Section 1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the “No Funding or Enforcement of Censorship Abroad Act”.
No Funding or Enforcement of Censorship Abroad Act
A BILL
To protect and promote American values abroad, including the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression enshrined in the United States Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, through the use of foreign assistance and by assuring U.S. law enforcement does not cooperate in censorship abroad.
Sec. 2 Findings
Congress makes the following findings:
On March 5, 2018, U.S. FBI agents, including a special agent, a Cyber Operations supervisor, and a Department of Justice agent specializing in counterespionage to thwart foreign interference, met with a special council of the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court (TSE) to discuss efforts by the United States Department of Justice and the FBI to fight “fake news” and “protecting the integrity of elections”.
Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes received and implemented recommendations on censoring content from several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), which is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. State Department.
In 2022, the National Science Foundation (NSF), supported by the U.S. Congress, gave a $200,000 grant to the George Washington University for countering disinformation in Brazil and three other countries.
Throughout 2022 and 2023, Justice de Moraes banned Paulo Figueiredo, a Brazilian journalist living in the U.S., from social media platforms in Brazil.
In August 2023, the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS), which is funded by the Global Elections and Political Transitions (GEPT) Program at USAID, formed a key partnership with the Superior Electoral Court in Brazil (TSE) and worked together to discuss censorship strategies.
In December 2023, Justice de Moraes demanded that Rumble, a video-sharing platform with its corporate headquarters in the United States, remove certain creators from its platform.
Later that month, Rumble suspended its service in Brazil rather than comply with the unlawful demands of Justice de Moraes.
On April 3, 2024, Michael Shellenberger published the “Twitter Files—Brazil” sharing Justice de Moraes’s illegal demands for Twitter to disclose information about users in 2020.
On April 6, 2024, X (formerly known as Twitter), an American technology company, announced that a Brazilian court had forced it to block certain accounts in Brazil.
On April 7, 2024, Justice de Moraes announced a criminal investigation into Elon Musk, the owner of X and a U.S. citizen, for spreading disinformation, obstructing justice, and continuing to allow people de Moraes banned to express their views on X.
On April 18 and 19, 2024, Brazilian Federal Police published two reports suggesting that Michael Shellenberger was under investigation for publishing the “Twitter Files—Brazil”.
In August 2024, Brazil’s Supreme Court instituted a ban on X.
As of September 2024, the U.S. Department of State has remained silent and neglected its mission to champion democratic institutions and human rights.
Sec. 3 Sense of Congress
It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should promote the universal values of freedom of speech and freedom of expression around the world and should not facilitate nor promote online censorship through foreign assistance programs and should not facilitate nor promote online censorship through cooperation with foreign governments and their law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 4 Prohibition on assistance that encourages online censorship
No assistance may be furnished under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), for the benefit of any foreign entity if the Secretary of State has credible information that such foreign entity has engaged in, facilitated, or promoted, or will imminently engage in, facilitate, or promote censorship of lawful speech online.
The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the foreign entity has ceased engaging in, facilitating, or promoting online censorship.
Sec. 5 Restriction on law enforcement cooperation with foreign online censorship
No assistance or cooperation may be furnished by Federal law enforcement officials in response to a request from a foreign law enforcement agency if the Attorney General has credible information that such a request will cause, facilitate, or promote censorship of protected speech online.
In making a determination under this section, the Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary of State and, as appropriate, the Director of National Intelligence.
The Attorney General shall provide a report to the appropriate congressional committees on an annual basis listing and describing all determinations made under this section, which may be submitted in classified form.
Sec. 6 Definitions
In this Act:
Appropriate congressional committees— The term “appropriate congressional committees” means the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
Foreign entity— The term “foreign entity” means—
any agency, ministry, office, or subdivision of a foreign government;
an international organization; or
a nongovernmental organization with operations outside of the United States.
Foreign law enforcement agency— The term “foreign law enforcement agency” has the meaning given such term in section 44, title 15 of the United States Code.
Online censorship—
In general— The term “online censorship” means—
a request or demand that an electronic communications service provider, as such term is defined in section 2510 of title 18 of the United States Code, with its headquarters in the United States remove, disable, suppress, or otherwise censor a communication on its service that contains protected speech and is not otherwise prohibited by the provider’s terms of service; and
orders issued by Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes to electronic communications services providers with their headquarters in the United States after January 1, 2022, that demand that the electronic communications services provider remove, disable, suppress, or otherwise censor a communication on its service that contains protected speech and is not otherwise prohibited by the provider’s terms of service.
Exception— The term “online censorship” shall not include—
any request or demand related to the communications of, or content posted by, a foreign terrorist organization designated under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
any request or demand related to an apparent violation of sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, of 2260 that involves child pornography, of section 1591 (if the violation involves a minor), or of section 2422(b) of title 18 of the United States Code.
Protected speech— The term “protected speech” means speech protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or speech that would be so protected if the speaker were located in the United States.