“Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation: Part II”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
Put that one up too. I wanna read the highlight. The primary motivation for the next round of community guide guidelines updates is to achieve compliance with the Digital Services Act. So here again, you're trying to influence speech and everything around the world. And what did TikTok censor in the US to placate the Europeans?
Let's go to the next document. I think this censored, quote, marginalized speech and behavior, media presented out of context. I think that happens every day. Probably in this committee, we're always putting unanimous consent on this media. That one, they'll enter from something from The New York Times.
We'll enter something from Fox or something like that. That happens all the time. TikTok censored true information and political speech on topics like immigration in the United States because of European censorship demands. But it gets worse. It's not just the European Commission regulating the content moderation guidelines.
Often they directly ask platforms how they are handling US speech. In 2024, the vice president of the European Commission, Vera Jourova, traveled all the way to California to meet with TikTok to discuss US election preparations. Now why on earth would the EU, let's put this one up too. Why on earth would the EU travel to California to talk about US elections? Is the vice president, mister Rova, interested in discussing both EU and US election preparations or to stay mostly focused on the EU?
Her response, we're interested in both. I mean, that to me is just unbelievable. But, again, this is where the Digital Services Act is taking us. The answer is obvious. The European Commission is trying to censor speech and meddle in elections worldwide.
Now the Europeans try to hide what they are doing. They say that these censorship requirements are voluntary and are achieved through consensus. But we don't think that's true either. With the European Commission, when the European Commission makes censorship demands, platforms have to listen. Platforms set up themselves in internal emails that we also got with our subpoenas.
Let's put this one up, too. Letting this, again, captures it as well. Let's put the next one up there too. Following one. There we go.
Yeah. Then let's just look at the bottom one. European commission is opening the GenAI subgroup under the code of practice. I assume we want to join, of course, then you then comes the truth. We don't really have a choice.
We don't really have a choice. Europeans try to hide what they're doing. They say that these internships are requirements are voluntary, but they're not, they're achieved through consensus, but we know that's not true, I said, and platforms have said it in this document. Finally, I just wanna say today we have some victims of European censorship. Miss Rasanen, a doctor, devout Christian, and grandmother, 12.
She tweeted out a Bible verse and is on trial under Finland's hate speech law, and that's the kind of censorship Europeans want worldwide. Mister Linnahan, I'm sure the left is going to be especially mad at you because you used to be one of them. We've had a similar witness. We had a similar witness a couple years ago. Matt Taibbi was part of the Twitter files and exposing what was going on there.
He was and probably still is left of center, but he stood for free speech, sat right where you guys are sitting. And here's what happened to him. Democrats called him a so-called journalist. They asked him to divulge his sources in the middle of the hearing. After the hearing, they tried to criminally refer Mr. Tayyib.
And here's the kicker. During the hearing, while he's sitting there testifying, the IRS was actually at his home knocking on his door while he was testifying. You talk about intimidation. While he was testifying to Congress, the Biden administration had the IRS make a visit, make a friendly visit to his home. So we appreciate you being here as well. I don't think that's gonna happen today because we have different folks in the White House.
But we appreciate all our witnesses here. We will get to you in just a few minutes. But first, I'm gonna yield to the ranking member for an opening statement, and then we'll get to your five-minute testimony. That gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, thank you very much. Thanks to the witnesses for joining us. Our colleagues wanna have a hearing today about the First Amendment under attack, so let's have it. Our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly, our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, our right to a free press are all under siege today by President Trump and his masked agents at ICE who operate like a lawless private paramilitary force occupying American communities across the country. In the last several weeks, ICE agents have killed Renee Good, a US citizen and 37-year-old mother of three, gunning her down in cold blood simply for exercising her First Amendment rights.
They've killed Alex Pretty, a US citizen and ICU nurse treating military veterans, for exercising his right to record government officials in action and to speak to and render aid and comfort to another US citizen, a woman who was violently shoved to the ground by an ICE agent. This small act of kindness, solidarity, and, dare I say, chivalry, then brought the hellfire of a gang of masked ICE agents down on Alex Pretty. As they pummeled him, one agent discovered Pretty's firearm, which Pretty had never drawn or brandished, despite the instantaneous lies the Trump administration spewed out about him after he was killed. The agent confiscated his weapon, which he carried lawfully under the Second Amendment in Minnesota's state conceal and open carry laws, and then the ICE agents proceeded to shoot him 10 times, executing him in cold blood simply for exercising his First Amendment and Second Amendment rights. In Chicago, Border Patrol police shot five times US citizen Marimar Martinez, a Montessori school teacher, when she was on her way from her home to church to deliver clothes she'd collected for the poor. When she saw the now familiar to us aggressive violent raid taking place against people in her own neighborhood, she honked her horn to warn people.
This prompted an agent to swerve his car into hers, at which point he began shooting directly into her car. She could, quote, feel bullets continue to pierce her body all over. Quote, I saw my life flash before me and slowly began to think, this is the end of me. She told a shadow hearing yesterday on Capitol Hill. In a now predictable pattern, phony charges against her for ramming the police car were filed, but then promptly dropped by prosecutors when they were clearly contradicted by the video-recorded facts on the ground.
Miraculously, she has lived to tell the story, traumatized by our government, her own government, but undaunted in standing up for her community and for American freedom. I can recite, mister chairman, equally gruesome cases to you for the next two hours if we had the time, but everyone should check out the sickening case of Aliyah Raman, a 43-year-old citizen with autism in Minneapolis who was violently accosted and assaulted by ICE agents as she tried to make her way to a medical appointment. She screamed she was disabled and begged to be left alone. You must look at the footage of her violent abuse at the hands of these masked ice goons smashing her car window and pulling her to the ground, to believe that something like this could ever happen in the United States of America. Of course, the Department of Homeland Security lied about her immediately calling the helpless autistic woman an agitator, the way they originally tried to defame Renee Good and Alex Petty as domestic terrorists with their pathetic propaganda they had to withdraw.
If there are domestic terrorists on the loose in Minneapolis, it's not the unmasked people exercising their First Amendment rights. It's the masked agents who believe they operate with impunity and immunity, and violent domination over the lowly citizens of America. So, yeah, we need a hearing today, Mr. Chairman. It's been more than a month since 3,000 agents descended on Minneapolis, outnumbering the entire local police force three to one. It's been 4 weeks since they shot and killed Renee Good.
It's been ten days since Alex Pretty was executed in broad daylight by ICE agents whose salaries we pay and who got a $50,000 sign-on bonus and whose ranks almost certainly include pardon January 6 insurrectionists like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who now may have gone from beating the daylights out of our police officers on January 6 to beating the daylights out of our citizens. But in all that time, how many administration witnesses has the majority called to address these outrageous violations of the Bill of Rights? Not one. A few days ago, you know, mister chairman, every democratic member of our committee wrote to you and asked that you call homeland security secretary Christie Nome before us, without delay. We wrote, this committee has devoted years of oversight to alleged First Amendment violations by social media companies, and we've subpoenaed foreign companies over censorship abroad.
But look what's happening right here in front of our own eyes. Federal agents have shot dead two Americans in the past two weeks for exercising their right to protest. We are glad that you have heeded our calls and called secretary Noah Min. But instead of demanding that she appear immediately today, her hearing is set for a month from now. But this is a constitutional emergency today.
The government is destroying our social contract by attacking the people in our rights on a daily basis. Where is the sense of urgency, mister chairman? It may be the giant Republican donor and Jeffrey Epstein pal, Elon Musk, is upset that his company's on the hook for violating the law in Europe. Maybe that the public is angry at him about his platform, Grok, creating nude photos on demand of women, children, and men all over the world. It may be that he was fined for refusing to comply with the European law against fraud.
We can look at all that stuff. In normal times, I'd appreciate a vigorous scholarly discussion and debate about all of that, comparing Europe's aggressive, proactive approach to America's more laissez-faire approach when it comes to regulating online evils like child pornography, cyberbullying, and the epidemic of cyber scams taking place online. I'm an academic, as you know, and I'd welcome one more committee seminar on the difference in views of the Europeans versus the Americans on things like revenge porn, AI programs that compose suicide notes for teenagers, and racist conspiracy theories being promoted online. But we've got time for all of that, Mr. Chairman. This is an emergency today, what's taking place in our own country.
These are not normal times. There are sweeping, blatant, and violent attacks on the freedom of expression taking place right now in America. Not in Brussels, not in Geneva, not in a seminar room in Oxford. Wherever you come down on child pornography, whether you agree with the aggressive European approach or you like the Elon Musk, Jeffrey Epstein libertarian approach, whatever. The truth is that the European Commission is not posing a threat to our essential freedoms and constitutional rights today.
The threat to our freedom and our people today comes from the authoritarian violence unleashed by the Trump administration, and this reign of political terror and lawlessness being committed against our people. As the chief federal judge of Minnesota wrote last week, ICE has violated more court orders in January 2023 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence. ICE is not a law unto itself. Mister Mayo, you're the executive director of the ACLU. We're grateful you've come to tell us what's going on in your state and to help us make sense of the idea that a European statute that no one in America has ever heard of poses a greater threat to our freedom and our Bill of Rights than roving gangs of masked ICE agents gunning down American citizens in broad daylight.
Mister chairman, let's bring in secretary Nome without any further delay. Thank you for your indulgence, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Just a couple of quick comments. Four weeks from today, Miss Secretary Nome will be sitting right here in front of the committee. One week from today, Attorney General Bondi will be sitting here. The European Commission, I think our witnesses would argue, is a threat.
I just asked doctor Rassan, what happened to her. And I would point out we've had Democrat witnesses here. In fact, last congress, we had a democrat witness who was, at the time, a democrat candidate for president, RFK junior, and the Democrats in that committee hearing. It was a hearing on censorship. You can't make this stuff up.
It was a hearing on censorship, and the Democrats made a motion to go to the executive session. So no media could be in the room to hear what RFK junior was gonna testify to in a hearing on censorship. You can't make it up. So, I appreciate the ranking members' critique there, but I think there's plenty of critique to go around. We will now move to introduce our today's witnesses.
Well, first, without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. Today's witnesses, we will start with mister Lorcan Price, who's been with us before, is an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom International, a nonprofit organization that works to protect religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life, for joining ADF International. He was an attorney in Ireland. Mister Graham Linahan is a comedian, director, and journalist. And now Fox News, I saw this morning.
I'm working out this morning. I see you. Do you wanna interview him, Fox News? In September 2025, he was arrested upon his arrival at London Heathrow Airport for tweets he posted while he was in the United States. Doctor Paivi Rasanen is a member of the Finnish parliament, a medical doctor, former minister of the interior.
She was first elected to parliament in 1995. That's a long time in parliament. God bless you. In 2021, she was criminally charged for tweeting a Bible verse. Mister Dopinder Mayo, I think I got that close to the Dopinder Mayo. He's the executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota.
He previously served as executive director of the James H. Binger Center for New Americans at the University of Minnesota Law School. We welcome all our witnesses. Thank you for being here today. We will begin by swearing you in. If you please stand, 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 reflect that the witness has answered in the affirmative. 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 5 minutes. I think we will start with, we'll start with Mister Price, and then Mister Linahan, and then Mister Rasen. And so look, Miss Mister Price, you're welcome, recognized, and welcome to begin.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, distinguished members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. I'm delighted to share the panel today with fellow Irishman Graeme Lanahan. I'm not a comedy writer, so I won't make a joke about two Irishmen who walk into congress. Of course, I might be arrested on returning to London as you did experience, Graeme. I'm also delighted to share it with our client, Pavi Rasman, who will speak in due course about her ordeal in Finland.
On the last occasion that we spoke, ladies and gentlemen, on this subject, we had a discussion on the censorship potential of the EU's Digital Services Act. And at that point, we were speaking in the theoretical. It may cause censorship. It has the potential to affect Americans and so on, and many were not convinced. However, now it's unmistakable that it has indeed caused the censorship that we warned of.
We have moved from theory to practice. There can be no doubt that the European Digital Services Act is the tip of a massive censorship industrial complex. The enormous fines levied on ex corporation by the European Commission since the last hearing have proved beyond all doubts that the European Union means to strangle free speech by a systemic assault on US companies. The EU has a multipronged strategy to open multiple investigations, to add more regulations, and to impose crippling fines. And ultimately, I fear, to attempt to break up or ban companies such as X, who are pro-free speech.
But it goes deeper. This censorship campaign is not just aimed at destroying free speech in Europe. It's about imposing European laws globally. Make no mistake that Europe's draconian speech laws are being imposed on your citizens via global content moderation rules, as indeed this committee's investigation has so amply pointed out. The EU's obsession with eliminating free speech means they have a global campaign to ensure that all speech, online and com platforms that allow it, are banning illegal content to prevent, quote, systemic risk to the discourse.
US companies are therefore transformed into a global censorship police. They must engage in a process of analyzing, quote, how platform design, algorithms, and content moderation impact public debate, misinformation, and media pluralism. This is what is being forced on American companies today. If they don't comply, then they face possibly endless investigations and crippling fines. There are multiple ongoing investigations into x, including for not allowing illegal content.
In Europe, illegal content can mean calling a German politician an idiot or posting, as we know, a Bible verse. So let's be clear. What's happening to x now is that free speech is such a threat to the European elites that they will either cripple x with fines and investigations, break up the company, or force them to bend the knee at the altar of censorship. I hope that they stand strong, because we need free speech in Europe now more than ever. I want to commend this committee on its investigation, which shows that US companies are already having to adopt the EU standards in relation to their content moderation policies.
So it is directly affecting, to answer Congressman Raskin's point, First Amendment rights of Americans today in practice. There are ongoing actions as well under the Digital Markets Act and various other regulations. And I think it's fair to say that it's become a point where the European Union has fines on American companies as a line item in their annual budget. Last year, roughly €3,800,000,000 was levied in fines against US companies. National countries are also trying to get into the act.
We saw that the French police raided ex's offices in Paris just this week, and the Spanish prime minister has announced criminal liability against company owners for so-called hate speech. I have submitted in my written testimony excerpts of the ridiculous hate speech laws that we have to suffer under in Europe. Of course, hate speech has no real meaning other than speech they hate. And what I would say to our American friends is you cannot allow the EU's rules on hate speech to be imposed on the entire digital world via the DSA. Americans know how this goes when this committee in the past has exposed censorship around COVID.
Text censorship denudes and eliminates free speech online. The threat is real, and it is with us now. Thank you very much, and I look forward to our discussion.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Price. Mister Linahan, or mister Linahan, excuse me, you are recognized for five minutes. Make sure you hit the mic there. Yeah. Pull that mic close, and fire away.
Speaker 5
Thank you, and thank you for this opportunity. My name is Graeme Linehan. I spent 30 years writing comedy for British television. It was a career I loved, but it ended when I began noticing that women were losing their livelihoods, their social circles, and even their freedom for defending the rights won over a hundred years ago by the suffragette movement. I looked into what these women were saying and could find nothing wrong with any of it.
They believed, as I do, that single-sex spaces are essential for women's privacy, dignity, and safety. They believed that children should not undergo experimental medical treatment that ravages their health and shortens their lives. They believe that women have a right to fair support. These were not extreme positions, but for holding them, I became this target of a series of harassment campaigns that caused me my career, my marriage, and eventually drove me from my homeland. For a decade, the British police have harassed me for expressing views that the majority of the public share.
In ten years, not one person, not the police who arrested me, not the colleagues who condemned me, not the friends who turned away, has told any of us what we did wrong. Our accusers do not deal in arguments. No one is able to point to flaws in our analysis. We have simply been punished for objecting to fashionable, yet incoherent orthodoxies. When I could no longer make a living writing comedy, I returned to journalism, which was my first profession.
On my Substack, sorry. I interviewed counseled women on my YouTube channel covering stories the BBC refused to touch. On my Substack, my colleague published a weekly roundup of outrages. We called it the war on women. We were never at a loss for stories.
This committee is here to discuss threats to free speech in Europe, but I briefly want to touch on the forms of quiet censorship that don't require state suppression. For the state has learned to let others do its work. When employers fire workers for protected speech, when banks close accounts, when publishers drop authors, when platforms suspend users, the government's hands stay clean. The censorship happens. The state didn't do it.
In Britain, we have discovered that you can have formal free speech and no free speech at all. I want everyone to understand that gender ideology and free speech cannot coexist. You can hear the lie in the very language. Trans woman meaning a man. Trans man meaning a woman.
Trans health care means the opposite of health care. Trans rights mean men's demands. An ideology that tells lesbians they are bigoted for not accepting male partners is not progressive. It is homophobic. And I will bring this home to Washington for a second.
Right now, a man named Hobbie Bingham, who calls himself Princess Zoe Andromeda Love, is a registered sex offender in this country. He raped a 12-year-old girl. He was transferred to the Washington Correction Center for Women where he raped a developmentally disabled female inmate. This is not happening in Britain. This is happening here.
These are the policies we are being asked to accept. And just as in The United Kingdom, those who refuse pay with their livelihoods, their reputations, and their peace of mind. Finally, I'm asking the committee to do three things. First, use every diplomatic lever you have to pressure the British government to implement its own Supreme Court ruling. Women just won a landmark case confirming that sex means biological sex.
The guidance to enforce it has been written, and the minister for women inequalities has blocked it for months, calling it trans-exclusive. If the British government can ignore its own Supreme Court to appease gender activists, so can yours. Please make sure it is clear that America is watching. Second, put pressure on the Irish government to reopen the conversation it never had. In 2015, while Irish people were celebrating their joke vote for marriage equality, the Gender Recognition Act was quietly passed.
No public consultation. No referendum. No women's rights organizations were consulted. The pib public did not know what they were signing up for. They do now.
The consequences are visible across Irish life. Men in women's prisons, men in women's sport, children taught lies in their schools. Ireland is my country of birth. Its women and girls deserve the debate that they were denied. Third, recognize that free speech is not preserved simply by declining to arrest people.
People from all walks of life are being silenced by the institutions that license and employ them. We need new whistleblower protections for the digital age. If the government will not defend dissenters from institutional retaliation and mob rule, what is the First Amendment for? That's not an abstract question. The women who lost their careers, the children who lost their health, the athletes who lost fair competition, they did not have a voice in the decisions that failed them.
I am asking you to give them one. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and members of the committee. Thank you so much for inviting me to speak with you today. My name is Peggy Rasanen. I'm from Finland, and I'm a medical doctor. And I have served previously as a member of the, or I now serve as a member of the Finnish parliament since 1995, but previously, I have served as a minister of interior.
I love my country. Finland is a democracy that was built on the rule of law and fundamental freedoms. These values matter deeply to me as a European and as a Christian. More than six years ago, in 2019, I expressed my Christian beliefs about marriage and sexuality in a Twitter post. I directed my post to my church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, in response to their decision to participate in a parade, Pride, which I believe contradicts our Christian faith.
I added a picture of some scripture verses with a post that guided my perspective on this issue. I did show peacefully, without targeting or insulting anyone. For this exercise of my free speech, I was investigated by the police. I was interrogated for more than 13 hours, and I was charged with criminal hate speech. In addition to the Twitter post, I also was criminally charged for a short pamphlet on human sexuality I had written for the church, yes, earlier.
In addition to comments I made in a radio discussion, Lutheran Bishop Johanna Pohiola was charged alongside me for publishing the pamphlet for the church. Under Finnish law, our charges fall under the section of the criminal code dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity, and can carry up to two years of prison time. This was difficult to comprehend. I want to be very clear. I didn't insult anyone.
I simply expressed my convictions rooted in my faith. Twice, Finnish courts unanimously acquitted me. They ruled that no crime had been committed. Despite these clear rulings, the state prosecution continued to pursue their judges against me. And last October, the Supreme Court of Finland heard my case alongside that of Bishop Pochula.
My defense was based on the freedoms of peace and religion protected by Finnish, European, and international law. The Bishop and I are now awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court. This case has never been only about us. It is about whether the peaceful expression of deeply held beliefs can be treated as a criminal act in today's Europe. It is about whether citizens, including clergy and elected representatives, may speak openly on matters of conscience without fear of prosecution.
It is about whether it is illegal to say what you believe. Our story shows how the process itself becomes the punishment. We have faced years of legal uncertainty. This creates a chilling effect for everyone who holds views outside a narrow state-approved consensus. When the state controls which ideas and beliefs may be expressed, democracy becomes fragile.
Speech that is lawful today can become criminalized tomorrow. This should concern every person who values freedom. I have been supported by my faith and thousands of expressions of support I have received from around the world, including many from the US Congress. I remain hopeful. I trust that freedom of expression can still be upheld.
It is too important to lose. My wish is simple, that Europe and our democratic partners remain places where every person can speak freely. And I'm pleased with the good relations between the United States and Finland, and hope that they will continue to strengthen. Thank you for listening, and thank you for your commitment to freedom.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Chairman Jordan, ranking member Raskin, and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. My name is Dipinder Mayel, and I'm honored to serve as the executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota. I appreciate this committee's interest in free speech, and I'm here today to talk with you about what is happening in my home state of Minnesota, which feels like it is under siege and where the First Amendment rights that we all cherish are under attack in a more grave way than I have ever experienced in my life. If you have not been on the ground in Minnesota in recent weeks, it is hard to imagine how un-American it has felt, and I want to give you a firsthand account.
For the people in Minnesota, this is a time of profound grief, fear, and outrage. In recent weeks, we have experienced violence, chaos, and abuse at the hands of hundreds and now thousands of mass law enforcement agents brandishing weapons of war on American streets. Two people have been shot and killed for observing and protesting the actions of federal agents: Renee Good and Alex Pretty. Witnesses to their deaths are their neighbors and fellow Minnesotans. One witness to Mister Pretty's killing submitted a sworn statement to the court in our lawsuit Tincher versus Nome, saying that they were so afraid of retaliation they went into hiding.
"I do not feel safe in my city," said another witness to Mister Pretty's death. This person was a doctor who had run to the scene to before CPR on him. Quote, I worry that I or someone I love will be shot and killed for voicing their displeasure and being in the wrong place at the wrong time, end quote. This is not the America we recognize. This is not America and the free country that we cherish.
It is not the America we deserve, nor the one that our laws or constitution allow. At the worst moments, it has felt like we are living in a police state. Agents have stormed our parks and school yards. They have blocked our streets. They have barricaded the store parking lots.
They have thrown tear gas in front of our homes. They have pepper sprayed peaceful protesters and indiscriminately pointed semi-automatic weapons in the faces of American citizens. People living in the United States are not and should not have to be accustomed to armed agents demanding to see their papers, but that's now happened in far too many places in the region. Heavily armed mass squads have broken into people's homes and dragged American citizens into the street. And if you appear to ICE or border patrol as a possible immigrant, you risk being snatched off the street, often with physical violence, and being put into detention.
And although many Minnesotans are peacefully protest testing, thousands of Minnesotans are now afraid to leave their homes. Public schools in Minneapolis closed the week of January 8 after federal agents pepper-sprayed, tackled, and handcuffed multiple people. According to school district officials from Fridley and Richfield, more than 30% of students were absent from classes that week. Across the region, children are still learning online due to the fear of attending school. Business and commercial districts are like ghost towns as the very presence of federal agents makes people terrified to go about their daily life, and immigrant community members and neighbors have not left their homes in weeks, avoiding even basic daily activities like buying groceries, picking up prescriptions, or going to work.
This is not an unintended impact. It is intentional. The administration has deployed thousands of agents in a bid to spread fear, cause people to flee the country they call home, and make the rest of us too afraid to speak out. These agents are bound by the constitution, yet they have broken dozens of our laws and agency policies, as well as the faith of the American communities they are meant to protect. I'm here to ask you as members of Congress to act.
Our cherished rights, all of our cherished rights, are at stake. Please use the power of the purse to rein in this unprecedented, lawless, and dangerous escalation in our community. We urge you to demand that federal forces withdraw from Minnesota now, before another life is taken. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We'll now proceed with five-minute questions. Members, the chair recognized the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses. History shows that freedom of speech is rare and that censorship and repression are common. And perhaps the primary principle that has set The United States apart throughout our 250 year history is our commitment to freedom of speech as the foundation of our democracy and self government. And yet, even here, we witness threats to freedom of speech from time to time.
And thanks to the work of this committee, we were able to uncover the extent to which censorship took hold during the prior administration in pressuring social media companies to censor the content and speech of American citizens. For example, on perhaps the most significant event in generations, the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals were forbidden from positing a theory as to how it started that likely turned out to be true. Or in the run up to the 2020 election, damaging information about one of the presidential candidates was systematically censored on social media, which the leaders of those companies have now admitted was wrong. Indeed, in response to this committee's investigation, mister Zuckerberg of Facebook has stated that it was wrong for that platform to us to respond to the censorship demands of the Biden administration. Thankfully.
Speaker 8
are in a much different place in this country now. Although, in some parts of the country, there still is an impulse to censor. In my state of California, the governor, Gavin Newsom, saw a parody video that was criticizing Kamala Harris right before the 2024 election, promptly called for a law to ban the video. It was signed. Thankfully, that was struck down by the courts in short order.
We still do have checks and balances here. But increasingly, we're seeing that the threats to the freedom of speech of American citizens emanate from abroad, as the different approach that some of our European allies have taken to freedom of speech has become even more different and systematic and global in nature in recent years. So, mister Linan, I want you to just walk us through what happened to you because you were in the United States. You put up a tweet. You're a comedian.
You use some off-color language, maybe different than the way I would say things sometimes, but that's what you do. And you made a comment about the propriety of biological males being in female-only spaces. Can you tell me exactly what happened when you landed at Heathrow Airport in some detail?
Speaker 5
Well, as I said, because I because I'd been arrested before and because I have because I'm sort of the victim of kind of village gossip on a global scale, I when the plane actually taxied to a stop and we were kept there for longer than is usual, I sort of immediately knew that I might be about to be arrested. So but when I got to the door, I couldn't believe it. There were five police, all of them armed, which is standard at Heathrow. But it was a shock. You know?
I didn't think they I didn't see how five police were necessary, especially as I was coming into the country to testify in another trial, and they would have known that. So, yeah, it, I have to say even though it was shocking and unpleasant, and I ended up having such high blood pressure that I had to be transferred to a hospital, it's in many ways, I I'm very glad it happened to me because my voice has been silent so long in The UK. I'm very much a niche voice, because of the kind of control gender ideology has over the whole country, over institution.
Speaker 8
It's also probably the chilling effect. Right? You put up a tweet. You say something that you believe, and you're met by five armed guards who put you in jail. What effect does that have on other people speaking their minds?
Speaker 5
As you know, as you say, chilling effect. Who knows? Who knows what effect it has? You know, since the censorship that's at play when it comes to issues around women's rights is a kind of quiet censorship. People are canceled quietly.
They just stop being invited to things. Right. They stop getting contracts, and so on. So, yeah, that's one of the things I wanted to get across to people, that there's more than one form of censorship. It's not just the government being heavy-handed.
It's a sort of orthodoxy that has been imposed across British society, especially in certain industries that attract very privileged middle-class people. So we have publishing, theater, the media, and the NHS now, which is very frightening. All these institutions have been captured by gender ideology, and no one is objecting to it. Just the fact that no one is objecting to it does not mean that people do not object to it. Do you know what I mean?
Speaker 8
That's right. And that is what has been recognized by our courts as the peculiar evil of censorship: it ends up silencing a much broader swath of speech, and thereby distorts democracy, distorts the values of society, and impedes progress. So that's what we're trying to stop with this hearing today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, thank you. Mister Price, I think we've seen you now 4 times. We met you in Brussels. We met you in London. You've come twice to testify here.
So, we're familiar with your views. I do think you call yourself a civil libertarian, someone who's a champion of free speech. Would you agree with me that nobody should be shot or killed by their government for exercising their freedom of expression?
Speaker 4
Absolutely. People shouldn't be killed, unless there's obviously an investigation, I believe, underway, I think, in the incident you're referring to today.
Speaker 2
How about reporting on the activities of government officials? Do you think that the public has the right to take notes, to video record, and then to publicly disseminate information about what our police officers, ICE agents, or government officials are doing? Is that part of the freedom of expression?
Speaker 2
Yeah. And our courts have certainly found that. So thank you for coming and contributing your voice to that. Mister Mayo, thank you for coming all the way from Minnesota. I hope you don't feel like you've entered the Twilight Zone here.
We're having another hearing about the imaginary threat to the transphobic material of Irish comedians against the European Union, and we can't seem to have a hearing about ICE agents shooting Americans in the face for exercising their First Amendment rights. Please give us a sense of your experience of what the topic of this hearing is versus what's going on in our country.
Speaker 7
Thank you. You know, I'm here to talk about the most significant threat to free speech in our lifetime. That is not happening online or digitally right now. It is happening on the streets of Minnesota and Minneapolis as well as the most significant attack on our Fourth Amendment and the principles of the Fourth Amendment and the protections against warrantless arrest as well.
Speaker 2
Well, you made a really significant point in your testimony when you said we, of course, are seeing tens of thousands of Minnesotans out in the streets every day protesting this reign of terror. But you've also said that a lot of people are afraid now to go out because of the violence that has occurred. In other words, those huge protests could be even much bigger without government oppression. Am I reading you right on that?
Speaker 7
Yes. I mean, so I can't, you know, describe in words fully how, you know, disruptive, terrifying, and intense the feeling is in Minnesota right now. People are scared to leave their homes. People are scared to go about their daily business. And I'm not talking about just immigrants.
I'm talking about immigrants with legal status. I'm talking about people, people of color. I'm talking about whole swaths of the community that are afraid to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I'm talking about people who are exercising their protected First Amendment rights of free speech.
Speaker 2
Well, are the ICE agents who we see ripping people out of their cars, knocking down doors without warrants, shooting people? Are they distinguishing between US citizens and immigrants, or are these authoritarian, violent tactics being used against anybody who they perceive to be in their way?
Speaker 7
What we have heard starting when the surge began, in late November, we started to immediately hear of reports of unconstitutional activity. The wild use of pepper spray on crowds, peaceful protesters, the pointing of semiautomatic weapons indiscriminately, the deploying of tear gas in playgrounds and in residential neighborhoods. So it has been a broad swath of unconstitutional activity.
Speaker 2
Well, are the people in Minnesota upset about the way that the European Union Digital Services Act is affecting Elon Musk?
Speaker 7
Are people talking about that? I'm here to talk about what is happening on the ground in Minnesota and the most significant free speech issue happening in the country today.
Speaker 2
Well, we appreciate the fact that you came, and we appreciate the fact that ACLU is standing up for people's rights. You've seen lots of rights under attack. The freedom of speech is under attack. The right to assemble peacefully is under attack. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances under attack.
The freedom of the press is under attack. The Fourth Amendment right not to have your door knocked down without a search warrant based upon probable cause issued by a neutral, independent magistrate is under attack there. All of these things have become the object of destruction by ICE and by the Trump administration. I just wonder if you would reflect generally on the state of freedom in your city.
Speaker 7
I can tell you that it feels like the rule of law is under siege in Minnesota.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. Five minutes.
Speaker 9
Just an inquiry of the chair, I guess, before I ask my questions. I was wondering, is it possible, chairman, to bring back Alejandro Mayorkas before the committee so that we I realized that the impeachment process certainly was explored and failed. But it'll be great to know how he sat before this committee and deceived Mister Trevor.
Speaker 2
Point of order? Is the gentleman used to give his time, or is this a parliamentary inquiry? I'm not quite sure what's going on.
Speaker 1
And systematically, his time should be running. It's five minutes. It's okay.
Speaker 9
I'm just wondering if we could get the secret the former secretary before the committee, because he systematically opened the border to illegals from 2021 to 2024 for a purpose I suppose is, securing some type of new political base. And Minneapolis never happens if it wasn't for Biden, my orcs. And the elected officials have pretended that opening the border to illegal criminals for five years wouldn't have to be reversed and cleaned up at some point. I just think it'd be interesting if the committee could bring him back. Mister Linihan, to my knowledge, you were the first person arrested by the UK government over tweets, but this could have happened to any American resident who uses social media to discuss politics.
Isn't that right? I mean, if somebody was on their way back from the UK and suddenly arrived at Heathrow, they could be arrested too even if they were an American citizen.
Speaker 5
Can't really speak to that, but I wasn't the first. There's been many women arrested, because transactivists have reported them to the police before me. As far as America goes, I don't think they would like the publicity of arresting an American national in the UK, but we really only have that to depend on. You know? They just choose not to do it at the moment.
So, yeah, I think that there is a general danger of people being affected by, you know, really quite random rules on speech. Something that, like, saying that there are two sexes used to be something we all believed. I believe Mister Raskin possibly even believed it. But nowadays, there are people pretending not to believe that there are two sexes. And it is a, it is it's something that destroyed my whole career and life that I insisted on the truth.
So, yeah, we can't rely on the kind of mood of governments being affected by incoherent liberal orthodoxies. I'm sorry. It's not a great answer to No.
Speaker 9
No. It's very good. Thank you. Mister Price, why should Americans care about Graham Linion's arrest? I
Speaker 4
I think they should cover this. It shows very clearly what's happening in Europe. What we're talking about is European laws now being exported by the European Union via content moderation rules across the world. That's what is going on now. So American speech is already being affected.
And I've in my written statement, you'll see a sample of some of the really quite draconian and bizarre laws that we have in Europe when it comes to speech. So that type of legal system is now being pressed down via these digital content moderation rules into American speech. And for Graham and for Pivey, you can see very clearly that these laws aren't theoretical. They put them into force, and it means people are arrested. They're interrogated.
Their freedom is taken away. Pivey has faced a six-year court battle to get to this point. Graham undoubtedly is in their crosshairs for more action in the future, which means that, really, we just don't know, as we say, that the extent of the chilling effect is enormous in Europe. And we exporting that globally via EU digital regulation is should be a real concern for this committee. And indeed, it is.
Thanks to your investigations.
Speaker 9
So a recent report by the House Judiciary Committee shows evidence that the person in charge of enforcing the Digital Services Act was also concerned about enforcement of the DMA, the Digital Markets Act. Should we be concerned that the EU regulators could be using the threat of additional fines under the DMA to compel compliance with its global censorship regime?
Speaker 4
Certainly. One way to look at it, I think, is that you have to imagine these concentric circles, and at the center is speech. Speech is the greatest threat to the European Union at this point. Being openly able to criticize the various escalating crises in Europe is the worst thing that they can do. And at the moment, x and to a great to a growing extent, Meta where that conversation is being had.
They will use other forms of weapon outside of that to attack companies allowed. There is a huge amount of regulation. Over the last ten years, they've introduced, including the Digital Markets Act, the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR, and it's growing all the time. So if they don't start an investigation under the Digital Services Act, they have other options. But I think at the core of this is an antipathy and hatred of free speech, which they want to globalize in order to protect their power in Europe.
Speaker 1
There's 120,000,000 reasons why DMA is a concern to America. I mean, we know what's going on. Mister chairman, has unanimous consent.
Speaker 2
Thank you. I've got two quick QCs. One is, from tech policy press, how the House Judiciary GOP misread Europe's a €120,000,000x decision.
Speaker 2
And then I'm wondering if it's possible for us just to incorporate by reference and resubmit everything that we had at the last hearing, since this is essentially duplicative of what we did last time, and just it's more environmentally responsible just to have it resubmitted rather than.
Speaker 1
As long as that's not a problem, I can check with our parliamentary. As long as that's not a problem, good job. Without objection, we can thank.
Speaker 1
Do that, it saves us time. And now is it mister Nadeau, a gentleman from New York, is recognized?
Speaker 10
Mister chairman, mass federal agents are wreaking havoc in our streets and killing our citizens. The Trump administration has launched a brutal and reckless campaign to strike fear in immigrant communities, conducting warrantless raids, pulling elderly people from their homes without judicial warrants, tearing children away from their parents, and taking the lives of American citizens who are exercising the First Amendment rights to protest and to shine a light on the horrors unfolding in their communities. It's no wonder the Republican majority wants to change the subject and distract from its utter failure to perform oversight over the Trump administration's lawless and deadly policies. But it is absolutely galling that they have called yet another hearing on alleged threats to free speech in Europe, while they stay silent about the greatest threat to free speech on either side of the Atlantic, the president of the United States. From the earliest days of his administration, the president has conducted a full-scale assault on the First Amendment, targeting news organizations, individual journalists, individual students, and even comedians who would dare challenge him or his policies.
Any news organization that publishes unflattering coverage or any journalist who asks a question he does not like is at risk. He has tried to ban the Associated Press from the Oval Office because it refuses to use the absurd name Gulf of America. He has used such prestigious outlets as the BBC, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal for billions of dollars apiece because they have reported true and critical information. He is hoping that they will be intimidated and will follow the cowardly examples set by CBS and ABC's corporate owners who settled baseless lawsuits. CBS's parent company was handsomely rewarded for this strategy when its multibillion-dollar merger was approved days after settling with Trump.
But the threats to CBS continued just last month when the White House press secretary relayed a message directly from Donald Trump to a CBS anchor who had just conducted an interview with the president that if they did not air the full interview, then, quote, we'll sue your ass off. Just last week, his attorney general ordered the arrest of independent journalist Don Lemon in Georgia for reporting on a protest in Saint Paul, Minnesota, despite a judge having previously found no probable cause to believe they had broken the law. Even comedians who are critical of the president cannot escape his retribution. We all remember his handpicked FCC chair threatening that if ABC did not take Jimmy Kimmel off the air, the FCC could, quote, do this the easy way or the hard way. And after comedian Trevor Noah made a joke about the president's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein during the Grammy Awards the other night, true Trump threatened untruth social that as he did with ABC and CBS, he would send his lawyers to sue him and, quote, have some fun with him.
Between the schoolyard taunts and the childish nicknames in his post, it would be easy to dismiss his pathetic rant as a joke. But the president has shown that he's all too serious about using and abusing his authority to go after critics. And his administration has followed his lead, sometimes with deadly consequences. When Alex Pretty and Renee Good were shot in cold blood by ICE agents, it was because they were exercising their First Amendment rights to protest and to monitor law enforcement. They were trying to hold these agents accountable, filming their activities, and shining a light on their abuses.
Administration officials rushed to paint the victims as the aggressors, smearing their names and making false claims about what happened. It is only because we have video evidence of these incidents that we know the truth. That exact and that is exactly what is so threatening to this administration. They want to silence their critics. They will use any means to do so.
They've even pressured tech companies to take down apps that allow people to alert their neighbors about police activity in their community. But while the Trump administration conducts a breathtaking assault on the First Amendment, we have not heard a peep from our Republican colleagues. Instead, they wanna focus our attention on European regulators and online safety laws. But Republicans insist that they are the true defenders of free speech. Give me a break.
Mister Mayo, the people of Minnesota have shown us how powerful it can be when citizens bear witness to the dangerous and unlawful actions of their government. Why is that so important to protect?
Speaker 7
Well, our first amendment protects our right to record ICE, and I wanna just focus in on that as a really important part of the constellation of accountability. Taking photographs and videoing of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right, and that includes police and other government officials carrying out their duties. And, specifically, the first amendment protects the right to both photograph and video police conduct occurring in public because it protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and because it protects the right to record such matters, and that includes the right to livestream such content.
Speaker 10
Mister, thank you for being here today to share with us your firsthand account of the terror that federal agents are inflicting in our communities. My time has expired. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Mister Mayo, did the Biden administration censor people?
Speaker 7
I'm sorry. Thank you for your question. I'm here to talk about what's happening.
Speaker 1
Just a simple question. Did they do it? The previous administration censored American speech. You're from the ACLU. She cares about that too.
Speaker 7
We do care about free speech, but what I'm talking about here today is the most significant threat to speech.
Speaker 1
You said that every time Democrats ask you a question. I wanna know, did the previous administration censor American speech?
Speaker 1
Well, here's what Mark Zuckerberg said to the committee in August 2024. Senior officials from the Biden administration.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yielded back, and I'm that's it's five, five minutes. Officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor COVID-19 content, including humor and satire. Did it happen, Mr. Mayo?
Speaker 7
Chair, I would love to be Mark here talking about online privacy, but I'm here talking about what's happening on the street.
Speaker 7
I'm not here to speak about that. Well, here's how I wish I was, but I'm here to work about Mr. Price. Significant threat to.
Speaker 1
Mister Price. Let me ask. Here's how it works. Day three of the Biden administration, they send a tweet from the White House to Twitter. Take down this tweet ASAP.
It was a tweet from RFK Jr., and it was about COVID. So that's how it started, specific tweets. Then it progressed to policy. We have all kinds of documents we got in our investigation last Congress, which show the policy. Change your policy.
Leadership asked the misinformation policy. A couple of teams on product policy to brainstorm some additional policy levers. So then it was broader. First, it's just a specific tweet. Oh, we gotta stop this tweet from influential people.
Then it's a broader policy, and now we have foreign governments trying to impact American speech. And it's so pervasive that you have individuals who put a Bible verse up that they're coming out. That's the progression this takes. Is that accurate, Mr. Price?
Speaker 1
Sir. That's how it goes. One tweet. We don't like RFK. Oh, by the way, everything RFK junior said in that tweet was true. Back to Mister Kiley's point, so many things they said to take down were true.
I bet Mr. Linahan would agree with that too. That's how it goes. Sometimes the thing they wanna censor is the truth. That's how this works. This is oh, by the way, mister Linha, when they arrested, were there cameras there?
I'm just curious. No. How about you, doctor? When you were charged, how was that, how did that happen? Let me go back for a second.
I was curious about this too, mister Lin, Linden. When you were apprehended at Heathrow Airport, what did police officers say? What did they say to you? Did they say no? Were they coming in aggressively?
Did they say, hey, man? We're sorry. This is ridiculous. We gotta do our, you know? How did that go down?
Speaker 5
I got that impression that they felt a bit embarrassed about it. Yeah. I mean, I think, basically, the UK police are now in this situation where they are trying to contain every problem that Kier Starmer doesn't wanna talk about, and that's all they do. Yeah. You know, we can't get burglaries investigated and rapists put in prison, but, we can get
Speaker 1
The police. They can arrest a comedian who tweeted something in the United States who's not even a UK citizen. They can do that. Yeah. And the police was like, oh, dude, sorry about this.
We gotta do it. Yeah.
Speaker 1
Was it the same with you, is that right? Mean, did they say maybe I'm wrong, but that'd be my guess.
Speaker 6
Yes. My process started over six years ago, and there was a pride parade in Finland, and my church, the leadership of the church decided to support that parade also financially.
Speaker 6
And it was a shock to me. And, I was afraid that this would undermine people's trust in the Bible. And, then it is not only about marriage or sex, but also about salvation of people. And that's why I wrote that Twitter update where I took a yeah. Voter from the Bible and made a question to the leadership of the church.
Yep. After that, some citizen made a criminal complaint about my Twitter update. Had the police started?
Speaker 6
Police started to investigate the case. And I was then interrogated by police in a small police room, which was a very unreal situation because just some years.
Speaker 6
Before I was a minister of interior. And then I was sitting there. The bible was on the table, and the police were asking me very theoretical questions.
Speaker 1
If I could. I'm just about out of time, doctor. But I just wanna say this. Thank you for that. Yeah.
That's where it progresses to. Specific tweets, broad policy, foreign governments getting involved in American speech, and so focused on it that they're willing to come after a member of parliament who simply posted a bible verse. And they know it's wrong, as evidenced by the police who said, like, dude, we're sorry. We just gotta do it. They know it's wrong, and we can't even get the guy from the ACLU to admit that the previous administration censored speech.
That's the state of affairs. That is the state of affairs. The fact that the guy from the ACO can't even say, oh, yeah. They did it. Mark Zuckerberg said it.
We got all kinds of evidence of it, and it's so pervasive. They're even going after people, nice people like the doctor who simply put a Bible verse online. Mister chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Could I introduce, for unanimous consent, the Supreme Court's decision just.
Speaker 2
If that's alright, it's Murphy versus Missouri, rebutting everything that you just said about what happened in the last.
Speaker 1
administration. Without objection. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Price, you would agree that a free press is a hallmark of freedom of speech, would you not?
Speaker 12
You would have a problem if reporters and reporting organizations were barred from government offices and officials if they did not agree beforehand that they would allow those officials to approve their publications or their stories. You would agree that that would be against principles of free speech. Correct?
Speaker 12
Well, it's actually not even a theoretical question. It happened about a year ago, just days into this new administration. The Department of Defense kicked out news organizations that refused to agree to allow their stories to be preapproved in order to have access to the government offices and those officials. I mean, that actually happened. And this committee has had no hearings on that, but yet it would call you over here.
And you agree with me that that is an impediment to free speech when the press does not have access to government officials. And you would agree with that. Correct? If yes or no?
Speaker 12
Well, no. It's not complicated at all. What do you think about that, mister Mayel? You would agree that government officials should be subject to the media. Correct?
Speaker 7
Yes. I mean, I believe in a free process protected by the First Amendment.
Speaker 12
Yeah. And, this committee also has not had any hearings about this administration issuing a search warrant to obtain the communications devices and computers and records of a Washington Post reporter. That was something that was egregious, but this committee is silent about it. He calls you all from overseas to talk about First Amendment issues here in America, but yet is failing to look at what this current regime is doing to stifle free speech when it comes to freedom of the press, which, mister Price, you agree is a hallmark of freedom of speech. I mean, why is it that this committee is wasting time because of a $125,000,000 assessment against Elon Musk by Great Britain for violating its rules?
I mean, this man is worth $700,000,000,000, and you all over here talking about $150,000,000. And this committee is wasting its time trying to protect Elon Musk from a $125,000,000. When we have our first amendment that is under attack in this country, you know, we've said nothing about it. News organizations being sued by the billionaire Donald Trump for saying something that he disagrees with. That's when your top government official is suing news organizations.
Doesn't that create an impediment to the exercise of the First Amendment, mister Price? Yes or no? Sir, you're very blessed.
Speaker 4
You have a First Amendment. We wish we had that on our side of the Atlantic.
Speaker 12
Well, shouldn't we be talking about those issues here in this committee rather than bringing you all, importing you all over from Great Britain to talk about what's going on in your country when we who set the standard for the First Amendment are sitting idly by while it's burned and crushed, and shattered. Isn't that ironic? Don't you find some irony in that?
Speaker 4
I think it's all the things you described. No. Mean, just this past right to appeal court.
Speaker 12
This past weekend, two members of the press were arrested. Don't you find that troubling, Mr. Price? In America, don't you see that our First Amendment is under attack, our freedom of speech is under attack in this country?
Speaker 12
We don't have that, unfortunately. You know, the court system, we have a Supreme Court that is owned, lock, stock, and barrel by the billionaire president. That poses some very difficult problems for American democracy moving forward at this 02/1950 mark of the declaration of independence from the monarchy, I'm sure that you can appreciate.
Speaker 2
Well, I'm struggling to keep up with the onslaught here. They also go quickly. Alright. My UC Twitter kept the entire database of Republican requests to censor posts. That is 02/08/2023.
Rolling Stone. Trump asked Twitter to take down a derogatory tweet from Chrissy Teigen, whistleblower. Trump censorship and control campaign threatens press freedom, FCC commissioner says. And finally, FBI raids the home of Washington Post reporter in a highly unusual and aggressive move. That's in the Guardian 01/14/26.
Speaker 11
Thank you. I'm sure mister Eskin will cut me off exactly at zero, unlike his own people that go well beyond that. Mister mayor, would you agree that one of the tenets of the first amendment, the most important part in the ACLU in its history, is the ability to seek the enforcement of it in court. Without the support of the court, the first amendment is moot as far as its enforcement. Is that correct?
Speaker 11
No. No. No. We are seeing that. Look.
I know I'm a Republican, and I know you wanna be evasive. The ACLU has sued probably in federal court more than any other entity to enforce the First Amendment in the past, including some very important things and other constitutional. So their access to the court is how we enforce the First Amendment here in the United States, how we enforce what is right and wrong. Is that correct?
Speaker 7
I don't wanna, dis I'm gonna answer the question. But what I wanna say is that, the courts are one way to seek redress and a cause of action for a First Amendment violation. Accountability is more than just that.
Speaker 11
Okay. Cool. I hear your answer. Number of different I hear your answer, but you I hear your answer, but I heard nothing when we had this tirade about a man seeking to be made whole when he felt he was sued inappropriately because 125,000,000 from a gentleman from Georgia isn't much money. I heard you, and I hear you loud and clear.
You think it's okay to obstruct justice here in America to, in fact, use the first amendment as a sword instead of a scalpel. And I'll give you an example. You said that people were being forced to flee the country of their choosing, flee the country they call home. Were you talking about people who came here illegally? Yes.
Were you talking about people who came here illegally and then may have gotten temporary protective status? Yes. Representative. I now look. It's my time, and I, well, if I ask you a question, I'll ask you a question.
The fact is you've come here for a hearing that was about whether or not the First Amendment should have a global reach, whether somebody who sent something in America who's a citizen of another country can be arrested in a third country because they don't like what was said in America. And instead of being here to testify for that, when the chairman asks you a question, you go dumb. Shame on the ACLU. You didn't protect the First Amendment under the last four years, and now you come here with the hypocrisy of all time to pretend that the ACLU hasn't become an arm of the Democratic Party. It hasn't become. No administration has.
Speaker 11
Yeah. Yeah. Well, the last one got a hell of a free pass. So, I'm gonna ask the other folks a question, which is a question. I'm the vice-chair of the foreign affairs committee.
And although this is the judiciary committee, clearly, the question of whether we can work together to enforce it is important. For each of the witnesses who came here to answer questions related to the hearing, if the United States uses its global reach, power, and influence to enforce that when the first amendment occurs, when speech occurs in the United States, that you were at that point an American person for purposes of protection under the first amendment. If we begin a process of retribution, censoring, or, I'm sorry, sanctioning, whatever it takes, even against our best friends in Europe, in order to say, if you say it in The United States, you cannot be prosecuted in another country. Is that something you believe that we should do as a tenant of global democracy that America was founded on? We weren't founded just on the question of rights here.
We were founded on spreading democracy and freedom around the country. So yes or no, to the greatest extent possible. Should we, in fact, begin a process of doing what I know the chairman wants to do and I wanna do, which is making you a protected person if you say it in America, if you publish it in America, that we will not allow you to be prosecuted for that speech in another country? I'll go ahead and start with the doctor.
Speaker 6
Yes. I have to say that I'm very happy for your support to freedom of speech. And I noticed that you all have raised great respect to the first amendment, and I'm happy for the support that you give.
Speaker 5
Yes. That would be great, I think that's a great idea. If they won't, if, like, we need freedom of speech. It's that important. And these are, I know, there's been efforts to dismiss the subject of the trans issue, but it's a very important issue.
A lot of children have been hurt. Thousands of children have been hurt. They have been received double missection.
Speaker 4
Yep. Yes, sir. I think it's a very wise idea, and there are plenty of options, I think, in that we could discuss.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. The gentle lady from Washington is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a five-alarm fire here on the First Amendment rights in the United States, and even your Republican witnesses have said that this is the model. You wish you had it. Right, Mr. Price? And yet this committee is spending no time at all on actually looking at that.
It's the first time Republicans have wanted to import foreigners to talk about an issue. But let me just be clear that right now we have a situation where Trump's ICE and Border Patrol agents are routinely using excessive force, killing two US citizens, using chemical weapons, physically assaulting and threatening people, directly attacking people who are exercising their free speech rights hundreds of times. And with respect to Mister Price and Mister Isa who seem to suggest that the courts can resolve everything, there is no court order that can bring back people from the dead after they've been shot. So this is a serious issue, and I don't want you all to be used to further some false thing about how we have to fight for free speech rights of Americans in your countries when we are not addressing the first amendment right here at home. And you don't have to just take my word for it.
I have a video to play. Please play the video. Stop kneeling him in the face. That's his face. Stop it.
Those are just a small fraction of what is happening in the United States of America. So be very careful when you come here at the request of my Republican colleagues to testify on the abuses of First Amendment rights. When we have this happening right here in this country, do not let yourselves be used. Mister Mayo, as executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota, you and your colleagues have been on the front lines of Trump's assault on Americans' free speech rights. And the video we watched is so horrific, and yet there are so many more terrifying tactics that immigration agents and border patrol agents are using against people of all statuses.
In fact, Tom Homan seems to suggest that their intimidation and attack tactics on First Amendment protections will continue, saying, quote, that they will not draw down on personnel providing security and responding to hostile incidents until we see a change in what is happening. And let's be clear that while he is admitting that Christie Nome has failed in this whole effort when he says he'll draw down 700 agents in Minnesota, that's still 2,300 agents that are left in Minnesota, four times the size of the local Minneapolis police force. So can you just describe how agents are surveilling people and the fear that even US citizens face in being threatened at their homes?
Speaker 7
Yes. Thank you for the question. I'll tell you about Sue Tincher, who's our lead client in our lawsuit Tincher versus Nome. She has been living in Minnesota for 30 years. She heard about an ice activity in the neighborhood.
She went out to the site and distanced from an ICE agent, simply asked the question, are you ICE? She was then tackled in the snow, arrested, taken to the Whipple Detention Center. And at that site, she had parts of her clothes cut off. She had her purse cut off, and she had her wedding band cut off. This is not normal, what is happening.
And I just wanna make that very clear that this is not normal law enforcement.
Speaker 14
And there are cells in Whipple specifically for US citizens who are being held, most of whom are then released without charges. I have a series of very quick questions. Are you aware of any city in Belgium where 3,000 agents have been deployed, and those agents are dragging people out of their cars?
Speaker 14
Any city in the UK where federal agents point firearms at civilians exercising their legal right to observe them? Quickly, Mr. Mayo.
Speaker 14
Are you aware of any city in the United EU where a federal agent has shot and killed a citizen, and the leaders of that country justified the killing with no credible evidence before any investigation had occurred?
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Mayall. I think the situation is clear. This committee should focus on our First Amendment violations right here at home instead of pulling people in from other countries. That's where we have to protect our democracy and our rights right here at home. I yield back.
Speaker 15
I thank the chairman. Mister Maya, let me ask you a question. Kenneth Moreno Guzman, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, forcibly broke into the back door of a family's home on 01/12/2025, a year ago, and proceeded to rape an 11-year-old girl and held her 10-year-old sister at Knight Point, was sought after to be removed by ICE. Should ICE remove that individual from the United States?
Speaker 15
Horrible. Yes or no? Should ICE carry out its function to remove that individual from the United States and get him to law.
Speaker 15
Hector Balderas Healer, a criminal alien from Mexico, was arrested for a felony hit-and-run that killed an 11-year-old boy on Thanksgiving morning. ICE worked to get this person into custody. Should ICE do that?
Speaker 7
This what I'm talking about is not normal law enforcement. Should ICE want to be really clear.
Speaker 15
About that. Yes or no? Should ICE remove these individuals who are a danger to the American people? Yes or no?
Speaker 15
Or no? Should ICE carry out its function in law enforcement to remove these people who are killing Americans? Yes or no?
Speaker 15
So ICE carry out its law enforcement function to remove people who are harming the American people, such as the next person, Carmen Fernando Morales Ortiz, a criminal legal aid from El Salvador, brutally murdered a resident inside his home in Western Virginia just one day after sanctuary politicians refused to honor the ICE arrest detainer and released him from jail. That's what we've been dealing with. That was the product of the previous administration. Now we're trying to remove dangerous actors, and you all wanna turn that into some sort of cause celeb. I'm trying.
Speaker 15
Meanwhile, mister Price, in The United Kingdom, do you not have your own level of immigration problems?
Speaker 15
Right now, there are no significant impacts by a massive increase in the Islamic population in London and throughout the NIR UK. And now, is it not true that there are significant questions about whether the UK will adopt anti-Muslim hate speech provisions. For example, a draft definition that says anti-Muslim hostilities engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism. But here's the key part. That is harassment, intimidation, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim because of their religion or ethnicity.
Also, the prejudicial stereotyping and racialization of Muslims. Is that kind of language not also going to interfere with free speech?
Speaker 4
Very serious. We have a client who was arrested for preaching the gospel, and on the arrest, one of the arresting officers said you shouldn't be saying those kind of things during Ramadan.
Speaker 15
So there is a direct connection to dealing with immigration policy and what we're dealing with from a First Amendment standpoint. Now I wanna direct some questions to doctor Rosnyn. First of all, thank you. Thank you for standing up. Thank you for standing up in the face of the tyrannical interference with your ability to carry out your faith and speak freely about it.
As you know, a number of us have been watching this very closely, and we are proud of what you've been doing to send a message around the globe. Let me ask you just a couple of quick questions. Is it correct that the alleged crimes against you, that were charged against you, consisted solely of, as you described before, a bible verse posted on social media, comments during a radio debate, and a religious pamphlet published years earlier?
Speaker 6
No. I don't think that it is right, because I have not insulted anyone. My speech has been peaceful.
Speaker 15
And at no point did you call for violence, coercion, or unlawful conduct?
Speaker 6
No. No. I have told all the time that all people are equal, and we all are sinners, and we all are in need of grace. So I do not insult any kind.
Speaker 15
Is it true that prosecutors reportedly compared portions of the Bible to extremist literature when they were going after you?
Speaker 6
Yes. The prosecutor filed up charges because of my five Twitter update where the main focus was on the bible verses.
Speaker 15
And it was the prosecution reportedly offered you a deal to recant your statements in exchange for avoiding prosecution. Is that accurate?
Speaker 6
Already in the police investigation, the police gave me two weeks' time to take away my writings, and I said that I will stand up And before these teachings.
Speaker 15
And my final point is the trial court unanimously acquitted you. Correct? Pardon? The trial court unanimously acquitted you. Correct?
Speaker 15
And the acquittal was later affirmed by an appellate court. But despite that, prosecutors appealed again to the Supreme Court in your country, keeping you under legal threat for years, even now. Is that correct? For simply speaking about your faith, putting it in a pamphlet years before, that's what is occurring. Is that correct?
Speaker 15
Well, we thank you for that. I would like to insert into the record, mister chairman, a letter that I signed and sent to MP Rasen and some others dated 05/21/2024 on this point.
Speaker 15
A war I wrote an op-ed called the war on religious freedom. We must stand up for Finnish Christians facing trial for their faith, which we described as that I jointly authored Tony Perkins.
Speaker 15
I would like to increase also several letters, that I could go through one by one. But for the sake of time, I would just like to insert them into group form that are signed by a host of our colleagues that were directed to MP Rosinen about her courage and her faith. Letters that we've sent since 2021, 2022, 2324, encouraging her and others to stand up, and I'd like to insert those into the record without objection.
Speaker 1
Objection. Doctor, God bless you for your courage as well. I think the general aid from Washington has a.
Speaker 14
I do. I have a couple of UCs here, Mr. Chairman. The first one is from the New York Times, I believe, about the way in which the Trump administration is smearing and humiliating citizens in order to influence public opinion, while sending a warning to other critics to be aware of crossing the administration. It's called They Couldn't Break Me, a protester, the White House, and a doctored photo.
Speaker 14
Second one is from, it's titled, it's from CBS News titled, ICE agents wrongfully detained a US citizen in Minneapolis for looking Somali. With objection. Next one is from the BBC. New Jersey mayor arrested in protest at a migrant center.
Speaker 17
Thank you. I understand that our Republican colleagues would prefer to distract and divide with a hearing that completely misses the moment. Just days after armed and masked US agents shot and killed two citizens on the streets of an American city. So it's important that we refocus on the threats to civil rights and liberties that are occurring right here, right now, in America. And I wanna thank Mister Mayo for bringing firsthand testimony to Congress about what is happening on the streets of Minneapolis, because the people of Minneapolis have risen to this moment and understand it better than everyone.
The White House has unleashed armed and masked federal agents onto our streets to terrorize our communities. And if you think it doesn't affect you, think again. Masked government agents are kidnapping people on the streets of American cities, citizens and noncitizens alike, breaking into their cars and homes, holding them at gunpoint, raiding homes without warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government agents are surveilling, threatening, and assaulting Americans when they peacefully observe and protest these actions, in violation of the First Amendment. They're detaining children and adults with no criminal records in nightmarish conditions, in violation of every standard of human decency.
And in the last 28 days, Trump's paramilitary goons have violently and lawlessly shot and killed two Americans. In the aftermath, the administration tried to smear the dead Americans' actions and characters, and convince the world not to believe what we saw with our own eyes. And throughout, our government, not foreign governments, has tried to silence those who expose or criticize those excesses, arresting and threatening elected officials, journalists, and concerned citizens. So why isn't Republican leadership of this committee and Congress hauling the Department of Homeland Security and Christine Nome before this committee? Why aren't they conducting an investigation into the killing of American citizens and the use of excessive force by ICE and CBP?
Why aren't they doing their jobs to demand accountability? Americans are outraged. I don't understand why my Republican colleagues are not. Instead, they're trying to deflect attention and tell us that Europe poses the biggest threat to Americans' rights. It's insulting because it is really clear that right now, the most serious threat to American civil rights and civil liberties is coming from our own government.
Now, mister Mayo, we've seen ICE agents conducting warrantless arrests, and a particularly egregious example occurred in Minnesota when masked agents broke into a man's home, held him at gunpoint, and dragged him out into the freezing cold in his underwear and a pair of Crocs, only to realize he was an American citizen with no criminal record, and the guy they were actually looking for was already in prison. How would the Fourth Amendment address this situation? Why is it important that we have warrants with respect to searches of people's homes, etc.?
Speaker 7
Thank you. The founders ensured that the Fourth Amendment places significant limits on the government's ability to enter our homes, search our persons, and subject us to arrest. And one of the clearest rules under the Fourth Amendment is that federal agents just can't break into your home and arrest you without a judicial warrant. A judicial warrant is a critical component to ensuring accountability. So that is what we are seeing more and more that is missing.
We are seeing on the ground the use of administrative warrants, which do not allow an agent to enter your home and arrest you.
Speaker 17
And if a judicial warrant is sought, doesn't the judge require the government to show that they have the right house and the right person, and that there's reasonable, that there's probable cause to suspect that they're gonna find the person they're looking for there?
Speaker 7
That's right. That's the layer of accountability that comes into showing that, you know, you're not just going into someone's home based on, you know, limited amount of suspicion or, in certain cases, in these cases, racial profiling or, you know, just thoughts this person might not be here legally.
Speaker 17
And would you agree that when folks argue that immigrants don't have constitutional rights, or immigrants don't have the right to demand a warrant before their home is searched. Not only is that contrary to the constitution, but if you take that position, then you can end up with the situation that we had in Minnesota where a citizen's constitutional rights are being violated because there was no due process, no probable cause, no warrant.
Speaker 7
Our constitutional rights and the rights of the bill of rights apply to us all.
Speaker 17
And explicitly, the Fourth Amendment says all persons. It doesn't say citizens, does it?
Speaker 17
Okay. Are you familiar with the opinion by the Texas judge in the case involving the boy in the blue bunny hat? Didn't the judge there say that using an administrative warrant is like the fox guarding the henhouse?
Speaker 7
We are really concerned, very concerned, about the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. And I know that that's something that's dear to many people on this committee. And the use of an administrative warmer is a significant erosion if it's being used to go into homes to arrest.
Speaker 17
I seek unanimous consent to introduce a Guardian British newspaper. Article, eight people have died in dealings with ICE so far in 2026. These are their stories. It's dated January 28.
Speaker 16
Thank you, mister chairman. Mister Mayall, isn't it true that there are constraints on the use of First Amendment speech rights?
Speaker 16
Yeah. There are constraints on it. Right? And it's also permissible for individuals to protest in America. Right?
Speaker 16
And people can even courts have found, I mean, these are yes or no. You don't need.
Speaker 16
If you fill a buster, which sometimes people like to do, we'll never get through this. But I'm gonna make sure we get through it no matter how much overtime I go, just like the Democrats are. People can even video police actions in public spaces. Right? Courts have held that.
Yes. Multiple courts. Right? Yes. But there is a caveat to that, right? Isn't there?
There's a list of constraints even there. Right? So, for instance, you cannot videotape police activity if there's a reasonable expectation of privacy by anyone there. Right? I'm not say?
Speaker 7
I'm not following that. You have a right to videotape law enforcement when law enforcement is conducting its activity in public spaces. In public spaces. Right?
Speaker 16
A reasonable expectation of privacy, courts have said that you can't go beyond that. They've also said you can't interfere with or obstruct police activities. Right?
Speaker 7
The first amendment does not protect interference with law enforcement, obstruction.
Speaker 16
You don't need to repeat everything I say. You can either agree or disagree. That's fine. You if there's an intention to interfere or if the individual should have known that they were interfering, their right to videotape is not protected. Isn't that true?
Speaker 7
So that's what's important is when there was unlawful speech. When it was not protected, it does not give law enforcement the right to wildly pepper spray. It does not give them a leg to destroy the tear gas.
Speaker 16
Okay. So you wanna pontificate, we realize that you were brought here to pontificate the Democrats deal. I was around.
Speaker 7
Minnesota. And it is happening, and it is being recognized by Republicans and General.
Speaker 16
Yeah. I'm asking you questions. You answer them. You can answer, you can agree or disagree, but these are very simple. I think you'll get them even because they're yes-or-no questions.
The individual cannot videotape if they're not in it, if it hinders or hinders public safety. Isn't that true?
Speaker 7
You're not allowed to interfere with law enforcement. You're talking about the high status scenario of.
Speaker 16
The law. If you are impeding public safety, courts have held you can't get it there. I'm apparently, I can't ask you questions because you're not going to answer truthfully. Here we go. Here's the deal.
Speaker 16
Here's the deal. If you are impeding public safety, the courts have said you cannot continue videotape. The courts have said the police can set distance parameters that the public must stand back from to preserve public safety or to prevent damage to a crime scene. You would agree with that much, at least. Right?
Speaker 16
You can't enter public, excuse me, private property. You can only do it.
Speaker 7
On public property. Correct? Yeah. There are limits to protect us. You can't be hypothetical.
Really broad.
Speaker 16
These are court cases. You can't trespass either. Right? You cannot violate someone's privacy. That is all true.
That's true. Let's watch a video real quick here of what's going on in Minnesota. This is not a peaceful protest. Alright. Alright.
What you got in that first scene is not peaceful protest. That is not protected speech. And if you look at the statute, and I assume that you have, Mister Mayo. If you look at the statutes here, and the courts have upheld it, something called administrative warrants where you have a reasonable suspicion to believe somebody's in this country illegally, you are allowed to make the stop. You're allowed to make the arrest.
You're allowed to presume that way. Reasonable suspicion is the standard under INA section 236. So when I look at this and I listen to you and I'm looking at and I'm sorry you folks have come here. You've seen the real attack is coming from the left on speech rights in this country. And here's the beautiful part about it.
Because they have conviction and they have so much passion, they think they're correct. They think that's true. But so much of what we've heard today is inaccurate, false, and wrong. And here's the bottom line. Conviction and passion do not make you correct.
Sometimes it just makes you crazy. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In part one of this hearing earlier, I asked our witness, Professor David Kay, what this country would look like if the majority did not join the minority in checking First Amendment violations committed by the government. And we were warned that there would be dark days ahead. Well, sadly, we're in those dark days right now. This government was built to include checks and balances, a practice that has protected this democracy for the last 240 years.
Democrats have done our part in honoring that constitutional intent. Whether in the majority or in the minority, we have taken the time to ensure that we are truly doing our job, providing oversight to the other branches regardless of the party that is governing in the White House. Well, my colleagues across the aisle commit to doing the same. Secretary Noam has done nothing to reign in her agents, to remind or even to inform them that it's unconstitutional to impede on First Amendment rights. We've seen countless videos and justified outrage after federal immigration enforcement agents shot and killed a 37-year-old woman, Renee Nicole Good, a mother, a poet, and a writer.
Operation Metro Surge continued, and protesters continued to exercise their rights. Not even three weeks later, 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretty was helping others and recording on his phone when officers surrounded him and proceeded to shoot him 11 times in the back. When protesters are literally being shot in the street as they exercise their First Amendment rights, gunned down while peacefully protesting heightened enforcement operations, targeted raids that break up families, and the oppression of their communities by agents of their own federal government. I know for a fact that these situations are what we should be talking about, not Europe, but our own. We should be focusing on the government agencies here at home.
They're impeding the constitutional rights of our citizens. From the First Amendment to the Fourteenth Amendment, even due process rights here in America are being violated. So much so that a government attorney asked to be held in contempt just to get sleep because ICE arrests have been so sloppy that her office has become overwhelmed with ICE because ICE complies with the flooded court orders coming in. Mister Chair, I have a unanimous consent request. I'd like to enter into the record this article from Fox News entitled ICE attorney.
This job sucks.
Speaker 19
Thank you. In which attorney Julie Lee, she states, and I quote, the system sucks. This job sucks. I'm trying with every breath I have to get you what I need, end quote.
Speaker 19
Thank you. People across our country are taking to the streets, asking for justice, calling for federal law enforcement to leave their communities, and demanding accountability. And this continued threat to our First Amendment rights extends to voting and elections. My home state of Georgia's federal election investigations and enforcement actions have created fear, confusion, and hesitation among voters and election workers alike. All for an election that was decided over five years ago, over a vote count that leaders from the sitting president's own party have affirmed to be lawful and correct.
These tactics are meant to scare voters and make them worried that their vote, and therefore their voice, is not going to matter. Volunteers may step back rather than step forward. That is how suppression works in practice. Not only through the laws on the books, but through fear and discouragement of participation. Mister Mayel, you have said that Minnesotans are foregoing basic daily tasks, their children aren't even going to school.
If conditions persist, how could the government's response to citizens exercising their First Amendment rights impact our voter turnout at our upcoming elections?
Speaker 7
Thank you for the question. Can I say to you right now that the feeling in Minnesota is one of disruption. Normal day-to-day activities, and we're talking about work, groceries, going to school, have been disruptive significantly. And I think that if we continue to have this presence of this federal force, life will continue to be disrupted.
Speaker 19
Thank you for that. And I contend to say that there are gonna even be darker days in our future, and I yield.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've had a lot of discussion here today about DSA, DMA, and their effect on American free speech. And while these are very important issues, I also want to emphasize the danger of other EU overreaches that directly affect my constituents in the great state of Texas. The corporate sustainability reporting directive and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive. The CSRD and the CS3D are nothing short of our full-blown assault on American sovereignty and energy independence.
These extraterritorial ESG mandates force Texas oil and gas companies to comply with burdensome reporting and due diligence rules tied to the environmental treaties we never ratified. With over 4,000 US companies affected, including thousands in our energy sector, these laws impose massive compliance costs, deter investments in LNG exports where America leads the world, and threaten thousands of high paying Texas jobs in drilling, refinery, and clean energy projects. CS three d could cost the Texas economy over 68,000,000,000 in one-time compliance costs and over 1,000,000,000,000 in potential lost revenue. In my state's manufacturing sector alone, one-time compliance costs are forecast at 26,000,000,000, along with ongoing annual compliance costs. CS3D could cost over 63,000 Texas jobs, which is the equivalent of raising my state's unemployment by 0.4%.
Payroll losses could exceed 6,000,000,000, and over 490,000 Texas small businesses will be most affected since they lack the sources to comply. Exxon's CEO rightly called the C S three D the worst legislation he has ever seen. And the ironic thing is Europe is actually shooting itself in the foot by driving away innovation, accelerating deindustrialization, and chasing off key energy suppliers. I'm glad President Trump is taking strong action by flagging these rules as threats to our trading relationship, securing commitments to limit their undue burdens on American companies, and standing ready with tariffs and every tool necessary to defend our innovators from foreign overreach. Mister chairman, I have a UC request.
Objection. Like to enter it into the record at the January 2026 report by Hudson Institute senior fellow Harold Fergot Roth quantifying costs of the EU's CSD on US industry. Okay. I'm checking. Legislative responses.
We have a great member. You heard from him earlier, Rep. Fitzgerald, out of Wisconsin, H.R. 4279. His legislation, protect US companies from foreign regulatory taxation act, would prevent US courts from recognizing foreign judgments under rules like the CRS or CSRD and CSRD. Mister Price, what additional steps can Congress take to shield American businesses from these extraterritorial ESG mandates?
Speaker 4
Well, sir, the aggregation of more and more of these regulations, and as you say correctly, extractive industries, but also in the tech space, is part of a concerted effort by the European Union to make the world in its image, the so-called Brussels effect. You're correct that passing legislation here that would restrict the ability to enforce these decisions is a very wise step. I think, ultimately, though, what will have to happen is using diplomatic pressure and indeed, as this administration has done, start to name names about the people who are forcing these things on US companies. The cumulative effect of this is extraordinary. As I was saying, it's not just simply the Digital Services Act, but all of these regulations and then expanding even further into the mandates you're describing are trying to, effectively, create a trade barrier. Mhmm.
Regulatory-wise against the United States. It's not explicitly a tariff barrier, but has the same effect.
Speaker 20
Thank you, mister Price, for you, for being here. I'd yield the balance.
Speaker 1
I appreciate it. Mister Price, is the government the biggest purveyor of misinformation?
Speaker 4
I certainly think, sir, we have seen during the last number of years, in particular in COVID, that to be very much the case.
Speaker 5
Yeah. I think often by oh, sorry. Yes. Often by reason, often by means of omission. Yeah.
It's the things they don't talk about. Just as today, people have been talking about the Minnesota fraud that kicked off this whole thing. And the journalist on x who exposed it, Nick Shirley. You know? It's what they don't say.
That's often where they're dishonest.
Speaker 1
Our government actually tried to set up, actually, not tried, did set up a disinformation governance board. Bunch of bureaucrats gonna tell you what you can say, what you can tweet, what you can post, what you can read. Frightening. And that's the same that dynamic is what we're concerned about. I bet even the guy from Minnesota ACLU, Mister Mayall, would probably say that that's not a good idea to have a board tell you what you can say.
Some bureaucratic board tells you what's true and what isn't true. And, typically, well, I'm overtime, so we'll get back to that. We'll go to the gentle lady from Vermont is recognized.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for being here. I wanted to just start by sort of level-setting here. Where are we at right now in this country? It's not good. It's not good.
And I can talk to my European guests here. My dad was born in Europe, came here after losing his father in the Holocaust, built a new life here, understands in the most deep way the importance of protecting our civil rights and civil liberties. And at a very young age, I was taught rights do not erode overnight. It happens little by little, while you're not even sure that it's happening. Norms are upended.
Groups are scapegoated. And when I look, I've spent time both in Minneapolis Saint Paul, and I've spent time in Chicago. And what we are seeing on the ground is absolutely terrifying. You have members of the clergy being pepper-sprayed in the head while they are peacefully praying and protesting in front of immigration facilities. You have members of the press being arrested, other members of the press being roughed up even after they are identifying themselves as members of the press.
You have election offices being raided. You have Americans' first amendment, second, and fourth amendment rights being eroded. You have citizens being arrested. And even before the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretty, we had documented over 170 American citizens who had been arrested and detained by ICE and border patrol, and it's gotten worse since then. And when we talk about Chongli Scott Tao who was arrested, Patty O'Keefe, Aliyah Raman, Sue Tincher, and we can go on.
So we take this very seriously. And I understand that you care deeply about First Amendment rights, but the battle that we have right now, with all due respect, is not about what's happening in Europe. It's what's happening right here in our cities. And I'm just so shocked that in the last few days too, we have a president now saying that we should nationalize our election, in clear violation of our constitution, and not hearing anything from members in this committee about that. It's shocking.
Now as I said, I've been to both Minneapolis, and I've been to Chicago, and I've seen the violations of our civil constitution and, honestly, our humanitarian rights. And, mister Mayel, I know I was able to meet with you there, and I just want to go through this again to reestablish what it is that Americans are allowed to do. Does the First Amendment give people a right to film federal immigration agents on our streets?
Speaker 21
Does. And does the First Amendment give people a right to tell their neighbors and others around them that ICE raids are happening?
Speaker 7
You are allowed to alert other people and notify people of law enforcement activity, and particularly aggressive law enforcement activity.
Speaker 7
The first amendment applies to everyone, well, however they choose to speak.
Speaker 21
Because that's what we're here to talk about. Right? So as my Republican colleagues have made clear today, they care deeply about first amendment rights as it relates to online content. And big tech is actually at the center of this issue. The Trump administration has a two-part strategy right now, and both parts require big tech support.
Number one, the first part is to censor what's online, force the companies to pull down the content showing what's really happening on the American streets. And then part two is to craft a message that will recruit more agents, regardless of qualifications, who are willing to carry out atrocities on Americans. We know that Apple has removed apps dedicated to tracking ICE raids. Apparently, under government pressure, Meta has blocked apps seeking to identify government agents. These companies are folding under the pressure of this administration.
The press has reported that both Google and Meta taken millions of dollars from the DHS to display content with clear connections to white nationalism. Since last summer, DHS has reportedly spent half $1,000,000 on recruitment advertisements. Many of these have clear connections to white nationalist ideology, including phrases like, we will have our home again. This is happening at the same time that DHS has lowered the hiring standards. I have a letter along with my colleague on this committee, representative Jayapal, that we sent to Meta and Google demanding answers regarding the work with the Department of Homeland Security in recruiting immigration agents for Trump's assault on American cities.
We're demanding that these companies provide us with answers to why they are choosing to platform this hatred, this scapegoating, and are complicit in what I believe is President Trump's authoritarian work. So the dangers are right here at home, and that's why we're speaking up in this committee, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
General Lee yields back. I should have mentioned this earlier, and I apologize. If any of you need a restroom break, just let us know or let some of your team behind us let us know. We'll do that. We're gonna go to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris.
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chairman, and I thank all of you on the panel for being here to share today. We've heard a lot in your testimony, and doctor Rasna, I want to come to you. What Bible verse did you post that caused you to be criminally prosecuted?
Speaker 6
Thank you. It was, from the book of Romans first chapter and verses 24 to 27.
Speaker 22
Okay. And could you help me know why you chose that particular passage to post?
Speaker 6
The apostle Paul teaches in these verses about the marriage and about the same sex relationships, and he defines them as sinful and shameful.
Speaker 6
I wanted to make it clear that what if the leadership of the church is supporting the pride event, it is in contradiction with its basis, the bible.
Speaker 22
Okay. And after you posted the bible verse, if I understand correctly, you were charged under Finland's war crimes and crimes against humanity law.
Speaker 22
Wow. Well, as a pastor for 37 years now myself, to think of someone that can be criminally charged for posting a Bible verse in the EU and NATO country worries me deeply. And as you've already heard from this panel today, god bless you. God bless you for coming here today to share your story. And my prayer is that it causes people to wake up to the threats that we are facing from those who seek to undermine our god given right to free expression.
We even saw just in a piece of the video clip that Mister Biggs shared of when the storm was a church was stormed right there in Minneapolis, leaving families scattering and all kinds of threats that were felt that day and still dealing with that even now. I also want to state to you, Mister Price, one of the things that brings Western countries together is our shared values. And in my view, the right to freedom of speech is one of these values. While I understand our European counterparts have not always been as gun ho perhaps about free speech as us in the United States, I never thought in 2026 we would be seeing people jailed for posting Bible verses or even crass jokes. Thankfully, high-profile Americans are calling out our friends for this madness.
In February 2025, Vice President Vance gave a high-profile speech at the Munich Security Conference in which he urged Europeans to turn away from censorship and re-embrace fundamental free speech principles. What effect, Mister Price, do you think that vice president's words had, and what signal did they send to Europe?
Speaker 4
I think they were very impactful because the administration was shining a light on the nature of the problem. This is going to get worse. We have people being arrested for praying silently in the UK. We have people being prosecuted for posting Bible verses for making jokes. The European Union is attempting now to export that through the Digital Services Act and force it on Americans, these European laws.
And they're not going to back down easily because, as you can see with the approach they've taken to x, when a company commits itself to free speech, they have to stop that because, as I say, I think they see it as an existential threat. And I'm ashamed to say as an Irishman, my own country is playing a central role in this because most of these large US platforms are headquartered in Dublin. And it's the Irish regulator that's cooperating closely with the European Commission, enforcing this. And as I said on the last occasion, I really hope that The United States, using its diplomatic channels, brings this home to the Irish government that forcing American companies to police American speech and, generally, to police anyone's speech is wrong and that if they escalate in this direction, it's going to cause significant additional problems.
Speaker 22
Well, I applaud our vice president for his speech, and I hope we can continue to remind our friends and allies of the value of free speech and expression. Unfortunately, we've heard in today's hearing, we have a long way to go. And, mister chairman, I yield back to you the balance of my time.
Speaker 21
The chair, I ask you now consent to introduce for the record a letter from Reverend Jared Weber Johnson of Saint John's, the Evangelist, Episcopal Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota, which calls what is happening in Minnesota unlawful and unconstitutional as well as a blasphemy against God.
Speaker 1
Without objection. Mister chairman, the gentleman from Washington is recognized.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from The Hill entitled poll 62% think ICE efforts go too far. That includes 92% of Democrats, 65% of independents, and even 30% of Republicans. A 10 shift in Republicans' attitudes to ICE.
Speaker 2
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask you to now consent to enter into the record this Minnesota Star Tribune article from February 2 titled another wave of departures in Minnesota's US attorney's office as 14 additional attorneys left this year.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I joined my democratic colleagues in denouncing this sham hearing, which is an effort to distract from the brutal assault on First Amendment rights by the Trump administration and its lackeys in Congress. The greatest threat to free speech and dissent is the Republican Party today. We're in the midst of an authoritarian crackdown on the First Amendment led by ICE and CBP agents who are murdering American citizens in peaceful protest, while the president threatens to sue a comedian over a joke. That ain't funny.
These attacks have escalated, but they're not new. Republicans have gutted funding for colleges and universities while trying to dictate the academic content and make it more right-wing. They've weaponized the immigrant system against Mahmoud Khalil, Rumaeus Austerk, and others who dared to speak for Palestinian rights. They've literally banned the federal government from using words and phrases they're terrified of. Like, women. Oh my god.
Diverse, holy cow. Affordable housing, who would have pondered that? Clean water, you wanna drink dirty? And equality. Think of that.
I thought all persons were created equal. And these attacks have not spared the Chicagoland region. Republicans have attacked Chicago and Illinois for our welcoming policies and illegally tried to withhold funding based on decisions by local officials. They funded mass dead squads that killed in my district, Silverio Villegas González, shot Marimar Martinez, who was here in the US Senate yesterday, and spread violence and terror in our streets. And as our neighbors exercised their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest the severe abuses at the Broadview facility, they were met with brutal repression by the federal government.
A pastor was shot in the head with pepper balls right adjacent to my district. Journalists were tear-gassed, and six protesters, including local elected officials, were arrested on vague conspiracy charges without substantial evidence. These charges and the actions of federal agents overall constitute a fascist attack on democracy. But we're not backing down. We continue to nonviolently protest, and the courts have struck down the attacks on welcoming policies and the extreme use of force against protesters and journalists at Broadview.
Mister Mayo, thank you for being here today and for the work that you've done in keeping Minnesotans safe. I deeply appreciated your testimony at the field hearing that many of us attended in Minneapolis a couple of weeks ago. Can you speak to how the administration's occupation in our neighborhoods, in our cities, and our basic freedoms has escalated over the past year, from Los Angeles to Chicago to the Twin Cities?
Speaker 7
Yes. I think that you can look at what is happening in Minnesota as part of a broader pattern of abuse that has been and brutality that has been documented in court after court across the country. And that includes the targeting of protesters and observers, and also the targeting of immigrants, and the due process rights that are being violated in the process of arrests and of apprehending immigrants. And, that's a really important piece of this conversation here, is the racial profiling and the warrantless arrests that are happening on the streets of Minnesota right now. And, mister Mayo, can you talk about?
Speaker 23
What do you take away from the things that have mobilized people in Minneapolis, like we haven't seen anywhere else in the country? What's at the heart of it?
Speaker 7
What I can say is that the people of Minnesota have been disrupted, are shocked, are in a state of grief, and they are opposing what they're seeing as unlawful, unconstitutional, un-American activity on their streets. And this goes across party lines, across employment. You are seeing it with the law enforcement. You are seeing it with elected leaders. Again, this is not normal law enforcement.
This is not normal, what is happening in Minnesota, and it should alarm everybody.
Speaker 1
Fine. The gentleman has expired. Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognized the gentleman from North Carolina.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, it's worth noting just for the people watching this hearing that what's happening in Minnesota appears to be fairly unique in Minnesota. Local leftist law enforcement have abrogated their responsibilities to maintain order, and rather they are encouraging attacks on federal law enforcement. It's not happening in my state. It's not happening in South Carolina, Texas, Florida, or even California.
So what's happening in Minnesota is a unique circumstance that is aggravated by the left, and the left only. And my colleague who preceded me as a suitable spokesman and an able spokesman for the Democratic Party, it's worth noting that his home state, while illegals are welcomed in droves to Illinois, is lured there by traditional leftist overtures. What he left out is that for more than 10 consecutive years, hundreds of thousands of Americans have left Illinois because of high costs, high crime, and a landscape that is unrecognizable to most people who used to see Chicago and Illinois as a flagship for American exceptionalism. The left has destroyed Illinois, and Americans have shown that with their movement. Doctor Raisen, I wanna start with you by thanking you for taking a stand.
And you, in many ways, represent concern that Christians all over the world fear. That is growing hostility towards our faith from left-wing governments. And I wanna talk to you specifically about what you were prosecuted for. You did not post a Bible verse in an official capacity. Correct?
Speaker 24
Yes. You did not incite. You did not advocate violence. You did not advocate for the silencing.
Speaker 6
No. Absolutely not. And I said, for example, in this pamphlet that I believe that all people are equal, and we have to respect all people.
Speaker 24
And in regards to your litigation, your case, you won your case at the trial level. Correct? Yes. How many times?
Speaker 6
Yes. It is possible in Finland, even though you are acquitted, that the prosecutor can appeal to the Supreme Court. It says this is the highest level.
Speaker 24
What remedy is this prosecutor looking for? They wanna put you in jail, or they wanna find you?
Speaker 6
They want to have, they want to find me, but what is the most dangerous? They want to ban, for example, this booklet.
Speaker 24
Well, ultimately, they wanna ban your belief in the scripture. They wanna ban your ability to cite the Bible. Yes. To believe in the Bible. Yes. And to make it socially unacceptable to do so.
Correct? Yes. And I want to make this very clear. As a former prosecutor myself, I find it grossly offensive that the resources of the state are going after wonderful people like you, while crime of every sort has increased over the last number of years in your home country. Property crimes, sex crimes, violent crimes.
They're increasing, and they're going after you.
Speaker 24
That's disgusting. And, again, thank you for your faith. Thank you for your bravery, and know that we are behind you in full support.
Speaker 24
to you. You said that speech was the chief threat to the European Union. You can go ahead and answer that.
Speaker 4
Oh, yes. Yeah. Yes, sir. Indeed, that is how they see it, unfortunately. And what I would say is, as far as the European Union is concerned, and we've seen this again and again from the president of the commission, senior European leaders, they regard misinformation, disinformation, these very nebulous, vague terms, and hate speech as a threat to the democratic cohesion of it.
And what I think is quite interesting, and I don't want to go too far into a history lesson, but all of this started after Brexit, the election of Donald Trump for his first term, and the migrant crisis in the EU. Before that, we had essentially almost no regulation of online speech. Right. We had an ecommerce directive and a few other pieces of legislation, but nothing on content as such at the EU level. The Germans were the first to move.
They brought in their own draconian law. And then as often happens in the European Union, everybody follows Germany. And since then, we've just added more layers of this. And now it's really starting to bite because they're trying to destroy, frankly, X.
Speaker 24
And now they're going after x. Yes. With lock stock barrel. And you have one individual in Elon Musk's who whose companies exceed the GDP of most European countries. You'd think that they would welcome Elon Musk to try to incentivize some type of freedom, economic activity, economic expansion, but they're attacking him.
Speaker 4
Yeah. The story of the next couple of decades for all of us will be watching Europe descend into a significant series of crises, demographic, economic, and so on. It's going to be a real tragedy. And the only solution they have is don't talk about it. Just ignore it.
That's why they've targeted X.
Speaker 23
Mister chairman, per UC, I want to submit the following articles for the record. Elon Musk, a grok AI chatbox, made millions of sexualized images. New estimates show New York Times, January 22. Elon Musk's ex faces EU inquiry over sexualized AI images generated by GROC. January 26.
New York Times, GROC, Elon Musk's AI is generating sexualized images of real people, fueling outrage. 01/08/2026.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, if you wanna know how things are going on in America, I mean, just look at my colleagues. I mean, they wanna talk about Europe because things are going so well here. You know, mister chairman, secretary Nome is scheduled to appear here in a month, and I'm gonna say something that might surprise you. I don't think she should come.
You know why I don't think she should come? Because I think she should be fired before that. She shouldn't be here. If you wanna invite her as a private citizen, no problem. You know, leader Thun was asked, does he have confidence in her?
He said that's up to the president. Josh Holly was asked, would he vote for her again? He says, thank God he doesn't have to. That real vote of confidence there. Senator Kennedy wants Tom Holman to run the show.
By the way, he now is. Senator Tillis wants her fired. Senator Mikkowski wants her fired. Congresswoman Malia Takas says all options should be on the table for who should run the agency. Not a single Republican House member or senator is running to the television to defend Nome.
And by the way, president Trump wasn't lost on me, skipped her in his cabinet meeting just a couple of days ago. She was the only secretary he didn't allow to talk. It's time to fire her. Why hasn't it happened? I know what I need to do.
I need to remind the president who he used to be. I wanna take you down memory lane. You know what we need? We need apprentice Trump. Where is that guy?
Speaker 11
You're fired. You're fired. You're fired. You're fired. You're fired.
You're fired. You're fired. You're all fired. All four are fired.
Speaker 25
Where is that guy? What happened to him? I mean, Mister President, you had one of the most popular TV shows. Right? People would tune in weekly.
You would fire the weakest link in your team. People loved it when you fired people, Mr. President. Sitting in the boardroom, Eric on one side, Junior on the left. It was much to watch TV. You made millions of dollars firing people for a living.
But now someone convinced you firing people is a weakness. That's why ratings are down, Mr. President. It would be much to watch TV. Think about it, Mr. President. Tens of millions of people will tune in.
You bring Christie Nome into your little conference room. You have a cabinet meeting. Right? And you fire her right there on TV. Oh, the ratings would be through the roof.
Think about the hat she would wear. I mean, it'll be majestic. Okay? Let me show you, mister president, what that might look like.
Speaker 25
That's how that would look. Right? I would watch it. We would all watch it. Mister president, you fired people so many times.
They even made a doll about you firing people. I bought it on Amazon. It was $9. Obviously, it's doing very well. But, look, you take this doll out.
Probably made in China. You take the doll out, and look, it's got very nicely done, by the way. If any of my Republican friends wanna spend time with it later, I'll get loaned to them. Look. So here's the doll.
It says to fire people in 17 different ways. You go to the back. You push it. Battery is a little old. Let's see if I can find a little button.
Well, anyway, it says you're fired 17 different ways, Mr. President. Okay? So I don't understand what the problem is. I don't get it. For years, you fired people.
It was strength. Now you think that's a weakness. I mean, if we can't get apprentice Trump, can we at least get, like, Home Alone to Trump? Can he at least, like, show her the lobby and out the door? She's coming here in a month.
Okay? It's not gonna be a good hearing for her. It's gonna be a disaster. You all are gonna have to defend her, which you're not willing to do on TV. This will be very televised.
I mean, why did the president not let her speak in the cabinet meeting? Why didn't he, why didn't she get to talk? Right? Why is Tom Holman now running the department? Why is Roger Stone taking shots at her?
It's time for her to be fired. She is the weakest link in his team, and it's enough. And, again, I got plenty of material, as you see, mister president, to remind you how to do it. Just go back, go on your reruns, go find some old episodes for some inspiration. I yield back.
Speaker 3
The gentleman yields back. I will recognize myself real quickly just on a lighter note. Mister Price, do you think that the congressman might have been censored in what he said and what he did if it was up to the EU?
Speaker 4
Yes, sir. Under German legislation, he's engaged in criminal insult of a politician.
Speaker 4
He might well have been violating electoral disinformation, which would mean that the EU's watchdog on electoral disinformation will be following. Luckily, he's in Florida, of course, and he can evoke the First Amendment.
Speaker 3
Mind the gentleman from Florida. This is not his time, that he had his time. I thank the gentleman. I don't know where to begin, but let me begin by we how do I say this? I really wanna try to be a little friendlier to the other side here, but it's always politics twenty four seven.
The damn hearing isn't about politics. Quite frankly, it isn't about Minnesota, particularly. It isn't about that issue. Is that issue worthy of discussion? Absolutely.
But the issue here was the threat to America's freedom by foreign countries. Now just in case anybody needs a reminder, I don't think we do. We got a real lot of smart people in this room. American men and women died so that we have the freedom of speech. American men and women were willing to give up everything, so we have that freedom.
This is a big deal. And I it's always the politics of the day on the other side. It's always whatever is the hot issue, but nothing to do with what the hearing is about. And the hearing is important because we really could lose our freedoms. We have other countries controlling the hard-fought freedoms of the United States of America.
It's terrible. It's awful. And that's why we're having this hearing. And I thank you all for being here. Mister Mao, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but you're from the ACLU.
You're a really smart guy. You know your stuff. Right? You're pretty smart. I mean, if I ask you a question, other they wanted you to talk about Minnesota because, God forbid, we talk about the real issue.
But you should be able to answer issues of the loss of freedom, whether you're liberal, conservative, Republican, or Democrat, socialist, progressive. I don't care what you are. You should have the right to speak about what you believe. If you're a Christian, you should be able to have that right. If you're Islamic, you should be able to have that right.
That's what this hearing is about. And most of all, Mister Mayo, the hearing is about whether you are an American and you have that right. It's not just we need another politician here talking about politics. We need somebody that's gonna tell us what that freedom really means, and what the First Amendment really means. Mister Price, I'm gonna ask you a few questions.
I just need yeses or nos because I don't wanna not run out of time. Yes or no. Major social media platforms generally apply one global set of content moderation rules worldwide. We're part of globalism now. We're all the same.
Yes or no? Yes. Because platforms rely on global rules, global, not American, rules. Forgive me. I know some of us are in America, but I want to talk about America.
Global rules, changes to those rules affect users and people that cherish freedom in America. It affects us. Yes or no?
Speaker 3
Under the Digital Services Act, platforms can be fined up to 6% of their global revenue for non-compliance. Yes or no?
Speaker 3
That how that boy, that's a real effective way to stop freedom and freedom of speech. That's what we're supposed to be talking about today. Not all this other stuff. We can have it here. We are gonna have Christine Nome.
We are gonna have the attorney general. We are gonna have other hearings. We may have a hearing on Minnesota. I don't, and we'll talk about those issues then. But let's talk about this big bad issue that threatens the very foundation of America and American freedom, for God's sake.
Yes or no? Are the threats of fines that large designed to pressure platforms to over censor speech to avoid getting punished in that way.
Speaker 3
Yes or no. When Americans are censored because of foreign government pressure, they have no ability. Talk about taxation without representation. This is worse. You lose your freedom of speech, and you have no ability to get those people out of office.
They're in another country. They're not liable to you at all. But you have to acquiesce to them. Yes or no?
Speaker 3
I know. It's scary. If Americans are losing their speech rights because of laws written overseas, then this is not just a tech issue. This is not some boring issue that people wanna put in a closet somewhere, where people yawn and forget about it. There's freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the way to raise your family the way you want to, all the freedoms that we cherish in America.
Yes or no?
Speaker 3
Is it a direct attack on American sovereignty, and shouldn't we do everything we can to stop it?
Speaker 3
That's the bottom line here, ladies and gentlemen. This is a big deal. I'm sorry for what you went through. God knows. I mean, it doesn't matter if they agree with your face.
It's your face, and it's your right to represent that face. And you shouldn't go to jail, and you shouldn't be fined, and you shouldn't be embarrassed, and you shouldn't be censored. Damn it. We're sick of it. And so instead of talking about that, which is an area we should all agree on, Republican and Democrat, what do we do?
We avoid it, we go to the political issues of the day. Every hearing.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, I think that the gentleman's time has expired by 49 seconds.
Speaker 3
My time has expired. Yes. And I think the real chairman's gonna take over now.
Speaker 1
We have about 20 minutes. You can all hang with us twenty minutes, that'd be great. I think we're gonna recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin and then Miss Hageman, the gentleman from South Carolina, and then Mister Andre from Missouri. So, gentlemen, Wisconsin is recognized.
Speaker 26
Sure. Thanks. I'm very glad we're having this hearing. I think it's a very scary hearing, not only because our platforms can be affected by laws abroad, but frequently, what happens in the United States happens in, or I guess I'd say the decline in the United States right now that we see in our culture sometimes follows a decline in Europe. And when we hear what's going on in Europe today, we have to be really careful about what's gonna happen in this country.
When I think that last time a presidential candidate ran, got 48% of the vote after the administration she was in tried to set up a disinformation governance board. I mean, once that was done, that probably should have been in Timbuktu for a long time. But in any event, Mister Rice, could you give?
Speaker 26
Some more, just quick examples? I'm gonna yield to the my chairman. Some quick examples, egregious examples, so the American listening public can know the type of speech they are banning in what used to be the wonderful bastion of freedom, Europe.
Speaker 4
Yes, sir. Well, we our my client here beside me, Pavi Rasnin, has given a very good account of what's happened to her. And we were, myself and my colleague, Paul Coleman, were very honored to stand beside her in her Supreme Court hearing. But that's just one part of it. In The United Kingdom, in London where I'm living at the moment, we have a situation where people are being criminally prosecuted for praying silently, for offering to have conversations with people in public places.
Speaker 4
I think that is a very accurate way of describing it. Yes. We have situations where people are being prosecuted for reading scripture when other people find it offensive, particularly people from the Islamic community, and they make criminal complaints. We act for those as well. We have a client, for example, Rose Daugherty in Scotland, who held a sign saying, I'm here to talk if you want, and five police officers arrived to arrest, detain, and search her for breaching Scottish law in relation to that.
There are many examples. I've given some statistics in my written testimony which outlined the dire state of affairs. And I think it's entirely correct what Vice President Vance said when he was in Munich, that we now have a civilizational divide opening up between Europe and the United States. That would be bad enough for us on our own if it wasn't for the fact that the European Union is trying to impose it on you as well by virtue of these tech regulations, such as the DSA.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for yielding. Mister Price, why are they really going after X?
Speaker 4
Sir, it's my view that they're going after x because x has decided to take a maximalist position of free speech to have the most possible free speech, and that's inimical to their view, which is that we cannot have free speech.
Speaker 1
The left love Elon Musk until he spent what did he say? I didn't spend $50,000,000,000 to buy Twitter. I spent $50,000,000 to save the First Amendment. So they loved him before he bought X and said, I'm going to honor the First Amendment and respect the First Amendment. Is that would you agree, Mr. Lincoln?
Speaker 5
Yes. And, the effect of all these policies in Europe is I'll give you one example. In Dublin recently, there were riots, and I've never seen riots in Dublin in my life. You know? This is because people cannot speak honestly about the thing that matters most to them at the moment, which is unchecked immigration.
You know? And that frustration and the kind of silencing of alternative voices is what's leading, I think, to things like riots. And I think long-term, we could see societal collapse. I really do think that it's a possibility in some countries.
Speaker 1
In last congress, we had a journalist from Canada, Rupert Supramagne, come here, testified. She had covered the trucker crisis in Canada back during COVID. She'd covered that and been censored for her as a journalist. Yes. And she sat right there and said the same thing you did.
She said the hallmark of Western civilization is free debate, free expression. Yes. And to your point, if you don't have that, the alternative is scary. Right? Yeah.
Because you can't settle the then disputes, don't get settled via debate. They get settled via some other way. And that's the scary thing. And that is what is so frustrating. Let I mean, the DOJ, the SEC, the FTC all go after Elon Musk here in The United States after he buys Twitter, and now we got Spain, The UK, Ireland all going after him, France going after him, and the EU.
Never before when he was on the left, and then but soon as he comes out for free speech.
Speaker 1
Free expression, here comes the government. Scary, scary world. And, again, thank you all, for I do have to run. I apologize. We're let someone else chair.
We are down to the last 20 minutes. Before I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, I want to say thank you all for coming. We appreciate it. And doctor, thank you. That many people have said it, but the courage that you've shown and, frankly, the courage Mister Linda Han has shown when your attack for speaking your mind, for God bless you.
We really appreciate you all being here, mister Price. And, Mr. Maywell, we appreciate you. We will all have you all back at some point as well. With that, I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina for five minutes.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it ironic that my Republican colleagues are spending this committee's time talking about an imagined threat of Europe to America's freedom of speech and innovation. Never has freedom of speech in this country been more under threat, maybe since the Alien and Sedition Acts. But the threat isn't coming from Brussels. It's coming from inside the White House and the president's cabinet.
We're seeing this administration send mask-wearing paramilitary forces to cities whose leaders have stood up to the president. We're seeing these agents use the excuse of immigration enforcement to execute American citizens in the street for exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. And if you're executed without trial, don't worry. The administration's chief propagandist will make up the reason why you deserved it ten minutes after the news breaks. Probably because you committed domestic terrorism by filming them.
Even Saturday Night Live had a good time with that last weekend or helping a woman up who had been pushed to the ground. In my state of North Carolina, ICE and CBP descended on cities, snatching up people based on the color of their skin or because of where they worked, frequently US citizens. And it's not just Republicans in the federal executive branch that are going after freedom of speech. When ProPublica was researching a story on how Paul Newby, the chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, politicized a once impartial and respected institution. The spokesman for the North Carolina Republican Party told ProPublica that, quote, I'm sure you're aware of our connections with the Trump administration, and I'm sure they would be interested in this matter.
And I would strongly suggest you drop this story. The Trump administration called Renee Good and Alex Pretty agitators and domestic terrorists. They've used rubber bullets, real bullets, tear gas, and military equipment against peaceful protesters. The administration is calling everyday Minnesotans who record ICE and CBP officers agitators. Mister Mayel, does recording immigration enforcement agents make someone an agitator?
Speaker 27
Does delivering meals to neighbors too scared to leave their home make someone an agitator?
Speaker 27
Does standing outside a school pickup line to make sure your child's friend doesn't get abducted make someone a domestic terrorist?
Speaker 7
My understanding of the definition of domestic terrorism does not match any of what we have seen.
Speaker 7
Our state is under siege in a way that we have not seen, certainly not in my lifetime. And free speech is under threat in a way that in the most significant way that we have seen in our lifetime, and the rule of law is under siege.
Speaker 27
Well, I really want to appreciate your testimony today. I appreciate what you're doing during this very difficult time to protect Americans' right to free speech. Every time I do a town hall and people ask me what they can do, I remind them that in this country, we have the First Amendment. And the only way we can change things is to use every single right in the First Amendment. So pull out your constitution and pick what you're gonna do, whether it's praying, speaking, petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
We have all those rights in this country, and we should be proud of our citizens for standing up against their government when their rights are being infringed. Mister chairman or madam chairwoman, I didn't notice. Thank you. I have a unanimous consent request. It's from the San Antonio Express-News, 01/25/2026.
Pete Hegseth censures Mark Kelly for saying the same things he himself said. So ordered. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Speaker 18
Thank you. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. Mister Linahan, in your testimony, you describe how the UK police identify what they refer to as non-crime hate incidents against citizens, even if there's no actual violation of the law. Talk about Orwellian. Could you please briefly explain for us what a non-crime hate incident is?
Speaker 5
It's essentially the British government's attempt to control people's speech without appearing to. Noncrime hate incidents, they don't, I believe they appear on background checks, but it's very hard to find out what they have, what they are saying about you. I was invited to the conservative party conference in The UK, and my accreditation was turned down. I still don't know why the Conservative Party overthrew it. But I have a feeling that my, you know, the kind of, popular conception about me being a bigot and so on has found its way into the police files.
So.
Speaker 18
You're saying these allegations against British citizens actually appear on your record like a criminal conviction, but there is no criminal conviction. Is
Speaker 18
Right. This sounds to me like a form of social credit score where the state uses taxpayer funds to collect information on its citizens as a mechanism for public shaming. Is that a fair description?
Speaker 18
So and then are these so-called noncrime hate incidents, are they at least enforced equally? In other words, are these targeted against people of certain religious or political beliefs or against people who fail to subscribe to in-vogue what woke ideology?
Speaker 5
Well, I'm not sure. I think, as I said earlier, I think The UK police, their main job now is keeping the people under control because too many of them are noticing things that are worrying them, things that they want to talk about, and they're not being allowed to talk about it. For instance, the BBC for ten years now has basically ignored the gender issue completely, which means that the side of the story that is, you know, just a very kind of calm and compassionate laying out of things that feminists believe is just unspoken on the BBC. So, yeah. So I actually I don't know, much about the operation of noncrime hate incidents.
But I believe because of my arrest, they say they're not going to prosecute them anymore. They're not going to bring them to investigate them. So I'm hoping that's true.
Speaker 18
Well, but isn't it a fact that the information is then often used by employers, banks, people who may have invited you to speak to actually ruin someone's life or a person that has not been convicted of any crime. But in this shadowy nether world of surveillance and observation and trying to define what is appropriate speech and inappropriate speech. It's actually ruining people's lives, preventing people from getting jobs simply because of this nebulous anti-free speech otherworld.
Speaker 18
Well, and how did we come to this point? How did a European country, claiming to be free and which allied with us, with our country to defeat mankind's greatest threats to freedom in the twentieth century? Here they are. They have now become this type of very ugly, censorious regime. How did that happen?
Speaker 5
Because they won't fix the problems that are causing the, you know, some people have been arrested for genuinely violent speech, and they've gotten into trouble for that. But a lot of people are frustrated simply because they cannot speak about the things that matter to them. And when they do speak about the things that matter to them, they're labeled as bigots or racists. You know? So, and, also, I don't think I think it's the same here as well in the sense that
Speaker 5
It's not just the absence of people talking about it. It's mainstream legacy media, directing people's attention elsewhere and simply not reporting on things. So I think there's just a huge bubbling sense of frustration that could, as I said earlier, lead to some sort of societal collapse. I don't think that's out of the question at all.
Speaker 18
I think that your warning in that regard is very well taken, at least for some of us on this panel. The first act of a tyrant is to strip you of your right to speak, because they know that their policies and ideas cannot withstand scrutiny, which is, I believe, what you're saying. They cannot survive being mocked, and I think that we're seeing that repeatedly in England, in Spain, in France, in other countries. We're seeing it here as well. We do have the First Amendment freedom of speech.
We have the right to freedom of speech. But what I have been observing in terms of what is going on in Europe is they cannot tolerate dissent. They cannot tolerate alternative views because they cannot tolerate the scrutiny that will come with allowing people to freely speak and having to defend the horrific policies that they've been implementing in their countries for the last couple of decades. I'm out of time. I now am going to call on the gentleman from South Carolina his five minutes of questioning.
Thank you.
Speaker 13
Thank you, madam chair. Mister Price, are the Online Safety Act and the Digital Services Act extraterritorial in scope?
Speaker 4
Right? Well, that's a very good question. I think there's enough ambiguity that that was the intention, in my view. It's not precise.
Speaker 13
At our last hearing, mister Farage, that you were here, mister Farage discussed the emergence of a two-tiered system of justice and how censorship efforts in the EU and the UK disproportionately target conservatives and individuals critical of their governments, particularly on issues like migration. Under the DSA, would a statement like "we need to take our country back" be considered legal hate speech?
Speaker 4
It was given, in fact, that very phraseology is an example of something that would be in some of the documents that this committee is on revealed.
Speaker 13
Right. That was in the European Commission's May 2023 workshop. Right? Yes. Correct.
In your opinion, do you think that there is a migrant crisis in Europe?
Speaker 4
There is a very serious crisis in Europe with migration. And, I agree entirely with Graham that it's fueling a lot of political division because our governments do not seem to take action on it, not take it seriously. You saw in Spain recently, over 500,000 migrants, their status was changed. They were regularized or legalized. And then almost immediately afterwards, the Spanish prime minister is announcing that he intends to launch a major crackdown on what he describes as hate speech online.
I don't think those things are unconnected. I think they're very much connected. And this is what we're seeing across the European Union as well, a desperate attempt to hold together the civic discourse by using censorship and threats. And that's precisely the, and it's very interesting talking to a ranking member asking about this. It's precisely the opposite of the tradition of this country, historically.
You have the debate out and open here, whereas in Europe, you silence, you suppress, and you arrest. Now the problem with the DSA is we've been describing, that takes the European approach to things, and it globalizes it, and it forces it on Americans.
Speaker 13
Right. So I think that's kind of remarkable. So that if you live in Europe and, you recognize this migrant crisis, you see the strain maybe on the social, the system itself. You see the money that's being spent, and you're kinda wondering what about us that live here? And you were to speak out about that, that would be hateful speech, therefore illegal under the DSA.
Just by speaking out about it briefly, under the DSA, who determines what qualifies as hate speech or deceptive content? Who makes that determination?
Speaker 4
That's made in practice by national regulators, by local law enforcement. So we all come down, unfortunately, to the lowest common denominator. And, in effect, I don't mean to be attacking Germany all the time. It's Germany. The Germans and, I mean, the UK has its own system outside of the DSA.
But the level of crackdown on speech in Germany is unprecedented. Sixty minutes did a very good documentary highlighting that issue. And because of the German obsession with controlling speech that has been now expanded across the European Union and has now been globalized, unfortunately, through the DSA, we're seeing everything set to that standard.
Speaker 13
So, in effect, this is a subjective determination by some faceless, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat that is making the determination on what hate speech is or deceptive content is or is not. Do you trust EU bureaucrats to define hate speech when they label we need to take our country back as such?
Speaker 4
No. I don't. And as I say, most of the raft of digital regulation that we've seen come in came in on foot of the so called rise of the right, the Brexit vote. And I that's very tightly connected. It's caused by that.
It's correlated with it. And the reason being that they felt they had lost narrative control. And Graham's correct. The legacy media in Europe is heavily funded by the state in many countries. Whereas with x, people can post their opinions.
They can get millions of views for them.
Speaker 13
modern public square. I know the DSA companies are required to monitor and censor such language, and violations obviously would result in fines or maybe even FBI raids and federal raids in Paris on x. Right? That's the next.
Speaker 4
Yes, sir. That's what we step. Yeah. And I lawyers are often careful about making predictions, but the next I confidently predict that the next round of fines on x will be connected with illegal content and this content moderation for systemic risk. They identify so-called anti-migration narratives or others as a systemic risk to the discourse inside the European Union, and they have to stop it.
And it's not just Europeans, and this is where this becomes global. If you're in Texas or South Carolina or New York and you're commenting on what's going on in Europe saying, you know, the migration situation is a disaster, they don't want that speech to leak across into Europe. So either x will start to globally moderate it by removing it, or we're going to see a firewall being set up in the center of the Atlantic, and that would be a disaster even further for free speech. It creates exactly what Vice President Vance described as a civilizational divide.
Speaker 13
Well, it's alarming to me. I just visited the DMZ a couple months ago, and the divide between the West and South Korea, if you will, and then North Korea. This seems like the suppression, the lengths that the North Koreans go to to make sure that things don't come into the country, this sounds exactly like where Europe is headed, and, hopefully, they can course correct and that we never follow them on this path. Thank you, madam chair. With that, yield, mister chair.
Speaker 28
The gentleman yields back. Want to recognize myself for five minutes. First, I want to personally thank you, Mister Lenahan, and you, Doctor Rasnahan, for your courage in speaking out against gender ideology. I share your conviction, and I speak out because of my own medical training and my understanding of human biology. Most concerning of all, this ideology is dangerous when it's imposed on our children.
For years, many of us have raised alarms on this issue, despite knowing that it would be unpopular. I'm often asked why I continue to press this point. The answer is simple, because we are confident we are right, and we believe that finally now mainstream medicine in the United States is catching up. We're late to the game compared to some of our colleagues in Europe. Just yesterday, a major US medical association, the American Association of Plastic Surgeons, reversed its position and came out against so-called gender-affirming surgeries for minors.
They did so for very good reasons that many of us have articulated for years, because these procedures do no more harm than good, and they are not supported by solid clinical evidence. And in response, the American Medical Association then acknowledged that it is time to stop performing these surgeries on children. That is why I've worked with the attorney general who transmitted the Chloe Cole Act to Congress. This bill would allow all victims who are permanently harmed by the experimental transgender procedures to sue for damages. And I look forward to continuing that conversation when the attorney general testifies next week.
Mister Price, I'm going to read you something that Pope Leo the Fourteenth said when he was serving as bishop in Peru. And I'd like you to tell me whether this would be considered hate speech under current European law. Quote, the idea of promoting gender ideology is confusing because it creates genders that don't exist. So God created men and women, and the attempt to confuse ideas from nature will only harm people, families, and people. And he further said, to talk about matters of identity and sexual orientation with a child who hasn't yet reached a sufficient age of development, will create much confusion.
In your opinion, would this be considered hate speech and subject to censorship and prosecution under European law?
Speaker 4
I think it's entirely possible that a prosecutor, a regulator somewhere in Europe, could see that as denigrating a specific identifiable group.
Speaker 28
Yeah. And so I believe, Catholic. This accurately reflects Catholic doctrine on this subject. It's actually, you know, actually kind of a soft statement of it. In fact, the Catholic faith is shared by 1,400,000,000 people around the world.
So, potentially, the faith of 1,400,000,000 people around the world is hate speech.
Speaker 4
Yes. Attention. We have seen examples. There's Ivy Rasmussen sitting beside me, yep. Of people being prosecuted for their religious beliefs.
Speaker 28
So I would like to ask you, doctor. You know, you were questioned by police about a message from the book of Romans and the meaning of the word sin, and you were charged with a crime, one categorized as a crime against humanity. The prosecutor even lectured you on the gospel itself. Now you were quoting from the book of Romans from the Bible considered by 2,600,000 Christians around the world to be the inspired word of God. And yet, this text you quoted was considered hate speech.
Do I understand your case correctly?
Speaker 28
So it's fair to say that the Finnish government adopted the position that speaking what you consider, in many, probably billions of Christians around the world, consider to be biblical truth. They consider that to be hate speech.
Speaker 6
Yes. In fact, it is the prosecutor general who has said and who has claimed that this is hate speech. This is against the law about minorities.
Speaker 28
Yeah. Well, thank you. You know, this is to describe the current European censorship regime as Orwellian, I'll tell you. The big brother had nothing on the European censorship industrial complex. You know, in George Orwell's 1984, the Ministry of Truth concerns itself with lies.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. In the end, the party could announce that two and two make 5, and you would have to believe it. So we have a regime where boys can be girls.
COVID came from pangolins in a wet market. Toddlers should be wearing masks. Trump was elected by the Russians, and speech we don't like is hate speech. Western civilization is in a sorry state if we reject freedom of speech. Thank you all, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you kindly. Elon Musk, king of censorship, 10 times the free speech, absolute silence Twitter users. Without objection. Mondo, Salon Trump's war on comedy threatens free speech for all Americans.
Speaker 2
And, aclu.org, 09/16/2025. Trump is firing federal workers over beliefs he does not like.
Speaker 2
And finally, Trump calls for termination of 60 minutes in fresh attack on the US media.
Speaker 28
Without objection. This concludes today's hearing. We thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today. Without objection, all committee members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or materials for the records. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.