[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: EXAMINING THE
CENSORSHIP-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND ITS
IMPACT ON AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JUNE 26, 2024
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small Business Committee Document Number 118-054
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-971 WASHINGTON : 2024
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
TRACEY MANN, Kansas
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
MARC MOLINARO, New York
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
ELI CRANE, Arizona
AARON BEAN, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
NICK LALOTA, New York
CELESTE MALOY, Utah
NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
JUDY CHU, California
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
Ben Johnson, Majority Staff Director
Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Roger Williams.............................................. 1
Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 3
WITNESSES
Ms. Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties
Alliance, Washington, DC....................................... 5
Mr. Benjamin Weingarten, Investigative Journalist & Columnist,
RealClearInvestigations & RealClearPolitics, Washington, DC.... 7
Ms. Carrie Sheffield, Senior Policy Analyst, Independent Women's
Forum, Winchester, VA.......................................... 9
Dr. Mary Anne Franks, Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor
in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law,
George Washington Law School, Washington, DC................... 11
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Ms. Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties
Alliance, Washington, DC................................... 30
Mr. Benjamin Weingarten, Investigative Journalist &
Columnist, RealClearInvestigations & RealClearPolitics,
Washington, DC............................................. 34
Ms. Carrie Sheffield, Senior Policy Analyst, Independent
Women's Forum, Winchester, VA.............................. 45
Dr. Mary Anne Franks, Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard
Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil
Rights Law, George Washington Law School, Washington, DC... 50
Questions and Answers for the Record:
Questions from Hon. Nydia Velazquez to Dr. Mary Anne Franks
and Answers from Dr. Mary Anne Franks...................... 54
Additional Material for the Record:
American Sunlight Project.................................... 57
Rumble, CEO, Chris Pavlovski................................. 63
The Free Press............................................... 65
UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: EXAMINING THE CENSORSHIP-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND
ITS IMPACT ON AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESSES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams
[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Williams, Luetkemeyer, Meuser, Van
Duyne, Alford, Crane, Bean, Maloy, Velazquez, Landsman,
Scholten, Thanedar, and Davids.
Chairman WILLIAMS. I want Mr. Crane from the great State of
Arizona to lead us in the pledge and the prayer. Would you
please stand.
Mr. CRANE. All right. We will pray first. Lord, thank you
for opportunity to be here this morning. We ask that You
continue to bless this nation. We ask that you would continue
to bless small businesses in our economy. We ask that you will
bless this committee hearing today in Your name. Amen.
All. Amen.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation,
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Chairman WILLIAMS. So good morning, everyone. I now call
the Committee on Small Business to order. Without objection,
the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at
any time.
We are going to do things a little differently today
because we are expecting votes to be called around 10:30. So we
will do our best to get through opening statements
introductions, or witness testimony before we recess to go
vote. We will then reconvene when votes are complete and begin
Member questions at that time. So I now recognize myself for my
opening statement.
Welcome to today's hearing, which will examine how the
federal government is tipping the scales against certain
business online. I would like to start off by thanking our
witnesses for being with us today. Your attendance and input on
these important issues is greatly appreciated.
The online marketplace is essential for small businesses
and generate revenue in the modern economy. Business owners use
social media and online platforms to reach their customers'
earned revenue from advertising and promote products. Over a
year ago it was brought to this committee's attention that the
government has funded certain third-party organizations, which
are making it harder for conservative businesses to succeed
online.
Now when I first heard about this, it seemed simply un-
American and against what we should stand for as a country. Our
economy is based on competition, where anyone that has a
superior product, price, or customer service is able to build a
successful business.
However, during this committee's investigation, we found
out that this is simply no longer the case. The committee
uncovered a vast networks of non-profits, research groups, and
other entities that receive government funding with the goal of
stopping misinformation. As these groups attempt to define what
is true, there are many voices and businesses whose reach is
being reduced simply because they believe something that is
against the mainstream narrative.
An example of a viewpoint that would prevent the reach of a
business or publisher online would be that the COVID-19 virus
is man-made, and came from a lab. Even though this is now a
widely not--this is now a wildly accepted theory, about how
global pandemic began, this view expressed just 2 years ago
would have been censored online and limited the reach of your
business.
The issue has extremely consequential First Amendment
implications which are working their way through the judicial
system, and this hearing will examine how the efforts had been
trickling down to affect small businesses.
The committee uncovered three main ways in which the small
business ultimately could get affected by these censorship
efforts: First these misinformation organizations flagged with
content and acceptable posts on social media websites, thereby
eliminating the reach to customers if they get in the cross
hairs of these third parties; now secondly, there are
government-led pressure campaigns to remove certain businesses
from online marketplaces, preventing them from selling their
products over the internet; and, finally, these organizations
hinder businesses from earning an advertising revenue and other
income streams by diminishing a business' reputation in the
case of media outlets, their circulation.
To put this plain and simple, the government has been
caught collaborating with private entities to censor narratives
that they don't like. And yes, your taxpayer dollars are being
used to do this.
Main street is constantly working as hard as possible to
compete and thrive. The emergence of online marketplaces has
provided millions of small businesses with new ways to make
money and reach customers. However, we have found out that all
businesses online are not given a fair chance to succeed in
this new battleground.
So if you do not agree with a company, the customer can
choose not to do business with them. But when the government
inserts itself in the process to tip the scales against certain
businesses, it simply is unacceptable.
So finally, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a statement from Rumble CEO, Chris Pavlovski,
emphasizing the importance of free speech to not only this
country, but to small business upon which our economy depends.
So without objection, it is so ordered.
I want to thank you all again for being here with us today,
and I am looking forward to today's important conversation. And
with that I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member from New
York, Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
everyone, and thank you for being here.
I must admit, when I heard the title of this hearing, I was
terrified. The Censorship Industrial Complex--that sounds
frightening. The thought that thousands of universities, NGOs,
and government agencies are pondering to silence any dissenting
views is a horrifying proposition. Are they really trying to
silence our cherished small businesses? Thankfully, the idea
itself is fiction, cynically created by the right-wing outrage
machine to drum up fear during election season.
There is simply no evidence that anyone in the small
business community is being censored by the government for
legitimate political speech. Nor is there evidence that the
accused universities and NGOs that make up the so-called
Censorship Industrial Complex have actually censored anyone.
A quick look into the facts of my colleagues' investigation
reveals a baseless effort to stir up anger and fear as we
approach election season. It is the oldest trick in the book,
and a cynical misuse of committee resources.
Let's take a look at the basic claims of their
investigation. First, the major claim is that the U.S.
Government funded the development of software that censors
conservative media. However, the fact is that a nonprofit
organization had already developed proprietary software that
can detect patterns of misinformation online.
The Global Engagement Center of the State Department gave
an award of $100,000 for 3 months of work to expand that
software to six more languages: Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
Vietnamese, Russian, and Ukrainian, to be used in Asia and
Eastern Europe. I suspect few of my colleagues will be against
the State Department using its resources to detect Chinese or
Russian propaganda overseas. However, that is exactly what they
are attacking at a crucial moment in history for our national
security.
The second major claim is that this software has been used
primarily to censor conservatives here in the U.S. Again, this
is baseless. The software assembles a list of thousands of
websites around the world, a small fraction of which are
American, which have a tendency to publish what they call
adversarial content. Basically, content created to drive
engagement by creating outrage.
Advertisers realized a long time ago that social media
algorithms boost this type of content because it helps keep
users online, but they do not want to sponsor it. This software
fills a niche that advertising agencies were asking for. It is
not censorship. It is capitalism, something my colleagues
usually, without a doubt, support.
After all, if companies were forced to sponsor content they
disagree with, that would be an egregious violation of the
freedom of speech.
Let's acknowledge what this investigation truly is an
attempt by the majority to weaponize the federal government
against universities and nonprofit organizations they disagree
with. They want you to believe conservatives across the country
are being silenced by some Orwellian censorship regime. That is
pure fiction.
In reality, it is they who seek to silence this
organization through threat of lawfare, investigation, and by
encouraging harassment. It is censorship by proxy.
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the intersection of social
media, free speech, and small businesses, they are plenty of
legitimate points of debate.
We could talk about Section 230, or the concentrated
private power of just a few tech companies to dictate who seeks
what, or whose voice gets heard. We could talk about the
reliance of small businesses on these platforms, and the power
platforms have to charge high fees. We could even talk about
how small firms are innovators, influencers, creators, and
engineers of these platforms.
Mr. Chairman, the Censorship Industrial Complex is simply a
distraction. My hope will be that you will use the gavel to
bring attention to real issues facing small businesses. While
we may disagree on tax or regulatory policy or the best way to
help small firms access capital, we can actually agree that
those are real issues. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. And I will
now introduce our witnesses.
Now our first witness here with us today is Jenin Younes.
Ms. Younes is litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties
Alliance located here in Washington, D.C. At the New Civil
Liberties Alliance, Ms. Younes has played a significant role in
First Amendment challenges to the government's involvement in
censorship and social media. Ms. Younes graduated from the New
York University School of Law where she earned her doctorate of
law degree, and from Cornell, which I think we have a colleague
that also went to Cornell up here.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. [Inaudible.]
Chairman WILLIAMS. Well, there is two of you. That is
scarier--earned her degree of law from Cornell University where
she earned her bachelor of art's degree. So thank you for
joining us today. And I am looking forward to today's important
conversation.
Our next witness here with us today is Mr. Benjamin
Weingarten. Mr. Weingarten is investigative journalist and
columnist for the RealClearInvestigations and
RealClearPolitics. In addition to his role as RealClear, Mr.
Weingarten is a columnist and contributor to several print and
media outlets, including the Federalist and Newsweek. Mr.
Weingarten is also the founder and CEO of Changeup Media, a
media consulting production firm helping individuals and
institutions create compelling content.
Mr. Weingarten graduated from Columbia University where he
earned his bachelor of arts degree in economics and political
science. I want to thank you, sir, for being here with us today
and look forward to our conversation.
Our next witness here with us today is Ms. Carrie
Sheffield. Ms. Sheffield is the senior policy analyst at the
Independent Women's Forum located here in Washington, D.C. As a
former small business owner in the digital media industry, Ms.
Sheffield knows the importance of advertising to reach new
customers and grow your audience. Ms. Sheffield is familiar
with the inequities considered conservatives face in this
space. Ms. Sheffield is the author of the best-selling book,
``Motorhome Prophecies: A Journey of Healing and Forgiveness.''
And like many authors, Ms. Sheffield knows the importance of
using platforms like Amazon to sell books and products. Ms.
Sheffield earned her bachelor of arts in communication from
Brigham Young University, then went on to earn her master of
policy from Harvard University.
I want to thank you each for joining us today. I am also
looking forward to our conversation. And with that I now
recognize the Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velazquez, to
briefly introduce our last witness appearing before us today.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our final witness
today is Dr. Mary Anne Franks. Dr. Franks is the Eugene L. and
Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property,
Technology, and Civil Rights Law at the George Washington
University Law School. She is an internationally recognized
expert on the intersection of civil rights, free speech, and
technology. Dr. Franks is also the president and latest leader
and tech policy director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.
A nonprofit dedicated to combating online abuse and
discrimination. She holds a juris doctorate from Harvard Law
School, and a doctorate and master's degree from Oxford
University where she studied as a Rhodes scholar. Thank you,
Dr. Franks, for providing your testimony today.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, and we appreciate, again, all
of you being here today. So before recognizing witnesses, I
would like to remind them that their oral testimony is
restricted to 5 minutes in length. That is important. And if
you see the light turn red in front of you, it means your 5
minutes have concluded, and you should wrap up your testimony.
If you keep going, you are going to hear this. That means stop,
okay?
So I now recognize Ms. Younes for her 5-minute opening
remarks.
STATEMENTS OF JENIN YOUNES, LITIGATION COUNSEL, NEW CIVIL
LIBERTIES ALLIANCE, ON BEHALF OF NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE;
BENJAMIN WEINGARTEN, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AND COLUMNIST,
REALCLEARINVESTIGATIONS & REALCLEARPOLITICS, ON BEHALF OF
REALCLEARINVESTIGATIONS & REALCLEARPOLITICS; CARRIE SHEFFIELD,
SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM, ON BEHALF OF
INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM; AND DR. MARY ANNE FRANKS, EUGENE L.
AND BARBARA A. BERNARD PROFESSOR IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
TECHNOLOGY, AND CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW SCHOOL
STATEMENT OF JENIN YOUNES
Ms. YOUNES. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velazquez,
and Members of the committee, thank you for having me here
today. Over the past several years, investigative journalists,
lawyers, and individual Americans have uncovered a vast federal
censorship enterprise that targets American speech on social
media.
In the words of a White House staffer named Rob Flaherty,
this enterprise stems from the highest levels of the White
House and involves the efforts of at least a dozen federal
agencies, if not more. Politicians and media have attempted to
portray these efforts as laudable attempts to fight
misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation on social
media. Of course what constitutes misinformation,
disinformation, and malinformation are determines made by the
censors.
Government actors have used threats, coercion, pressure,
and influence on private social media companies to effectuate
censorship of disfavored views, including scientists such as
Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, and journalists like
Alex Berenson. That conduct is the subject of a case that was
just decided in the Supreme Court about 10 minutes ago, and I
still haven't had a chance to read the decision, Murthy v.
Missouri.
In the other cases, the government has outsourced private
censorship programs--sorry, censorship programs to private
industry in attempts to circumvent First Amendment strictures.
The State Department, through its Global Engagement Center,
has funded the development, marketing, and promotion of
hundreds of tools and technologies designed to combat
misinformation and disinformation online. They act with the
purpose of depriving our clients, Daily Wire and Federalist,
and other disfavored media outlets of revenue and visibility,
thereby diminishing their reach on social media and elsewhere.
Our clients were severely impacted, along with hundreds of
other small independent and conservative-leaning news outlets
and journalists.
Why is this a problem? First, Congress created GEC within
the State Department to counter foreign propaganda and
disinformation efforts. Congress also included a funding
limitation. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or
otherwise made available to carry out this section shall be
used for purposes other than counting foreign propaganda and
misinformation that threatened United States national security.
Yet GEC is intricately involved in the development of
technologies that are intended to and do result in the
suppression of American speech. This use of funds to stifle
domestic speech constitutes an unlawful misappropriation of
funds. It is also an alter virus action because GEC's mandate
is to counter foreign propaganda.
Second, even if Congress wanted to, it could not
constitutionally give GEC the authority to fund market and
promote companies like NewsGuard and GDI because this activity
violates the First Amendment.
Supreme Court jurisprudence has made clear the government
cannot use private industry to accomplish what the Constitution
prohibits from doing directly.
In a case called Norwood v. Harrison, for example, the
court said it is axiomatic that the government may not induce,
encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is
constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.
Another indication that this program is not and never was
about protecting Americans' national security interest is that
companies such as NewsGuard and GDI targeted primarily if not
exclusively conservative speech, which should strike any fair-
minded person as suspect. Its viewpoint discrimination and its
anathema to the First Amendment, which doesn't tolerate
government silencing views of political adversaries.
By the way, I am not a political conservative or
Republican. I am left-leaning. To say the least, I don't agree
with much of the speech that has been the subject of this
censorship program. But I recognize that it is extremely
dangerous to put government in deciding--in charge of deciding
who and what should be heard and who and what should be
silenced. That is precisely what the Framers of the
Constitution issued when they included the First Amendment in
the Bill of Rights. They understood the government actors are
just people, and in no better position than I or any American
to decide what is true and false.
The First Amendment implicitly recognizes our dignity as
individuals. We are not inferior beings who need to be told who
or what to believe by a monarch. We are capable of evaluating
competing claims in light of our individual experiences and
perspectives.
Some say the plethora of information that social media
allows to be put forth at a rapid pace requires governmental
interference, once again, protect people from bad or false
ideas. But social media doesn't change the fundamental premise
underpinning the First Amendment. The best way to address
problematic or false ideas is through counter speech, not
censorship.
Censorship does not make bad ideas or lies go away. It
drives them underground where they fester. As the saying goes,
sunlight is the best disinfectant. And rapidity with which
information may be posted on social media also means that lies
and other problematic speech can be combated that much more
quickly.
Those who think there is nothing wrong with the government
censorship regime exposed through this case as well as Murthy
v. Missouri should think long and hard about what this means
when power changes hands. Do you want President Trump's
administration funding tools and technologies designed to
censor speech he disfavors? It is time Americans recognize the
danger we face, not from misinformation, disinformation, or
malinformation, but from our government deeming itself arbiter
of the truth and inserting itself into the marketplace of ideas
so as to silence those that it disfavors. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The time is up. I now recognize Mr.
Weingarten for his 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN WEINGARTEN
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Velazquez, and Members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
Free speech and a free press are bedrock features of our
republic. The Censorship-Industrial Complex therefore imperils
our republic.
Disturbingly, the U.S. Government has played an indelible
role in fostering this censorship regime--one that has purged
unauthorized opinions and inconvenient facts en masse.
Today's hearing highlights one insidious instance of it:
federal funding, direct and indirect, via the State
Department's Global Engagement Center, of entities in NewsGuard
and GDI that threaten the viability of media companies that
dare to dissent from establishment orthodoxy.
The relationships this committee is probing and the
stonewalling it has faced should concern all Americans. GEC's
stated mission is to counter ``foreign...propaganda and
disinformation efforts.'' NewsGuard says it aims to
``systematically defund sources of harmful misinformation''--
foreign and domestic. It does so by rating and reviewing
thousands of outlets for ``reliability'' and creating what it
calls ``exclusion lists''--blacklists for brands to provide ad
agencies and ad tech partners for use in determining where not
to place ads.
GDI, likewise, says it seeks to ``reduce'' disinformation
by ``remov[ing] the financial incentive'' it says works behind
it, ad revenue. It took arms ad-tech companies with a ``dynamic
exclusion list''--reportedly containing 2,000 ``risky''
publications, including American ones. Perversely then, a
foreign-facing agency has supported entities that exist to put
disfavored domestic outlets out of business. Those NewsGuard
and GDI have targeted suggest they have been smeared and
stigmatized for taking positions on matters from COVID-19 to
the war in Ukraine, contrary to those of the political
establishment, consequently incurring financial and
reputational damage.
NewsGuard's alleged viewpoint discrimination can be seen in
the significantly higher scores on average that it has lavished
on left-learning sources over right-leaning ones--and in the
Kafkaesque correspondences dissident sources left and right
have had with its readers when challenging seemingly unmerited
scores.
GDI's blacklist isn't public, but its 2022 report on
``disinformation risk'' among U.S. sources betrays a similar
bias. There, it lists among its 10 least risky publications
nine liberal--too progressive corporate media outlets--and The
Wall Street Journal. Its 10 riskiest publications include nine
conservative or libertarian outlets and RealClearPolitics. Many
maligned by NewsGuard and GDI report plummeting ad revenues--
which GDI's executives have gloated about. Some say they have
lost traffic.
Our experience at RealClearPolitics and
RealClearInvestigations may be more troubling. RCP's bread and
butter is curating compelling analysis--from sources left and
right, corporate and independent--on key issues of the day, so
readers can weigh both sides. We score a 62 on NewsGuard's 100-
point scale based on the subjective assessments of NewsGuard's
journalists, who analyze a sample of other journalists' work to
render judgment on whole outlet.
Amazingly, NewsGuard dings us in part for our quote,
unquote, ``undisclosed'' conservative bent. The implication is
that it either dismisses the feature of viewpoint diversity
that we promote, or worse, sees viewpoint diversity as a bug.
RCP, mind you, ranks below NPR, The Washington Post, and
Politico, all of which garner perfect NewsGuard scores despite
their biases and bungles. These scores influence not only
advertisers but up to half a billion readers through
NewsGuard's partnerships. They appear next to sites in search
results on browsers equipped with NewsGuard's extension. A low
rating is a digital Scarlet letter.
RealClear investigations curates deep dives from sundry
sources and publishes our own from journalists with diverse
perspectives--some antithetical to my own. NewsGuard has
branded us biased as well, albeit while giving us an 80. The
rater would seem to see bias in our pursuit of stories and
angles competitors miss or ignore. It took RCI to task for
unmasking the whistleblower behind the first impeachment of
President Trump--in the face of political pressure, our silent
peers folded under.
As for GDI, beyond landing on its risky list, RCP may be on
its secret blacklist, too.
Now RealClear has thrived despite these entities, but the
Censorship-Industrial Complex has made a highly competitive
business harder, and placed us at a competitive disadvantage.
Our ad revenue has declined materially, forcing us to devote
substantially more time and resources to fundraising. We have
seen a meaningful drop in certain search rankings. And we've
taken a reputational hit.
Even if the risk raters were unobjectionable, the
fundamental issue would remain. Through funding and supporting
such entities, government has abridged our freedom of speech
and of the press by proxy. Taxpayer dollars should not back
those who would silence Americans by destroying our media
businesses. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. I now
recognize Ms. Sheffield for her 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF CARRIE SHEFFIELD
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Ranking Member, thank you
for inviting me today. My name is Carrie Sheffield, and I am a
senior policy analyst at the Center for Economic Opportunity at
Independent Women's Forum. We are a nonprofit organization
committed to increasing the number of women who value free
markets and personally liberty.
Prior to my current role, I founded Bold TV, a small
business which I ran from 2015 until selling its assets in 2019
to an educational nonprofit. Bold TV is a digital media news
network featuring newsmakers across politics, business, and
lifestyle.
At Bold TV, we utilize tools from Facebook Live, Instagram,
Twitter, Amazon Fire, Apple News, YouTube, and other tech and
content distribution partners to grow our audience.
Just prior to my departure, our viewership was
approximately 30 to 70,000 views on each Bold TV program which
approximately 10.16 million organic impressions for the first 6
months of 2019.
In addition to social media monetization tools, Bold TV
also maintained a website using a private marketplace ad
exchange network for revenue.
I am also an author with my first book, Motorhomes
Prophecies, published in March by Hachette Book Group. My
publisher uses ad exchanges to sell books. Ad exchanges are the
lifeblood of small businesses, both for selling and promoting
their content to external audiences. A recent survey from the
Connected Commerce Council of more than 2,400 businesses found
that among small and mid-size businesses, SMBs, 40 percent of
SMB publishers say that digital ads drive over half of their
overall revenue.
The survey also found 71 percent of SMB publishers,
including 72 percent of Black and 65 percent of Hispanic-led
SMB publishers say they could not have launched and sustained
their business without digital advertising revenue. Seventy-
nine percent of SMB publishers say digital ads helped them
compete with much larger competitors.
My media experience leads me to believe government censors
and interferes with small businesses. This impacts businesses'
abilities to use digital ads and sell products in the online
marketplaces such as Amazon, Etsy, or eBay.
For example, under the leadership of Chairwoman Lina Khan,
President Biden's Federal Trade Commission seeks to punish
authors by like myself by harming our ability to sell books on
Amazon at lower prices to customers.
The government can also interfere with advertising revenue
by supporting companies that attack the credibility of
businesses. This can occur through government reliance on
organizations, such as the Global Disinformation Index, GDI, a
media-rating website.
GDI appears to be a tool for the U.S. Government to
circumvent our First Amendment rights and censor American small
businesses. Evidence suggests the U.S. State Department gave
taxpayer funds to GDI, which then downrated conservative media
organizations, including the Daily Wire and the Federalist.
In response, the Federalist and the Daily Wire jointly
fired a lawsuit in December. The complaint alleges the Biden
administration used U.S. funds to tap GDI which has
relationships with social media giants and deep-pocketed
advertisers.
Federal election data shows State Department employees for
many years have favored Democrats over Republicans with their
political contributions. For example, during the 2016 cycle,
State Department employees gave Democrats almost eight times
the amount of money they gave Republicans. This
disproportionate financial support could indicate motivation
for the alleged viewpoint discrimination against conservative
media.
At Independent Women's Forum and our sister 501(c)(4)
organization, Independent Women's Voice, we rely heavily on
digital tools to reach our audiences. Last year we witnessed
suppression over political differences from tech platform
Eventbrite. Eventbrite banned our page, Let Women Speak,
organized by our IWN Austin chapter. Eventbrite claimed we
violated community guidelines for perpetuating hate speech.
Eventbrite believes in silencing women's voices in the high
stakes national conversation on protecting female safety in
sports, prisons, and battered women's shelters.
While IWN has no evidence, the government pressured
Eventbrite to remove our event, it is worth noting two
important facts: First, IWF has is vocally and visibly opposed
to the Biden administration's illegal rewrite of Title IX's
protections for women, prohibiting sex-based discrimination.
Second, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Biden
administration violated the First Amendment by pressuring
technology companies to suppress or remove social media posts.
In conclusion, America cannot function as a healthy
republic without freedom of speech. Commercial freedom and
freedom of expression go hand in hand. As the Supreme Court has
noted for more than a century, businesses are voices for
people.
I am grateful to this committee for investigating this
issue and look forward to working with your team in the days
ahead to ensure a robust marketplace of ideas flourishes in
America.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And I now
recognize Dr. Franks for her 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARY ANNE FRANKS
Ms. FRANKS. Thank you. As noted in my introduction, I am a
law professor at the George Washington Law School, and I
specialize in the intersection of the First Amendment
Technology and Civil rights. I am also the president of the
Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which is the leading U.S.
nonprofit organization focused on combating image-based sexual
abuse.
I am speaking only on my own behalf today. I am drawing on
the expertise that I have developed in both of these roles to
offer explanations of settled First Amendment doctrine, and to
emphasize how harassment and intimidation campaigns against
misinformation researchers, especially when it is instigated by
government officials, chill freedom of expression and
jeopardize national security.
The First Amendment, broadly speaking, protects speech from
government suppression. It does not protect speech from
criticism or competition. It does not guarantee any speaker a
platform or a profit. The same First Amendment that protects
one person's right to speak also protects the right of another
person to reject, to discredit, or ignore that speech.
The fact that critical speech may lead to negative
consequences for those who are criticized, such as a decline in
popularity or in revenue merely indicates that the speech is
effective, not that it is censorship.
Competition is not censorship. Counterspeech is not
censorship. Research is not censorship. Providing information
to businesses about other businesses is not censorship.
Efforts to convince consumers, advertisers, and the public
that certain content is false, is fraudulent, harmful,
extremist, harassing or exploitative, is not censorship.
None of this changes just because the government may have
provided funding for the speech in question. While the Supreme
Court has held that ``government officials cannot attempt to
coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views
that the government disfavors,'' the government is allowed to
speak on its own behalf, and to take sides in controversial
matters.
The government is allowed, for example, to promote military
enlistment and war bonds during wartime without also having to
promote messages that discourage those efforts. The government
is allowed to fund certain messages or perspectives and not
others.
In the 1991 case of Rust v. Sullivan, Chief Justice
Rehnquist, writing for the majority, stated that the First
Amendment allows the government ``to selectively fund a program
to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public
interest, without at the same time funding an alternative
program, which seeks to deal with the problem in another way.''
The individuals, organizations, and research institutions
that are fighting to maintain the integrity of our elections,
our public health systems, our information ecosystem, are
speakers, not censors. Their speech is more urgently needed now
than ever as we face unprecedented threats to our democracy
from both outside and inside the United States.
If there were any doubt as to the significance of this
speech, it has been dispelled by the increasingly desperate and
aggressive attempts to silence it. Misinformation researchers
have been vilified, defunded, harassed, and threatened,
including by Members of Congress--government officials using
taxpayer dollars to instigate hearings, subpoenas, lawsuits,
document requests, and investigations to literally shut down
speech that they do not like. And unlike the federal funding
programs attacked in this hearing, these actions by government
officials are not merely encouraging speech that they prefer,
but punishing the speech that they fear.
These efforts have been chillingly effective. It was
announced recently that the Stanford Internet Observatory, a
cross-disciplinary program that provided in-depth analyses of
social media's role in child exploitation and the spread of
false information about elections and vaccines ``may shut down
amid the political and legal attacks that have,'' as The
Washington Post says, ``cast a pall on efforts to study online
misinformation,'' attacks that have included ``lawsuits,
document requests and threats of physical harm,'' including the
targeting of student volunteers.
This is what censorship looks like: Government-led efforts
to directly suppress disfavored speech as well as to leverage
third parties to assist in those efforts. The harassment and
silencing of misinformation researchers, especially in a year
when a record-breaking number of elections will take place
around the world, threatens free speech and democracy on
unprecedented scale.
If Congress genuinely wants to address the threat of
censorship, it should start by acknowledging that the call is
coming from inside the House. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. As I mentioned at
the beginning, the committee--they have called for votes. So we
will take a brief recess until 11:15, and we will reconvene and
begin the questions. So thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman WILLIAMS. The committee will now come to order. We
will now move to the Member questions under the 5-minute rule.
And I want to thank all of you for bearing with us as we voted.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
We heard in the Ranking Member's opening statement that
there is no evidence of government censorship affecting small
businesses. However, three of our witnesses' testimony seem to
negate that assertation.
Additionally, we heard from Dr. Franks that this hearing is
meant to harass research groups and universities. This is
simply not true. We are asking for transparency to ensure that
taxpayer dollars are not being weaponized to silence political
opponents. Also, our committee has only sent letters to federal
agencies, no universities, or other private actors. This is a
textbook congressional oversight.
Now, though, through our investigation, we have seen
hundreds of awards that have been given through the SBIR
programs to companies who claim to be disinformation experts to
police the internet and interfere with Americans' right to free
speech.
One of these examples is NewsGuard. NewsGuard is multiple
products, one of which uses politicized metrics to rate the
media outlets based on their supposed credibility. And if
NewsGuard claims an organization is not credible, their
advertising revenue is severely affected. NewsGuard is
reportedly rated around 10,000 media outlets, many of them
small and medium businesses.
So Ms. Younes, can you tell us more about how NewsGuard
operates and how they impact the ability of businesses to earn
revenue. And why it is a problem that the federal government is
giving these kind of companies money?
Ms. YOUNES. So NewsGuard rates media companies based on
their ostensible reliability. And that has the effect of
driving advertiser revenue away from them if their rank is
unreliable.
Now, I believe that GDI is even worse than NewsGuard. And
their secret blacklist was actually revealed sometime before we
started this litigation and was part of the reason we actually
did. And their secret blacklist showed that all of the sites
that they ranked were reliable were liberal, including, you
know, websites such as The Huffington Post, which I would argue
don't really engage in the most journalistic practices of the
highest integrity. And all of the ones that they deemed
unreliable were conservative. So really shows that this is
viewpoint discrimination. Not to mention the fact that the GEC
shouldn't be funding any of this at all, because their mandate
is to deal with foreign so-called disinformation. And these are
domestic news sites that they are ranking.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. NewsGuard and companies like
them don't just impact the businesses. They rate small
businesses. They are not large enough to have an internal
advertising department often partnered with advertising
companies to help get their products or services out to the
public. Many of these advertising companies look at the ratings
that NewsGuard gives media companies when deciding where to
place a small business ad.
So, Ms. Sheffield, if I am a small business owner, which I
actually am in Texas, and looking to place advertisements to
online--to a conservative audience. But the advertising partner
I am working with is partnered with a company like NewsGuard,
am I going to have issues reaching out to the audiences I need
to reach out to?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Well, so in the industry, there is a term
called ``brand safe.'' And a lot of times, especially for a
small startup or a medium-sized business, a lot of these big
brands, like, say, Nike, or some of the bigger marquis brands,
they are not going to be familiar with smaller startups. And
so, they rely on some third parties to determine whether or not
this organization or this media outlet is quote, unquote
``brand safe.'' And that brand safe designation can really make
or break the future of a business.
As I said earlier in my testimony, that 40 percent of small
and medium business publishers say that digital ad sales drive
over half of their overall revenue. So this could be the death
knell if they are not considered brand safe.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Mr. Weingarten, in the limited
time that we have, over the course of our investigation, we
found that so-called fact-checking organizations are being used
to bolster traditional media outlets by labeling others, often
small- and medium-sized outlets as untrustworthy if they
question the accepted narratives. So this creates a conflict of
interest for many news organizations; either get in line and
stop asking tough questions, or lose out on advertising
revenue, potentially get out of the business.
So based on the output of Newsguard's and similar
companies' ratings, which narratives do you see being silenced,
and do you think this is a creating an environment where those
in power are not being held accountable?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. I think there is substantial evidence to
suggest that views, for example, with respect to virtually
every aspect of COVID-19 from origins to mitigation measures
would lead a site to get downgraded to the extent they took
positions that were antithetical to those of public health
authorities. We have also seen this as well with respect to the
war in Ukraine.
And I think what is so chilling about this ultimately is if
this entire disinformation, counter-disinformation--so-called
ecosystem existed in and of itself without any sort of
government backing, I think we would probably still find it
objectionable, but we would say there is a First Amendment
right to it, it is protected.
The problem here is that government is conferring its
blessing on this entire ecosystem, which clearly exists to
chill speech officials don't like.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. And I now recognize the
Ranking Member for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Franks, have you seen any evidence that ties money from
federal awards to the ratings of American media outlets by GDI?
Ms. FRANKS. I have not.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. In recent testimony, you highlight the real-
world consequences of the investigations launched by
Congressional Republicans, that by the way, are basically
partisans. For instance, according to your subpoena, you asked
for any awards related to the National Democratic Institute and
the role combating misinformation overseas. Yet your subpoena
voids asking for any records related to the International
Republican Institute, which does similar work overseas, and has
also gotten awards from GEC. Let's be serious about this issue.
Dr. Franks, can you discuss how this investigation, the
legal expenses they create, and harassment they invite can have
a chilling effect on the legitimate political speech of
individuals?
Ms. FRANKS. Yes, particularly through the use of things
like very burdensome subpoenas, as you have mentioned, invasive
record requests for massive amounts of private communications,
work product, including student volunteers, in some cases,
demands for closed-door interrogations of researchers,
expensive lawsuits that take not only money, but time away from
researchers and their important work. Those who are involved in
these investigations have, at times, lied about researchers'
work, have vilified them in the press.
They have made false accusations about them on social
media, which has led to extensive harassment and threats by
online mobs who have published their private information in
some cases, have expressed threats against their family
members, and made many of these researchers fear for their
safety. And in response, many of those individuals have closed
down their social media accounts entirely. They have canceled
speaking engagements, they have withdrawn from their work, they
have withdrawn from civic participation. And this is, in fact,
what it looks like to see government coercion and actual
silencing.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. Mechanisms that protect our
national security are being threatened, while organizations
that combat misinformation by our adversaries are shutting
down. Can you broadly discuss the spread of information warfare
from our adversaries, specifically during this upcoming
election season?
Ms. FRANKS. Broadly speaking, information warfare really
thrives on social tensions, it thrives on misinformation, it
thrives on a polluted information ecosystem. And so, when we
are concerned about foreign interference with our elections and
other processes, we have to be concerned about the integrity of
that information environment. And so the attempts to shut down
research on mis- and disinformation makes us more vulnerable to
those kinds of attacks. And these kinds of threats are only
escalating with the advancement of AI.
We have already seen evidence that AI is being used by
foreign sources to make their campaigns of disinformation and
misinformation and sowing political division even more
effective.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Social media algorithms tend to promote
content that is sensational or divisive, because those posts
tend to drive more engagement. If advertisers choose to
withdraw their ads from posts because they do not want to be
associated with the message, is that censorship?
Ms. FRANKS. It is not censorship, and it is, in fact, quite
the opposite. It is the First Amendment protected right to
choose to disassociate from speech with which you disagree.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Is there any evidence of social media
algorithms favoring one political viewpoint over another?
Ms. FRANKS. To the extent that there is evidence of
partisan special treatment, that actually runs in the opposite
direction. There have been multiple studies conducted by social
media platforms and others that have indicated that, in fact,
it is conservative speech, right-wing speech, that receives
preferential treatment. And that even at times Meta, for
instance, on its Facebook service decided to change its
algorithm so that it could boost right-wing content over left-
wing content.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. In my colleagues' quest to be the ultimate
victim, they often come close to recognizing a real problem,
the power of the counsel of social media platforms to control
what is essentially the entire information flow in the country.
What material steps could we take to enrich competition in
social media and create more transparency among them?
Ms. FRANKS. If we are really concerned about that
conglomeration, that consolidation of power in these few
companies, one of the first things we would need to do is to
reform Section 230(C)(1), which is providing just absolutely
unconscionable amount of immunity to social media platforms for
engaging in harmful facilitation of content.
We could also encourage the Federal Trade Commission to do
more oversight and regulation of unfair and deceptive
practices. And we could also provide funding for local media,
for other news sources, for other kinds of interactions that
people could engage in for specific participation in public
discourse.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. I now
recognize Representative Meuser from the great State of
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses as well. You know, interesting and disturbing at the
same time. All right. We appreciate the honesty of how there
are those on this panel that feel that government has the right
to choose what information should be permitted to be published
on social media.
Now certainly, I think we agree at a private sector or the
confines of your own home or just personally, you can choose
not to read a particular newspaper or choose not to provide
information to your children, and the private sector within a
business. But the government, the United States Government has
the right to pull information that it disagrees with? Am I
hearing this right?
Ms. Franks, we are going to get to that. Are we actually
hearing that right?
So let me ask you this. Thank you again for your honesty.
So let me--Ms. Sheffield, the advertisers are being pushed from
free speech platforms. Can you discuss how those censorship
efforts are affecting, you know, the implications for your
small businesses?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Yes, as we have heard from my colleague and
also from litigation from other outlets and in my personal
experience, whether it is investors or advertisers, there is
certainly a perception that if you lean a certain way, that if
you have populous impulses, that somehow you are not considered
brand safe.
Mr. MEUSER. So in Title IX, you mentioned something about
Title IX. So if I believe in Title IX and boys shouldn't be
playing girls' sports, I could be censored?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Absolutely. And in our case, we were
censored by the tech platform Eventbrite----
Mr. MEUSER. Right.
Ms. SHEFFIELD.--which removed our event which allowed women
to speak----
Mr. MEUSER. Right.
Ms. SHEFFIELD.--about sexual assault and their concern with
being forced to be----
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you.
Ms. SHEFFIELD.--placed in the----
Mr. MEUSER. And, Ms. Franks, do you think that is wrong?
Ms. FRANKS. You asked the question of whether or not you
had it right, if you are hearing this correctly. And I would
say, no, you are not, if what you are saying----
Mr. MEUSER. Unless specifically--is Ms. Sheffield wrong in
what she just said?
Ms. FRANKS. I am not entirely clear what point was being
made there.
Mr. MEUSER. Okay. Then we will move on.
Ms. FRANKS. But you did ask whether or not you were hearing
correctly. I do just want to say that, no, what I was
suggesting was not my feeling about the law, this is, in fact,
the statement of the law.
Mr. MEUSER. And you were pretty clear. I am going to
reclaim my time. Mr. Weingarten?
Ms. FRANKS. That First Amendment actually does allow the
government to express its own viewpoints, but it does not of
course allow it to silence a dissent----
Mr. MEUSER. You cited Rehnquist, okay? Rehnquist decision,
and the draft was taking place. Okay. Rehnquist decision would
not have suppressed or censored anyone online or putting up a
billboard that said, I am against the draft. You are suggesting
that would be appropriate by the government and that is dead
wrong.
Ms. FRANKS. I am suggesting that words mean something, and
the words ``silencing'' and ``censoring'' mean something.
Mr. MEUSER. No----
Ms. FRANKS. These websites have not----
Mr. MEUSER. Counter speech. That's what we call it, and
that is what the schools have called it.
Ms. FRANKS.--they have not been confined. They have not
been imprisoned. They have not been----
Mr. MEUSER. That is what we call it, and that is what the
schools have called it. And that was what is appropriate,
counter speech, diversity in ideas and discussion.
Ms. FRANKS. Exactly what the GDI is providing, yes.
Mr. MEUSER. Is that what the GDI is providing, Mr.
Weingarten?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. The government has the bully pulpit and a
whole slew of other tools to express its viewpoint. Funding
entities that exist to bankrupt media companies that propagate
dissenting viewpoints, expressly, to me is un-American,
unconstitutional, and frankly just wrong on its face.
Mr. MEUSER. They have labeled you all in pretty nasty
terms. They labeled real clear--almost risky and untrustworthy
media outlets impacted operations--to impact your operations
and revenues. Do you want to talk about that a minute?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Well, first, it bears noting that when a
NewsGuard comes to you with the rating that it does, it does so
with the backing of one of its largest investors, which is a
major ad, PR company representing major clients, including the
likes of, for example, Pfizer, pharmaceutical companies. And it
does so with advisors that include the former head of the State
Department's Global Engagement Center, the former head of CIA,
NSA, as well as the former Homeland Security advisor.
So when it does so, it is a big deal for you to be
tarnished and your reputation to be attacked with very little
recourse against it on seemingly subjective grounds.
Mr. MEUSER. Not by a competitor, by the government.
Mr. WEINGARTEN. De facto.
Mr. MEUSER. De facto, okay. Ms. Younes, how has
government's involvement using taxpayer dollars, okay, my
dollars, my constituent's dollars to interfere with the ability
of small businesses to compete online because of--because they
may have questioned the origins of COVID, because they feel
immunity when COVID was there might be comparable to getting
the vaccine--or they have concerns about the vaccine, or they
believe in Title IX, or they have other beliefs that maybe this
administration doesn't agree with. How does that hurt small
business?
Ms. YOUNES. It drives revenue away, and it interferes with
our ability to reach the public, which they have a First
Amendment right to do as the press.
Mr. MEUSER. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields. I now recognize
Representative Landsman from the great State of Ohio for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Court did rule as
we were sitting here, or earlier, in favor of the
administration. The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a
Republican-led effort to sharply limit White House officials
and other federal employees from pressuring social media
companies to remove posts from their platforms that the U.S.
Government deems problematic. In a 6-3 ruling, the court said
the challengers did not have legal grounds or standing to bring
the case against the Biden administration because the States
and individuals could not show that they were directly harmed
by the communications between federal officials and social
media platforms.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said
companies like Facebook and YouTube have longstanding content
moderation policies that place warning labels on certain posts
and delete others. The challengers, Barrett wrote, did not
demonstrate the company's actions to remove posts that were
traceable to the government. These lead me to a couple of
questions. One is the Court has spoken.
Just to clarify, let's start with warning labels. The
government has said that cigarette companies have to put--
tobacco companies have to put warning labels on their products
because it causes cancer. And this is just a yes or no
question. I just--Ms. Younes, do you oppose those warning
labels?
Ms. YOUNES. No.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Okay. Mr. Weingarten, do you oppose those
warning labels?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. No.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Ms. Sheffield, do you oppose those warning
labels?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. I don't think it is applicable here, but----
Mr. LANDSMAN. Yes or no?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. It is apples or oranges, but no.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Good. Ms. Franks?
Ms. FRANKS. No, I do not oppose it.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Now, here we will get to something a little
bit more applicable, Ms. Sheffield. Sheffield?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Sheffield, yes, Like ``The Nanny.''
Mr. LANDSMAN. Yeah. During the thirties and forties,
Hitler's Nazi Government used propaganda, not just in Germany,
but here in the United States, as you are aware. One of the
leading causes of drivers of anti-Semitism and ultimately
horrible events, including the Holocaust has been blood libel,
including this lie that Jews killed Jesus.
Let's say, as they did in the thirties and forties, that
the Nazi Government was paying for content on platforms that
Jews killed Jesus and that they needed to be round up. Would
you have a problem, Ms. Younes, if the government pulled that
content?
Ms. YOUNES. I am sorry, who is putting the content up?
Mr. LANDSMAN. Well, this was content that was put up and
distributed throughout the United States in the 1930s and early
'40s. And so, if similar content was put out on media platform
now, yes or no, do you have a problem?
Ms. YOUNES. I do not think that the government should be
involved in censoring that. I think that counter speech is the
appropriate way to go.
Mr. LANDSMAN. So in this case, it is fine, Jews killed
Jesus, round them up, you can keep it. Mr. Weingarten?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Well, I'd want to think more about the
hypothetical. What I think is inapt to this is you are talking
about foreign-funded on domestic platforms.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Right, we don't----
Mr. WEINGARTEN. We are also talking about an enemy regime,
not American speech on issues that are politically----
Mr. LANDSMAN. Foreign adversaries don't pay for this by
saying, Hey, we are paying for this. We don't know who is
paying for the content.
Ms. Sheffield, yes or no? Are you okay with this or no?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. This hearing is about the Global Engagement
Center, which is the U.S. State Department and whether or not
they spent U.S. tax dollars to suppress American citizens. The
analogy is clearly irrelevant.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Ms. Franks, you would agree that that content
needed to be removed?
Ms. FRANKS. I believe that if the government made the
choice that it wanted to assist organizations in countering
that message, or suggesting that there were tools that could be
used so that that message could be countered with truthful and
factual information, that that would be acceptable.
Mr. LANDSMAN. I think that's right. Ms. Sheffield, your
beef is with Eventbrite. I mean, you are frustrated because
Eventbrite thought that promoting an event that bullied
children was a problem. That is how they saw it. It is a
private company. Did you take them to court?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. We requested them to reinstate our event,
and they chose not to respond. But again, that is just one of
numerous----
Mr. LANDSMAN. And did you take them to court?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. We have waited--we sent out a message to
them. We waited for a response. The event has already passed.
But again, this--the question is----
Mr. LANDSMAN. But you could if you wanted to. You have
access to the criminal justice system, the court system. You
can take them to court.
Ms. SHEFFIELD. We could.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Okay.
Ms. SHEFFIELD. And, in fact, we actually are taking the
Biden administration to court for its illegal rewrite of Title
IX.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Just be careful because the Supreme Court
just said, I wouldn't do that. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. SHEFFIELD. The Supreme Court just said this was not
based on----
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back. The time is
up. I now recognize Representative Van Duyne from the great
State of Texas for her 5 minutes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much. Mr. Landsman just
quotes from today's SCOTUS opinion. But it is important to
highlight exactly what you were saying, that neither the
individual nor the State plaintiffs have established Article 3,
which is standing. It doesn't mean that they do not have
standing to sue. This is not a decision based on the merits.
Ms. Younes, you are our constitutional--can you give us
some clarity on this?
Ms. YOUNES. Sure. Actually, I am one of the lawyers on the
case, so I know it well. This was also limited to the
preliminary injunction. They said because a preliminary
injunction is about forward-looking relief, and they hadn't--
the plaintiffs hadn't established a likelihood that they would
be harmed in the future because some of these programs appeared
to be ending.
So this is not about the merits. The court actually
specifically said it was not expressing the views to the
merits. The case will continue in the district court. And I
suppose that is essentially the issue is this is limited to the
preliminary injunction. They are not saying that the government
didn't do anything wrong.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you for clarifying that. I wanted to
make sure that that was clarified and not just cut off. The
State Department's so-called Global Engagement Center which is
exactly what we are here to talk about today had spent millions
of taxpayer dollars to silence American small businesses who do
not share their liberal, political beliefs.
The CEO of the Global Disinformation Index even admitted
that this list has, quote, ``significant impact on the
advertising revenue,'' unquote, on the companies, showing that
they are knowingly attempting to destroy livelihoods of those
with which they disagree.
Meanwhile, the Global Disinformation Index scores NPR as
one of the least risky outlets, citing as quote, ``neutral,
fact-based content.'' Contradicting GDI's rating, an NPR
staffer who worked there for 25 years wrote about his
experiences at NPR, and highlighted the level of bias that GDI
failed to recognize. This article said that when stories NPR
labeled as disinformation turned out to be credible, such as
the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop and the COVID-19 lab
leak theory, that NPR quote, ``pretended it never happened and
performed no self-reflection.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter the full
article into the record.
Chairman WILLIAMS. No objection.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. The Biden administration has pledged to be
the most transparent administration in history. But instead, we
found that they have been stonewalling our requests time and
time again because they know exactly what they are doing, and
they are using improper use of taxpayer funds, if not
completely unethical and illegal.
We will continue to expose this administration's extremist
agenda and their lawless acts as we work to provide
accountability for American small businesses.
I was stunned, Ms. Franks, that you had to say that, Oh,
they haven't been imprisoned. Is that now the bar that we are
setting? So we are fine bankrupting these businesses, we are
fine blacklisting them, we are fine shutting them down, and
silencing their voice, but at least they are not being
imprisoned yet.
Ms. FRANKS. Sorry, was that a question for me?
Ms. VAN DUYNE. No, it is not a question. I am just
flabbergasted at your statement.
Ms. FRANKS. I misunderstood----
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Weingarten, do you think the Global
Disinformation Index is a fair assessment?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. I don't, but even if it was, the government
shouldn't be funding it.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So given that opinions are often difficult
to separate from fact and that facts evolve over time, would it
even be possible to assess the accuracy of a media outlet in a
truly objective fashion?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. It is an inherently subjective exercise--as
outlets put out news and views that are varying. And to have
some sort of ``ministry of truth,'' or ``ministries of truth''
out there with the government's blessing is incredibly
chilling.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So why is it an issue that the federal
government is funding supposed fact-checking organizations?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Because effectively, this amounts to
abridging of speech by proxy. Even if you couldn't draw a
straight line from a government official saying ``Take down X,
Y, Z speech,'' the government is effectively giving its
blessing through its funding to these entities, which exist to
put out of business, some entities, and also, by the way,
effectively provide a subsidy to the protected whitelisted
publications as well.
So it is a dual-edged sword. It is picking winners and
losers de facto with government funding.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. But it is picking winners and losers based
on what?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Well, it seems clear when you look at the
breakdowns of how the scores come out based upon ideology.
Viewpoint--diversity is antithetical it seems to these
entities.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. So Ms. Franks said that typically what
happens is it benefits conservative news outlets. Has that been
your experience? Is that what you have seen?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. We have seen ratings to suggest--
NewsGuard's ratings reviewed--large samples of both right-
leaning and left-leaning publications, and it comes out that
the left-leaning publications rank substantially higher, 25-
plus points higher on NewsGuard's 100-point scale than right-
leaning publications.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Can you give any examples of right-wing
publications that they have disparaged?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. Well, they cast, I guess, RealClearPolitics
and RealClearInvestigations, as having an undisclosed
conservative bias. But, of course, this includes the
Federalist, I think probably well The Daily Wire, Townhall, I
believe, a slew of other so-called right-wing leaning entities
as well.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Excellent. Thank you, and I yield.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back. Now I
recognize Representative Crane from the great State of Arizona
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
hearing today.
I want to start with you, Ms. Franks. I believe you said
the government has the right to participate in expressing its
viewpoint. Is that what you said?
Ms. FRANKS. Yes.
Mr. CRANE. I don't--respectfully, Ms. Franks, I don't think
that is what we are really talking about here today. We are not
talking about the government expressing its viewpoints. What we
are really talking about is when the government pays and uses
taxpayer dollars to fund these entities that we are talking
about here today that actually discredit some of these news
sites, and drives away their advertisers. Do you think that is
fair as well?
Ms. FRANKS. What is fair is for the government to be able
to fund projects and organizations that do certain things with
those funds that may include competing in the marketplace of
ideas, and they may be winning in the marketplace of ideas. But
the government is not making those choices. And when certain
news outlets lose in the marketplace of ideas, they may want to
blame the government for that, but maybe they are just losers.
Mr. CRANE. So--okay. Ms. Franks, do you think----
Ms. FRANKS. It is actually Dr. Franks.
Mr. CRANE. Okay. Dr. Franks, sorry. Ms. Younes here said
that when she was looking at these entities and the
organizations that they have blacklisted, every single one of
them was a conservative-leaning organization. Do you think that
is fair as well? Is that okay, Dr. Franks?
Ms. FRANKS. You used a different name, so I wasn't sure you
were talking to me.
Mr. CRANE. Yeah, I am still talking to you. I am still
looking at you. I am still talking to you.
Ms. FRANKS. Would you repeat the question for me.
Mr. CRANE. Yeah. You seem to have a problem paying
attention to the questions being asked of you today. I will
repeat it for you again. Do you think that it is okay that
these entities that are blacklisting companies, all of the
companies on the list that are blacklisted are conservative
outlets?
Ms. FRANKS. Do I think that it is okay for a company, for a
nonprofit organization to develop tools that offer rankings? In
other words, offer speech of criticism, critical speech about
certain businesses? Yes, I think that is okay, because that is
protected First Amendment activity.
Mr. CRANE. So you think it is okay for the federal
government to be using our tax dollars to basically, through a
proxy, blacklist one side of the aisle? You think that is okay?
Ms. FRANKS. I do not, because that is not what is
happening.
Mr. CRANE. Really? How so?
Ms. FRANKS. Yes. Because----
Mr. CRANE. Then why are all the companies on the list, the
blacklist, conservative groups?
Ms. FRANKS. I think that is something the conservatives
would need to answer.
Mr. CRANE. No. I think that is something you need to
answer.
Ms. FRANKS. I am not working with any of these companies.
Mr. CRANE. Because we are talking about censorship here and
there is only one group of people being censored.
Ms. FRANKS. No one is being censored according to----
Mr. CRANE. Ms. Younes here admitted she is not even a
Republican. She leans left. Yet she is telling us that all of
the companies on the blacklist are conservative groups. How do
you square that, Doctor?
Ms. FRANKS. I don't have to square that, because, as I
said, the focus here----
Mr. CRANE. I know, because you don't have to make any
sense, do you?
Ms. FRANKS. May I answer the question?
Mr. CRANE. Yeah, go ahead.
Ms. FRANKS. The First Amendment has certain principles and
certain rules. People may not like them. People may disagree
with them. People may not like the fact that someone out there
may say conservatives are all bad or liberals are all bad. The
correct response to not liking that is to engage in your own
speech, as is often happening here. It is not to say, Oh, this
is censorship, we are being silenced. It is simply to say we
disagree with what is being said here. Try to compete, and if
you are good enough, maybe you will win.
Mr. CRANE. Ms. Younes, what do you have to say about what
Dr. Franks just said?
Ms. YOUNES. I want to be clear that this wasn't just about
NewsGuard and GDI. The government was funding hundreds, at
least 300 tools and technologies that were designed to censor
speech. Some of them weren't even pretending to censor foreign
disinformation, quote, unquote. ``Disinformation.'' Of course,
that is a subjective term. They were hosting COVID
disinformation challenges where they were giving grants to
companies who showed that they were the best at censoring COVID
disinformation. COVID is not really a national security or
foreign topic, even if it has some tinges of that.
So this was about the government using its authority--the
government can't use its authority, can't use its power, and
can't use its money in order to censor views it doesn't like.
It is the government. Yes, it has a right to censor--sorry, to
express its own views, but not to use those views to censor.
That is where it stops. And the Court expressly said that in
Vullo recently actually.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Weingarten, I am going to allow you to
comment on this exchange.
Mr. WEINGARTEN. I would just say briefly we have heard a
robust defense of the government's purported right to speak,
which is we have established, really looks like a right to
censor, and the censor is portrayed as the victims here. But
Americans' speech, en masse, has been censored by this
Censorship-Industrial Complex on a slew of issues that
expressly reflect protected political speech, and if a stop
isn't put to it, we are going to lose this right in toto.
Mr. CRANE. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize
Representative Bean from the great State of Florida for 5
minutes.
Mr. BEAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning
to you, and good morning, Small Business Committee. For 237
years, our nation has been the beacon, the shining example of
freedom around the world. Other nations look to us with envy.
The cornerstone of that freedom is our First Amendment freedom
of the--freedom of the press, freedom of speech, what is one of
the many things that separates America from the rest of the
world. Hopefully, America is watching.
America, are you watching? Because thanks to the
congressional investigations by the Judiciary Committee, we now
know the Biden administration has been undermining freedom of
the press and freedom of the speech almost since they took
office.
Here is how they do it. Here is the recipe to undermine
Americans' right to know. They push big tech to change their
terms of service, to fit the administration's agenda. One such
company was Amazon. We have got the smoking gun evidence right
here. On March 12th, 2021, Biden at the White House emailed
Amazon's vice president of public policy about the high levels
of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation at Amazon.
They continued to pressure Amazon to give warnings about
anybody questioning the COVID vaccines, but that was not
enough. They continued to press them on taking these books out
of reach, or even just making them disappear. Thousands of
books about the vaccine were disappeared overnight.
Still not enough. They continued to press them. We have got
the memos. They continued to press Amazon to put something
called ``do not promote'' designation under the table at
Amazon, and then another 43 books that questioned the vaccine
just disappeared.
If you are going to sell anything, America looks to Amazon
as it is the largest bookstore in our nation, and it has a
drastic effect on getting the word out.
So I will start with Ms. Sheffield. How important is it
that an author to have access to sell books on Amazon? Is that
a big deal?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. It is huge. It is the largest book seller,
and as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the FTC under Lina
Khan, the Biden administration has sought to basically suppress
authors from being allowed to offer their books at the lowest
price, and it is an Orwellian attempt to destroy what is known
as the consumer welfare standard, and the consumer welfare
standard has been the bedrock of competition in this country
for decades, and it is truly troubling that Lina Khan believes
that she can be a rogue actor, and she keeps getting swatted
down in the courts repeatedly. That is the only silver lining
of her actions.
Mr. BEAN. So it is a big deal is your answer. It is a big
deal and it stifles free speech. It does stifle free speech. Do
you find it ironic that the Biden administration pointed the
finger at States like my State, the free State of Florida, for
removing porn, pornographic materials from elementary schools,
yet they actually went to Amazon to have these books secretly
removed? Do you find honor--irony in that, Ms. Sheffield?
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Oh, absolutely. I mean, it--but it is also
not surprising from this administration that we see over and
over the overreach of government to suppress speech. It is
interesting this Congressman----
Mr. BEAN. Let's just do this, because I have got more
questions to get to. Let the record reflect the witness says
yes, it is very ironic.
Here is how they did it, too. America, are you still
listening? Because they used something called NewsGuard and
then they get to pick and choose what sources, what news. If
you like them, they'll promote you, and if they don't like you
through NewsGuard, then they can bankrupt you, they can label
you disinformation, and it is shocking. It should be shocking
to you, America.
But how about this? It also concerns me the NewsGuard is
partnered with the American Federation of Teachers, the largest
teachers' union, 1.7 million teachers now have NewsGuard in
their classrooms where their news is chosen for them. It means
that students using NewsGuard are told generally conservative
outlets cannot be trusted, yet they should put their faith in
organizations, legacy media, like The New York Times. We
don't--we know about The New York Times. It doesn't have--there
is a bias. We all know there is a bias.
Our students are indoctrinated not to trust outlets based
on NewsGuard's partisan ratings, and if you don't get the good
ratings, then you are not trusted and no one wants to advertise
or go there.
So Mr. Weingarten, does it worry you that students are
being told that outlets such as RealClear and other media
outlets cannot be trusted? Does that bother you?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. It is troublesome, and particularly given
that media literacy education is starting to be mandated in a
lot of States, which is going to mean you are going to have to
get your news content from NewsGuard raters.
Mr. BEAN. I will take it as a yes.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Gentleman yields back. I now
Representative Maloy from the great State of Utah for 5
minutes.
Ms. MALOY. First of all, I just want to thank the witnesses
for being here, and I apologize I have had to be in and out a
couple of times. I testified in front of a committee once and I
spent a lot of time preparing, and the Members came in and out
and I found that kind of irritating, so I apologize, but that
has been me today.
I think I am going last, right, Mr. Chair? One more. Okay.
So I don't have to----
Chairman WILLIAMS. Do you want to go last?
Ms. MALOY. No. I am good. I just wanted to know if I need
to wrap it up or if I can build. Okay.
I feel like I talk about the same things a lot in this
committee, but what we are here talking about isn't necessarily
what the First Amendment says, but what the proper roles of
government agencies are. And this is the Small Business
Committee, and the reason we are talking about it here and not
in Oversight or Judiciary right now is because we have got
government entities that are acting outside of their proper
role, and it is having a negative impact on main street
businesses in the United States of America, and that is
something I think we should all find troubling, no matter where
you fall on the political spectrum.
And so, I do have questions, but I want to be clear when I
start asking questions that that is where I am coming from.
That is what we are talking about here, is what role the
government should be playing in picking winners and losers in
the free market.
So Mr. Weingarten, I want to start with you, because you
talked about something that I want to give you a little bit
more time to follow up on. So we are talking about foreign
facing--foreign facing agencies--easy for me to say--that are
supposed to be giving ratings to disinformation coming from
other nations, correct?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. That is correct.
Ms. MALOY. And now they are using those authorities to do
what?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. They are using those authorities
effectively to attempt to cripple the business models of
disfavored media companies, U.S.-based media companies
included.
Ms. MALOY. So we are not really talking about government
speech and what is and isn't allowed. We are talking about
these specific agencies have authorities and they are acting
outside of those authorities. Am I understanding that
correctly?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. That is how I see it--and not to speak, but
to suppress others' speech.
Ms. MALOY. Yeah. And it is not just about saying what
somebody can or can't say, but they give a rating, and based on
that rating, somebody may or may not be able to get sponsors.
Mr. WEINGARTEN. That is correct.
Ms. MALOY. So as a politician, I know how hard it is to get
your message out in front of people, and as a Member of
Congress, I kind of have a naturally built-in platform. In
fact, I am using it right now. But for a main street business,
if they get a negative rating because of their conservative
views, that can have a real impact on their ability to get
their product in front of customers, not necessarily a
government program or government policy, but we are talking
about main street businesses struggling to get their products
in front of people because they hold a view that is unpopular
with the government agency. Am I off base here?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. No. That is correct.
Ms. MALOY. Okay. So I am most of the way through my time. I
just want to, before I am done, give each of you three a
chance. Is there anything you wanted to say today that no one's
asked you the right question to get you to say?
Ms. YOUNES. The First Amendment says that the government
shall not abridge the freedom of speech, abridge. So the
government should not be using its power to censor ideas,
whether it is through coercion, collusion, any of those means.
I think that is the most important principle that I want to put
forth.
Ms. MALOY. I agree. That is also how they taught it in my
law school.
Mr. WEINGARTEN. It is notable that in the opinion that came
down today, there is a footnote in the majority's opinion which
says ``Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view
as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the
standard for when the Govern-ment transforms private conduct
into State action.'' So it is not a ruling on the merits, but
the Court's silence on the merits I think speaks to the
imperative for legislative action to be taken, because the
courts are not necessarily going to provide a panacea on this
issue.
Ms. MALOY. Yeah.
Ms. Sheffield.
Ms. SHEFFIELD. Yes. Being from Utah, great to connect with
you. My ancestors helped found Salt Lake City.
Ms. MALOY. Wonderful.
Ms. SHEFFIELD. So I mentioned earlier in my remarks about
the I think staggering ratio of eight-to-one when we are
talking about State Department employees donating to Democrats
by an eight-to-one margin versus Republicans. To me, this begs
the question to what extent is the unelected bureaucracy of the
politburo of the State Department and other government
agencies, to what extent do these unelected bureaucrats shape
what happens in terms of these funds and government taxpayer
money for projects like the University of Cambridge Social
Decision Making lab, the Moonshot CVE, the Atlantic Council
Digital Forensic's research lab, who elected these bureaucrats
at the State Department and other agencies to take my tax
dollars, your tax dollars, the people--my cousins and uncles in
Utah, their tax dollars to fund these suppressive activities? I
think----
Ms. MALOY. I don't know if you are allowed to question me,
but the answer is nobody. And I am going to just cut you off so
I can use the rest of my time to point out, since you brought
up Salt Lake City, it was settled by people who were running
from the government telling them they couldn't exercise their
First Amendment rights, so this isn't the first time this has
happened. It is important, and having this hearing is bedrock
important to what we do as Americans.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Lady yields back. I now recognize
Representative Alford from the great State of Missouri for 5
minutes.
Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for holding
this all-important meeting, and thank you, Ranking Member
Velazquez, as well. The First Amendment is at the heart of what
makes this country great. The right, the freedom of speech, the
prohibition on government infringement, is what separates our
country from the rest of the world.
However, the Biden administration does not agree with this.
This administration has been using the power of the executive
branch to infringe upon America's right to freedom of speech.
While the First Amendment prevents direct government
intervention, the administration has found a back door by
finding and supporting so called disinformation organizations.
There have been more than 500 U.S. federal government contracts
or grants awarded on disinformation since 2020. This funding
has been used to build a network of government-backed
nonprofits, so called fact-checkers, organizations of
foundations to push the left-wing narrative by declaring
anything right of the New York Times is disinformation. They
have been successful in doing this.
As revealed in an email from a Meta executive to Mark
Zuckerberg, quote, We are facing continued pressure from
external stakeholders, including the White House, to remove
more COVID-19 vaccine discouragement content.
If the federal government is successful in moving companies
as large as Meta with a market cap well over $1 trillion, what
can they do to small businesses?
I was in the news business for 35 years. My goal was to
tell the truth. When we have organizations like this that are
coming in and telling us what the truth is and limiting the
truth from getting out, we are in a big world of hurt when it
comes to the First Amendment.
Ms. Younes, one of the most disturbing aspects of
government-backed censorship was the State Department's support
of the Global Disinformation Index, or GDI. The GDI's mission
is to catalyze industry and government to defund
disinformation. Can you please explain the legal basis upon
which your clients brought the case against the State
Department and its Global Engagement Center.
Ms. YOUNES. There are three main claims. First of all, it
is a First Amendment violation because by funding and working
with the Global Disinformation Index, which is effectively
blacklisting conservative news sites or disfavored news sites,
the government is interfering in the marketplace of ideas, and
effectively censoring our clients. There is--it has to go
through a couple of levels. You have to--it is not direct. It
is through these mechanisms. And that is what makes it kind of
insidious and has been allowing them to get away with it.
It is also a problem because the GEC is supposed to be
fighting--their mandate is to fight foreign disinformation.
They operate under the State Department, which is about foreign
affairs. They are not supposed to be dealing with domestic
speech and they don't even pretend.
For instance, there was a presentation which you can look
at online in which the GEC's technology and engagement
representative Alexis Frisbie said that they were having
conversations to ensure there is discussion occurring, so I
think you know those are in terms of interaction. That is
talking about it at domestic level. They are not even
pretending this is about foreign disinformation anymore.
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Weingarten, NewsGuard is another left-wing
organization supposedly ranking disinformation in the news. Let
me tell you, just because you have news in your title doesn't
mean you are a news organization, or you are fit to call what
are balls and strikes in the news business. We have dealt with
them on the Armed Services Committee. We are getting them out
of the business of regulating speech for the DOD. It doesn't
only decide which source of media are or not disinformation.
They also have partnered with the largest teachers' union in
the world to teach students about disinformation. What does
NewsGuard's partnership with the American Federation of
Teachers, a top donor to President Biden, mean for center right
news?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. I think it means that the American children
are going to get a left-wing or left-wing-oriented diet of news
content going forward to the extent the relationship persists,
and what is called media literacy education increasingly gets
mandated in States across the country.
Mr. ALFORD. How much of a danger are organizations like
NewsGuard to the foundations and principles of America?
Mr. WEINGARTEN. I think they pose an existential threat. It
would be illiberal for them to exist even if they weren't
government funded, but the government funding makes it
particularly chilling and disturbing.
Mr. ALFORD. This is a very, very disturbing issue that we
are dealing with in all realms of government right now in the
committees on which we serve. This is of utmost importance,
because if you cannot get information that is unfiltered and
the truth to people, we are going to be brainwashed into a
liberal woke, broke, ideal of what America truly is.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Gentleman yields back, and I would like
to thank our witnesses today for their testimony and for
appearing before us today. We had some good testimony. Without
objection, Members have 5 legislative days to submit additional
materials and written questions of the witnesses to the Chair,
which will be forwarded to the witnesses, so I ask the
witnesses to please respond promptly if that happens. If there
is no further opinions, without objection, the committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]