didn't know
    what she said. Apparently, she was critical of a mass murderer
    whose ancestors came from Rwanda. It's now against the law to
    point that out in Great Britain, apparently?
        Mr. Price. Yes. That's the case of Lucy Connolly. Lucy
    Connolly tweeted a tweet where some of us--or I think most
    people would probably disagree with what she said. She
    disagreed with it herself. She took it down 3\1/2\ hours later.
    It was, as Mr. Farage said, ``in a moment of great tension and
    great personal stress.'' For that, she received a 31-32-month
    sentence. She has been released since, but she was prevented
    from attending this hearing, which I think is a real shame.
        Mr. Grothman. Last week, in the United States, we had 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 England?
        Mr. Price. If you were--you could very readily see that it
    could be regarded--strong criticism--
        Mr. Grothman. It was a bitter, angry person who--
        Mr. Price. Yes.
        Mr. Grothman. Could we point out maybe that had something
    to do with transgender? Can people have that opinion in
    Britain?
        Mr. Price. If I were advising people--and this is the
    chilling effect in action--I would say, think very carefully
    before posting 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.
        Mr. Grothman. ``Stirring up hatred.'' I mean, that's just
    preposterous. What is hatred? I don't even know what hatred is.
        Mr. Price. This is an ongoing discussion among lawyers in
    relation to--
        Mr. Grothman. Is there any--just so you know, in your
    understanding and your understanding, Mr. Reed, is there any--
    doesn't free speech mean I can say things that maybe imply I
    hate somebody? Can I hate somebody? Is that against the law
    now?
        Mr. Reed. Really, that's a question that Mr. Price is
    probably better to handle.
        Mr. Grothman. Controversial. Maybe I can't. Well, thank
    God, I'm the type of person who's never hated anybody in my
    life. If I was a different sort of person, would it be against
    the law to say I hate somebody?
        Mr. Price. 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 relations.
        Mr. Grothman. Would it be the easiest thing just to enforce
    the First Amendment and say we can say whatever we want to say?
    Go back to old English?
        Mr. Price. What I would say is, you're 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.
        Mr. Grothman. Well, next time you get back to Europe,
    straighten them out, kick them in the butt, OK? Thanks.
        Mr. Price. Yes, sir.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady
    from Texas, who joined us for part of our visit to the
    European--to Europe--we appreciate that--recognized for five
    minutes.
        Ms. Crockett. Yes. I hate that I didn't get to reminisce
    with our good friend, Mr. Farage.
        Nevertheless, 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.
        Now, Mr. Farage and I met over a month ago. He has made it
    a brand of being this free-speech warrior. 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. It seems like it's more so ``free speech for me, but
    not for thee'' a lot of times with certain people. It's sad
    that he had to run and have lunch with Trump or to go raise
    some money for his four-member party.
        Mr. Price, 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. You tell me whether these government actions
    support free speech or suppress it. Let's call it ``free
    speech'' or ``Federal suppression.'' Fining or defending--or
    defunding news outlets or companies because they don't share a
    political--a particular political message.
        Mr. Price. I'm not entirely sure what context you're
    referring to. I think I'd need a little bit more information.
        Ms. Crockett. 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
    this is a violation of free speech?
        Mr. Price. Well, 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 PBS controversy. It's probably not
    something that I would be able to really--
        Ms. Crockett. Not necessarily. Let me go to Professor Kaye.
    Professor Kaye, did you understand my question? Fining or
    defunding news outlets or companies because they don't share a
    particular political message.
        Mr. Kaye. Yes. Thank you for the question. At the very core
    of the First Amendment is a prohibition of viewpoint
    discrimination.
        Ms. Crockett. OK.
        Mr. Kaye. What you describe sounds like viewpoint
    discrimination.
        Ms. Crockett. It definitely sounds like Federal
    suppression.
        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 suppression?
        Mr. Kaye. Well, that does sound like an interference with a
    company's content moderation decision.
        Ms. Crockett. Banning materials because of their content?
        Mr. Kaye. Materials?
        Ms. Crockett. Yes. So, like, books.
        Mr. Kaye. Oh. Of course. Well, we've seen this in the range
    of book bans at libraries across the country.
        Ms. Crockett. Absolutely. What about threatening private
    companies with lawsuits or fines unless they do the
    government's bidding?
        Mr. Kaye. It sounds like pressure that would be undue, yes.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. I agree with you.
        All 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.
        Trump has removed books discussing racial discrimination at
    U.S. military academies, including the amazing Maya Angelou's
    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.
        In order for the merger between Paramount and Skydance to
    happen, the FCC Chair and Republican-appointed commissioners
    required Skydance 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. Colbert.
        Let'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 the way,
    inclusion provisions to fight child trafficking.
        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.
        That sounds like a threat as it relates to all First
    Amendment 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.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields. The gentleman from
    North Carolina is recognized.
        Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the witnesses, thank
    you all for being here.
        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. When we look at the
    encroachments on freedom of expression, freedom of speech, it
    is chilling. It's remarkable that the countries that gave birth
    to the Western civilization that we all enjoy are really
    becoming totalitarian.
        Even 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. If this was noted
    15-20 years ago, people would not believe it.
        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 are begging the Vice President and the Secretary of State
    to continue doing what they're doing, fighting this repression
    that's going on in Europe.
        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--is gone, all under the mantra of
    safety.
        Mr. Price, I want to talk to you first. You said that these
    points of legislation are really aimed at, quote, ``protecting
    youth.'' How exactly are the proponents of these restrictive
    measures--how are they making the argument that they are
    protecting youth?
        Mr. Price. Yes, that's the argument they make, sir.
        Essentially, particularly if we look at the Online Safety
    Act, the premise is that safety requires various kinds of
    restrictions, such as age verification. What that does, in
    effect, is that it means that minors aren't allowed to access
    certain content.
        There's are two types of content. One is what they call
    primary priority content, which is the worst kind of thing that
    we would all agree is wrongful. 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--it's been passed or it's in the process--16-year-olds
    the vote, who would then be prevented from seeing certain
    content under the Online Safety Act.
        Mr. Knott. In terms of some of the examples you've
    mentioned that give me concern, it doesn't seem as though
    there's too much restriction for modern gender theory,
    transgenderism, aimed at children, or graphic or explicit
    material aimed at children, but there are restrictions on
    pointing out verses of scripture or biblical truths that people
    adhere to. You can't discuss that online.
        How does that factor into the protection of the child?
        Mr. Price. I think your point is well-made.
        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.
    I suspect, as I say, that there's an underlying political
    justification.
        Mr. Knott. What's the goal? We've talked about the
    diminishing prosperity. The freedom is gone. There's diminished
    enjoyment of life. There's diminished humor. There's zero free-
    flowing information. What's the goal besides complete political
    power?
        Mr. Price. I certainly think the goal, as you allude to, is
    narrative control. Information is the first and most important,
    as it were, quantity in a democracy. That's how we make our
    decisions, based on what we hear. If you can restrict the
    amount of information that people hear or you can channel it in
    one direction, then you influence democracy.
        As I say, there's increasing discontent in Europe about the
    direction of travel in so many areas, and I do believe the DSA,
    like the German Network Enforcement Act and other related
    legislation, is part of a serious effort to control the
    narrative.
        Mr. Knott. It's basically a tool of, quote,
    ``progressivism'' to silence dissent and to move the agenda
    forward. Is that correct? That's what I'm gleaning from the
    conversation today.
        Mr. Price. Certainly, in a lot of our work it has gone that
    way. It seems that Christians are disproportionately targeted.
        There was a dissenting opinion by the Polish judge in a
    case called Dorota Rabczewska 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, whereas Christians--people who are
    critical of Christianity are prosecuted and they suddenly are
    entitled to free speech in that context.
        In the U.K., 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 him.
        Mr. Knott. Interesting. Mr. Kaye, just briefly, in regard
    to 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 various components of the COVID
    response, the COVID treatment plans, the vaccine's efficacy,
    and so forth?
        Mr. Kaye. I mean, no. That is just not something I know--
        Mr. Knott. You wouldn't stipulate to that?
        Mr. Kaye. No.
        Mr. Knott. Even--I know you criticized Mr. Zuckerberg for
    saying that the government leaned heavily on social media
    companies to remove content as it is related to COVID. You do
    not think that the government was engaged in suppressing
    information in any way?
        Mr. Kaye. Well, we know there was--because there is Supreme
    Court cases around this, where the allegation was that
    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 this didn't constitute
    unlawful pressure or coercion. Clearly, those kinds of messages
    were part of the period of 2020-2021.
        Mr. Knott. Do you condemn that? Do you affirm that action
    by regulating content, or no?
        Mr. Kaye. Do I--
        Mr. Knott. Do you affirm the motivations or the actions of
    the Biden Administration to suppress the COVID discussions?
        Mr. Kaye. No. 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.
        Mr. Knott. Well, I'm sure you're aware that they say they
    were coerced by the Biden Administration.
        Mr. Kaye. I think--
        Mr. Knott. It appears to be a partisan interpretation when
    you say that it was reasonable what Biden did with Facebook,
    with X, and so forth.
        Mr. Kaye. Well, we could go back and forth, but in my view
    is that that wasn't coercion, actually.
        Mr. Knott. If you could say--if you could type on Facebook,
    ``These vaccines do not work,'' would that have been allowed?
        Mr. Kaye. Honestly, I think it would--
        Mr. Knott. No, it would be stripped. It would be stripped--
        Mr. Kaye. It would depend on when we're talking about.
        Mr. Knott. Under Biden, it would've been stripped. I'm
    sorry, our time's up, but--anyway.
        Mr. Kaye. Mr. Chair, may I have just one very brief--
        Chair Jordan. Of course.
        Mr. Kaye. Yes. Thank you.
        I just want to make one point about hate speech, because
    there's been a lot of discussion about hate speech here, and
    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.
    Quite a bit of the hate speech is actually a response to that
    history.
        At least acknowledging that this is a part of the cultural
    freedom-of-expression background in Europe is useful so that
    it's not just a kind of bullying--
        Chair Jordan. Fair enough. Fair enough.
        Mr. Kaye. --of Europeans but also an understanding of where
    they come from.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. Mr. Price 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. 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 U.K. and in the EU. There's been lots of
    comments there.
        I'll give the Ranking Member some time, and then I've got
    maybe one last question--one last point I would like to make.
        Mr. Raskin. Thanks. This is just for a UC request, Mr.
    Chair, because you had mentioned 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 signaled that the
    litigation had to be resolved before Zuckerberg could be
    `brought into the tent,' '' one of the people said.
        I just want to introduce that.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Mr. Raskin. One other thing is just the Supreme Court
    decision, Murthy v. Missouri, disproving the government
    censorship claims.
        Chair Jordan. OK. Without objection. I'll just make one
    maybe final point, because it's been brought up several times,
    I believe.
        I'll ask all of you. Mr. Kaye, has President Trump banned
    any books in the country? Are you aware of any?
        Mr. Kaye. I don't know about him specifically, but I do
    know that, for example, from ``Defense of Libraries'' (ph)--
    books on Martin Luther King have actually been removed.
        Chair Jordan. Mr. Price, do you know--do you know if
    President Trump has banned any books?
        Mr. Price. I'm not aware that he has.
        Chair Jordan. Mr. Reed, has President Trump banned any
    books?
        My understanding, the way it works is, you've got a local
    library board, you've got a local school board, and then they
    say certain books aren't appropriate for kids, which is,
    frankly, the argument they use in the EU on the Digital
    Services Act and U.K. on the Online Safety Act.
        No President's banning books. They're just saying--local
    library board is saying second-graders should maybe not see
    certain things that adults can see.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, if I could followup on that?
        Chair Jordan. Sure.
        Mr. Raskin. Because I've got constituents who are in the
    service abroad, and there are schools called DoDEA schools,
    Department of Defense schools. There was an Executive Order
    applying to the Department of Defense, and they shut down the
    school libraries there. These are Federal schools, not local
    schools, Federal schools. They stripped all kinds of books from
    there.
        There have been protests throughout Europe by American
    families over there saying that they don't want, ``1984'' and
    ``The Handmaid's Tale'' to be stripped from the schools. I
    mentioned that, actually, in my opening statement.
        Chair Jordan. I want to thank each of our witnesses for
    being here today. I appreciate your patience, and appreciate
    you being here for, wow, five hours. Thank you very much.
        This concludes today's hearing, and we thank our witnesses
    for appearing before the Committee.
        Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
    days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
    or additional materials for the record.
        Mr. Raskin. Can I say one more thing, Mr. Chair, in praise
    of you?
        Chair Jordan. OK.
        Mr. Raskin. 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.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection--thank you. Without
    objection, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Committee on the Judiciary can be found at: https://
    docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118565.

                                     [all]