TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE FOR THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON THE STATE OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM IN AMERICA BY JEREMY D TEDESCO SENIOR COUNSEL VICE PRESIDENT OF U S ADVOCACY ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM SEPTEMBER 27 2018 Dear Chairman Goodlatte Chairman King and Members of the Committee Tech companies like Amazon Google Facebook and Twitter exercise vast control over social media—the key place for the exchange of views in modern life—as well as the online market 1 They have the power to ban users delete content block speech from being seen or heard defund speech they dislike and far more 2 As private companies they answer only to shareholders and have so far avoided government regulation as public utilities or First Amendment liability as quasigovernmental actors The major tech companies have committed themselves to protecting free expression and creating platforms where people can access and express the broadest range of views 3 This is important because robust debate and free inquiry in the types of marketplaces over which they exercise immense control is critical As the Supreme Court has said “The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion … I t is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is affected The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes ” 4 A commitment to the free exchange of ideas and respect for those with whom we disagree are essential to human flourishing and to fostering a diverse pluralistic and tolerant society Thus Congress is right to question whether Silicon Valley is fulfilling its promise to provide ideologically neutral speech forums and promote free expression 5 Experience has taught us that tech companies are not merely passive conduits for speech They employ personnel and design 1 Packingham v North Carolina 137 S Ct 1730 1735 2017 “While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places in a spatial sense for the exchange of views today the answer is clear It is cyberspace—the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general Reno v American Civil Liberties Union 521 U S 844 868 1997 and social media in particular ” 2 Cathy Young How Facebook Twitter silence conservative voices online The Hill Oct 28 2016 https bit ly 2mDYuqA 3 The Twitter Rules https bit ly 2j9xU9n “ E veryone should have the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers ” YouTube Hate Speech Policy https goo gl 3ZWKbu “We encourage free speech and try to defend your right to express unpopular points of view … ” Statement of Marne Levine VP of Facebook’s Global Public Policy Controversial Harmful and Hateful Speech on Facebook https bit ly 2uECO2o “We seek to provide a platform where people can share and surface content messages and ideas freely … ” 4 Terminiello v City of Chicago 337 U S 1 4 1949 5 Young supra Page 2 algorithms to sift through monitor and affect information on their sites The result is tech companies skew public debate by increasingly suppressing religious or conservative views 6 When internet gatekeepers selectively police speech they not only break their own promises to respect free speech they also affect the broad swathe of Americans who get their information from Amazon Google Facebook and Twitter Four out of every ten dollars spent online is at Amazon com and roughly 64% of U S households have Amazon Prime 7 Over 70% of adults in the United States use Google’s YouTube nearly two-thirds of these adults are on Facebook and Twitter attracts nearly half of 18-to-24-year-olds 8 More specifically two-thirds of Americans access some of their news on social media 9 And that affects what they hear how they think who they like and how they vote In regards to elections researchers conducted five double-blind randomized controlled experiments using 4 556 undecided voters in the United States and India The results showed that biased search rankings alone can shift undecided voters’ preferences by 20% or more the shift may be much higher in certain demographic groups and tech companies can readily mask their biased search rankings so that voters are unaware of their influence Evidence shows that tech companies have the ability to influence elections with impunity and their influence is particularly great when a single search engine like Google is dominant 10 What makes this so-far unused capacity especially concerning is recent reports that Google employees actively discussed altering search results to for example “counter” the travel restrictions the Trump administration put in place 11 6 Censored How Online Media Companies are Suppressing Conservative Speech Media Research Center 2018 https bit ly 2PQXjiI 7 Shep Hyken Sixty-Four Percent of U S Households Have Amazon Prime Forbes June 17 2017 https bit ly 2xwtegJ 8 Aaron Smith Monica Anderson Social Media Use in 2018 Pew Research Center Mar 1 2018 https pewrsr ch 2FDfiFd 9 Elisa Shearer Jeffrey Gottfried News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017 Pew Research Center Sept 7 2017 https pewrsr ch 2vMCQWO 10 Robert Epstein and Ronald E Roberts The search engine manipulation effect SEME and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections Proceedings of Nat’l Academy of Sciences of the U S A Aug 18 2015 https bit ly 2NTWbgJ 11 Jessica Guynn Google employees discussed changing search results after Trump travel ban USA Today Sept 20 2018 https usat ly 2Nwf1Lx Page 3 It is no secret that Silicon Valley’s politics run left 12 Apple’s Tim Cook was at the forefront of the campaign for same-sex marriage and recently donated $1 million to the far-left and discredited Southern Poverty Law Center which demonizes its political enemies Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently apologized after he tweeted about ordering food from Chick-fil-A saying he “forgot about” their support for man woman marriage PayPal abandoned a new North Carolina office over a law that affirmed the long-standing practice of people using the bathroom of their birth sex and Google held a post-election meeting at which senior executives bemoaned President Trump’s election stated they were deeply offended by his victory and joked about employees moving to Canada—all while recognizing that conservative employees already felt uncomfortable expressing their views 13 Yet Mozilla’s CEO Brendan Eich was forced to resign for giving $1 000 to the Proposition 8 campaign California’s ballot initiative to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman in its constitution 14 This ideological tilt is not limited to internal decisions or political causes but affects how tech companies regulate speech Examples are legion For a time Google employed a “fact-check” feature that targeted conservative media and many of the “fact checks” were groundless 15 Facebook’s trending news team 90% of whom identified as liberal gave conservative content higher scrutiny 16 YouTube places restrictions or defunds some PragerU videos even though they are not graphic and feature speakers like Pulitzer Prize winners former prime ministers and well-known professors 17 Twitter often ignores harassment or threats by progressives but disciplines conservatives for their speech 18 And its ad-sales team characterized the Center for Immigration Studies’ estimate of the relative 12 Issie Lapowsky Of Course Facebook is Biased That’s How Tech Works Today Wired May 11 2016 https bit ly 2NTFthx 13 Lapowsky supra Ayaan Hirsi Ali Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals The New York Times Aug 24 2017 https nyti ms 2w7ID65 David Carrig Twitter CEO slammed for Chick-fil-A tweet during Pride Month USA Today June 11 2018 https usat ly 2lsOJta Jason Abbruzzese After Alex Jones a murky and politicized future for tech companies and the news NBC News Sept 13 2018 https nbcnews to 2OxsCPc 14 Mozilla CEO resignation raises free-speech issues USA Today Apr 4 2014 https usat ly 2j2aIW9 15 Eric Lieberman Google Suspends Fact Check Project Daily Caller Jan 19 2018 https bit ly 2EVl57z 16 Tanya Dua Confessions of an ex-Facebook trending news curator Digiday Aug 30 2016 https bit ly 2DdZrzD 17 PragerU Takes Legal Action Against Google and YouTube for Discrimination PragerU Press Release https bit ly 2lhhTOI 18 Young supra Page 4 cost of welcoming versus deporting illegal immigrants as “hate speech ” 19 Facebook initially banned part of the Declaration of Independence as “hate speech ” 20 It also regularly censors prolife speech although a group named “I will find a pro-life advocate called The Activist Mommy and burn whoever runs it alive” meets Facebook’s community standards 21 Twitter likewise suppresses pro-life speech on a regular basis 22 Google removed ads for pregnancy resource centers that seek to support pregnant women in choosing life for their children but allows abortion clinics to advertise freely 23 It also banned ads from Concordia Publishing House because they referenced Jesus and the Bible 24 Twitter recently limited the visibility of prominent Republicans’ tweets and conservative commentators have long experienced the same problem 25 Even the ACLU has expressed concerns about tech giants’ banning of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones because the “hate speech” policies they cited can be easily misused to eliminate unpopular viewpoints 26 Jones’ online audience was swiftly cut in half which prompted the New York Times—no friend of Jones—to express concern about “the tremendous influence a few internet companies have over public discourse and the spread of information ” 27 Tech companies’ recent push to restrict “hate speech” poses a threat to free speech and especially to the expression of religious and conservative views That is because invariably Silicon Valley 19 Timothy B Lee Tech companies declare war on hate speech—and conservatives are worried Ars Technica Aug 31 2017 https bit ly 2xBjl0l 20 Annie Grayer Facebook apologizes after labeling part of Declaration of Independence ‘hate speech’ CNN July 5 2018 https cnn it 2NwVC9w 21 Paul Bois Zuck Says Facebook Doesn’t Censor Pro-Life Views Here Are Several Instances Of Them Censoring Pro-Life Views Daily Wire Apr 12 2018 https bit ly 2xqTsSw Megan Fox Group Threatening to Burn ‘Activist Mommy’ Alive Doesn’t Violate Standards Facebook Says PJ Media Jan 16 2018 https bit ly 2DKpP0E 22 Peter Hasson Twitter Keeps Censoring Pro-Lifers The Daily Caller Mar 6 2018 https bit ly 2NpMGGD Lila Rose Twitter feigns political neutrality but my pro-life organization sees the bias firsthand USA Today Sept 16 2018 https usat ly 2OJtqQY 23 Julian Hattem Google removes advertisements for crisis pregnancy centers The Hill Apr 28 2014 https bit ly 1m338c7 24 Concordia Publishing House Responds to Google Disabling of Faith-Based Advertising Concordia Publishing House Press Release Apr 24 2018 https bit ly 2poCShD 25 Alex Thompson Twitter appears to have fixed ‘shadow ban’ of prominent Republicans like the RNC chair and Trump Jr ’s spokesman VICE News July 25 2018 https bit ly 2uRGhJ0 David Reaboi and Nick Short Despite Twitter’s Protests The Stifling of Conservative Speech On The Platform Is Real The Federalist Aug 24 2018 https bit ly 2MLYWMK 26 Megan Keller ACLU Alex Jones ban could set dangerous social media precedent The Hill Aug 21 2018 https bit ly 2PKheQa 27 Jack Nicas Alex Jones Said Bans Would Strengthen Him He Was Wrong The New York Times Sept 4 2018 https nyti ms 2NrETIr Page 5 and others apply the hate label to traditional views they disagree with on a wide range of important topics like abortion marriage and sexuality Tech companies do this even though they promise users an open marketplace of ideas and laud free speech for example • The Twitter Rules state that “everyone should have the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers ” • Google praises “ t he flow of ideas and open access to information on the web” and affirms that “ a free society depends on free expression” • YouTube promises to “encourage free speech and try to defend your right to express unpopular points of view ” • Facebook promotes itself as “a platform where people can share and surface content messages and ideas freely ” 28 Take Facebook as an example Two-thirds of adults use Facebook and a majority of them get their news there 29 Facebook declares that its “mission is all about embracing diverse views” and that it “err s on the side of allowing content even when some find it objectionable ” 30 But Facebook’s “hate speech” policy casts serious doubt on its commitment to free expression It bans any speech “that directly attacks people based on what are known as their ‘protected characteristics ’” 31 despite the fact that Facebook admits there is no objective way of figuring out “when something crosses the line ” 32 Just as worrisome is the fact that Facebook takes its cues on hate speech from Europe Along with other tech giants it signed an agreement with the European Commission to suppress “hate speech” 28 The Twitter Rules https bit ly 2j9xU9n “ E veryone should have the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers ” Google Free expression https goo gl CjLpNn YouTube Hate Speech Policy https goo gl 3ZWKbu “We encourage free speech and try to defend your right to express unpopular points of view … ” Statement of Marne Levine VP of Facebook’s Global Public Policy Controversial Harmful and Hateful Speech on Facebook https bit ly 2uECO2o “We seek to provide a platform where people can share and surface content messages and ideas freely … ” 29 Elisa Shearer and Jeffrey Gottfried News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017 Pew Research Center Sept 7 2017 https pewrsr ch 2vMCQWO 30 Facebook Community Standards Introduction https bit ly 1aiNCn3 31 Facebook Community Standards Hate Speech https bit ly 2NWOG8Q 32 Richard Allan Facebook VP EMEA Public Policy Hard Questions Who Should Decide What Is Hate Speech in an Online Global Community June 27 2017 https bit ly 2tgUoYq Page 6 online including “all forms of intolerance ” 33 This phrase – “all forms of intolerance” – is deeply troubling especially when coupled with the fact that Silicon Valley polices “hate speech” and “intolerance” by delegating their regulation to far-left advocacy groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center This cripples the prospect for free speech and peaceful dialogue because SPLC has long been criticized for labelling its ideological opponents “haters” and “extremists” if “they deviate from its rigid political agenda which embraces … left-wing totems ” 34 Silicon Valley’s Impulse to Regulate “Hate Speech” Endangers Religious and Conservative Groups and Views Many tech companies empower SPLC and similar groups to suppress religious or conservative speech as “hate speech ” YouTube allows SPLC and other leftist groups to police the video content that users upload 35 Twitter works with SPLC as one of its “safety” partners in establishing policies and consults virtually no one of a conservative bent 36 And Facebook acts on the SPLC’s advice to identify “hate speech ” which in the SPLC’s opinion includes mainstream religious or conservative views 37 Alliance Defending Freedom “ADF” experienced this discrimination first hand in April 2018 when Amazon barred it from the AmazonSmile program through which users direct a small percentage of the amounts they spend to the charities of their choice Among other things Amazon’s policies bar groups that promote “intolerance” or “hate ” 38 According to those policies “Amazon relies on … the Southern Poverty Law Center to determine which organizations fall into these groups ” 39 Amazon excluded ADF from the Smile program after five years of participation based solely on SPLC’s ideologically driven “hate group” designation 40 33 Jane Clark The Facebook Story You Didn’t Hear National Review June 6 2016 https bit ly 2NrTa7U 34 Mark Pulliam A Demagogic Bully City Journal July 27 2017 https bit ly 2uF0ty4 35 Peter Hasson YouTube Secretly Using SPLC to Police Videos Daily Caller Feb 28 2018 https bit ly 2ovWfpe 36 Peter Hasson Facebook Amazon Google and Twitter All Work With Left-Wing SPLC Daily Caller June 7 2018 https bit ly 2HoWRUc 37 Hasson Facebook Amazon Google and Twitter All Work With Left-Wing SPLC supra 38 AmazonSmile Participation Agreement https org amazon com agreement 39 About AmazonSmile https amzn to 2uKhdVs 40 Amazon relies on discredited SPLC to banish ADF from Smile program ADF Press Release https bit ly 2QIb6Jy Page 7 SPLC’s designation of ADF as a “hate group” is frankly preposterous ADF is one of the nation’s most respected legal organizations advocating for the freedom of every American to peacefully speak live and work according to one’s convictions without fear of government punishment Since 2011 ADF has won nine victories in the United States Supreme Court including • National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v Becerra 138 S Ct 2361 2018 – preventing stat es from requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion or otherwise undermine their pro-life message • Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission 138 S Ct 1719 2018 – overturning a court order requiring a cake artist to create custom wedding cakes celebrating same-sex weddings based on religious hostility • Trinity Lutheran v Comer 137 S Ct 2012 2017 – barring the government from excluding religious institutions from a grant program that enables qualifying applicants to purchase rubber playground surface to ensure children’s safety • Geneva College v Burwell Southern Nazarene University v Burwell 136 S Ct 1557 2016 these two ADF cases were consolidated with Zubik v Burwell which vacated lower courts’ rulings against the schools and remanded for further proceedings stating that the government may not enforce the abortion-pill mandate until the issue is resolved • Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc consolidated with Conestoga Wood Specialties 134 S Ct 2751 2014 – striking down federal burdens on ADF’s client’s free-exercise rights • Reed v Town of Gilbert 135 S Ct 2218 2015 – unanimous decision upholding a church’s free speech right to place signs inviting people to its services on equal terms with other signs • Town of Greece v Galloway 134 S Ct 1811 2014 -- upholding a town’s practice of opening its public meetings with prayer • Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v Winn 131 S Ct 1436 2011 – dismissing an Establishment Clause challenge to Arizona’s tuition tax credit program which allows residents to claim a tax credit for donations to private organizations that provide scholarships for children to attend private schools Page 8 Recently one expert ranked Alliance Defending Freedom first among “ t he top performing firm s ” in the nation because it “won all four of its decisions before the Court during the five-year period” spanning 2013-2017 41 In addition to its Supreme Court practice ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom has won over 400 victories for free speech on campuses over the last 12 years protecting and expanding free speech rights for over 8 million students ADF also works to stop government discrimination against churches and religious institutions For example ADF frequently defends churches when the government bars them from using their facilities on equal terms with secular institutions simply because of their religious beliefs and status Despite ADF’s record of successfully and peacefully defending Constitutionally-protected free speech and free exercise rights for all Americans Amazon excluded it from the Smile Program It likewise bars many other conservative charities like ADF simply because the SPLC has labeled them “hate groups” for disagreeing with its far-left views 42 The following are examples of some of the religious or conservative organizations that SPLC has branded hate groups 43 ADF may disagree with some of these groups and some of the positions they take but they should not qualify as “hate groups” or be equated to the KKK and American Nazi Party None of these groups is currently listed as an AmazonSmile participant • • • • • • • • • • • Alliance Defending Freedom American College of Pediatricians American Family Association American Freedom Alliance American Freedom Law Center Center for Family and Human Rights Center for Immigration Studies Center for Security Policy Christian Action Network Christians and Jews United for Israel D James Kennedy Ministries • • • • • • • • • • • Federation for American Immigration Reform Illinois Family Institute Liberty Counsel Pacific Justice Institute Proclaiming Justice to the Nations Public Advocate of the United States Religious Freedom Coalition Ruth Institute Tennessee Eagle Forum Traditional Values Coalition Virginia Christian Alliance 41 Dr Adam Feldman Supreme Court All-Stars 2013-2017 Empirical SCOTUS Sept 13 2018 https bit ly 2pm2NXn 42 Brian Flood Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook Amazon empower far-left Southern Poverty Law Center Fox News June 8 2018 https fxn ws 2QINDYM Hasson Facebook Amazon Google and Twitter All Work With Left-Wing SPLC supra 43 Hate Groups Southern Poverty Law Center https bit ly 2pndyIQ Page 9 • Family Research Council Predictably AmazonSmile is skewed heavily in favor of charities that work on the same issues as ADF – like marriage church state relations and much more – but from a left-of-center perspective For example among others Amazon customers can choose to give to • • • • • • Southern Poverty Law Center American Civil Liberties Union Military Religious Freedom Foundation Inc Americans United for Separation of Church and State American Atheists Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc • • • • • People for the American Way Foundation National LGBTQ Task Force National Center For Transgender Equality American Humanist Association Human Rights Campaign Foundation ADF met with Amazon leadership in mid-May to explain that SPLC is not a credible source of information and to recommend ideologically neutral options for regulating access to AmazonSmile Amazon’s officials agreed that relying on highly partisan SPLC was problematic and that they needed an unbiased approach But ADF remains banned from the program and Amazon still relies on the SPLC to vet which charities qualify for their program 44 Amazon has continued to dialogue with ADF and we remain hopeful that it will ultimately adopt a neutral policy that respects ideological diversity and permits mainstream charities like ADF to participate in AmazonSmile Tech Companies Should Immediately Sever Ties with Discredited and Partisan SPLC The discrimination against conservative and religious viewpoints that ADF is experiencing in the AmazonSmile Program is also prevalent on other platforms – like Facebook Twitter YouTube etc – purportedly built to facilitate the free exchange of ideas This discrimination will only get worse unless Silicon Valley makes good on its promises to value diversity and support free speech That process can start by tech companies cutting ties with the SPLC 44 Hasson Facebook Amazon Google and Twitter All Work With Left-Wing SPLC supra Page 10 Commentators across the political spectrum agree that the SPLC is activist partisan and unreliable Drawing from these criticisms and some of the SPLC’s own statements here are at least seven reasons tech companies should immediately end any relationship with the SPLC 1 SPLC only targets the political right • SPLC’s “Hatewatch” blog states that it “monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right ” 45 • Cornell law professor William Jacobsen has said “Time and again I see the SPLC using the reputation it gained decades ago fighting the Klan as a tool to bludgeon mainstream politically conservative opponents ” 46 • Muslim reformer Ayaan Hirsi Ali who SPLC tagged as an anti-Muslim extremist penned an op-ed for The NY Times in which she asserted “ T he SPLC is an organization that has lost its way smearing people who are fighting for liberty ” 47 • Kimberly Strassel has called SPLC an outfit that “exists to smear conservatives” and a “farleft activist group” that “tags you as a hater” if it “doesn’t agree with your views ” 48 • Writing for The Week Shikha Dalmia lamented that “the SPLC is not up to the task” of monitoring actual hate groups because “ i t is too busy enforcing liberal orthodoxy against its intellectual opponents ” 49 • In a comprehensive piece on SPLC Mark Pulliam wrote in City Journal that “the SPLC not only overlooks most of the real hate groups in operation today … but also labels moderates with whom it disagrees ‘extremists’ if they deviate from its rigid political agenda ” 50 45 See https www splcenter org hatewatch Ben Schreckinger Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way Politico July August 2017 https politi co 2lsnOxw 47 Ali supra 48 Kimberly Strassel J P Morgan’s Hate List The Wall Street Journal Aug 24 2017 https on wsj com 2w3uU1S 49 Shikha Dalmia The Sad Hysteria of the Southern Poverty Law Center The Week March 20 2018 https bit ly 2PJlrn6 50 Pulliam supra 46 Page 11 • Even left-of-center Politico in a recent article about the SPLC titled “Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way ” noted the longstanding criticism that SPLC is “becoming more of a partisan progressive hit operation than a civil rights watchdog ” 51 2 SPLC openly admits that its goal is to destroy its political enemies SPLC’s Senior Fellow Mark Potok former editor-in-chief of one of SPLC’s primary propaganda tools the Intelligence Report has said “Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on… I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups to completely destroy them ” 52 SPLC has never renounced this statement This comes as no surprise since the sentiment typifies SPLC’s scorched-earth tactics of imposing severe financial and reputational harm on ideological rivals 3 SPLC has been forced to publicly disavow its erroneous labelling of groups or persons as “haters” or “extremists ” the most recent example costing them a $3 375 million settlement • SPLC included Maajid Nawaz a former Islamic extremist who has since devoted his life to opposing violence in the name of Islam and Ayaan Hirsi Ali a renowned human rights activist who suffered at the hands of Islamic extremists in its “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists ”53 Mr Nawaz threatened suit which resulted in SPLC pulling the Guide 54 In June SPLC publicly apologized for labelling Mr Nawaz an extremist and agreed to pay a $3 375 million settlement 55 • This is a likely portend of things to come SPLC’s partisan tactics and slander of good groups and people will court more legal trouble for SPLC as well as the tech companies and other third parties that rely on it and repeat its widely discredited information 51 Schreckinger supra See Mark Potok 2007 MIAAHC Hate Crimes Conference https bit ly 2mitV81 53 Jack Crowe Southern Poverty Law Center Quietly Deleted List of ‘Anti-Muslim’ Extremists After Legal Threat National Review April 19 2018 https bit ly 2pnr6UY 54 Crowe supra 55 Southern Poverty Law Center Inc Admits It Was Wrong Apologizes to Quilliam and Maajid Nawaz for Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists and Agrees to Pay $3 375 Million Settlement Quilliam Press Release June 18 2018 https bit ly 2M2jd0w 52 Page 12 4 SPLC has long been discredited by investigative journalists 56 and charity watchdogs 57 as a direct mail scam 58 that has made its founder millions of dollars 59 • Writing in Harper’s Magazine Ken Silverstein said “ T he SPLC spent much of its early years defending prisoners who faced the death penalty and suing to desegregate all-white institutions … That was then Today the SPLC spends most of its time—and money— on a relentless fund-raising campaign peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate ” 60 • Writing in Philanthropy Roundtable Karl Zinsmeister observed “Though it styles itself as a public-interest law firm the Southern Poverty Law Center does shockingly little litigation and only small amounts of that on behalf of any aggrieved individuals Its two largest expenses are propaganda operations creating its annual lists of ‘haters’ and ‘extremists ’ and running a big effort that pushes ‘tolerance education’ through more than 400 000 public-school teachers ” 61 5 SPLC stockpiles hundreds of millions in its endowment and off-shore accounts • As of October 31 2017 SPLC’s endowment grew “to more than $432 million ” with over $92 5 million in off-shore accounts in the Cayman Islands Its total assets “topped $477 million ” 62 • Mark Pulliam writing for City Journal noted that “the nonprofit rating group CharityWatch … gives SPLC an ‘F’ rating its lowest grade downgrading the group for having seven years’ worth of available assets in reserve ” 63 56 Pulliam supra Karl Zinsmeister Some People Love to Call Names The Southern Poverty Law Center's extremist list isn't a Consumer Reports guide It's a political tool Philanthropy Roundtable May 15 2017 https archive is lpQ5k 58 Ken Silverstein Hate Immigration and the Southern Poverty Law Center Harper’s Magazine March 22 2010 https bit ly 2oqrfGO 59 Ken Silverstein The Southern Poverty Business Model Harper’s Magazine November 2 2007 https bit ly 2NUgSsR 60 Ken Silverstein The Church of Morris Dees How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance Harper’s Magazine November 2000 https bit ly 2QKe2FM 61 Zinsmeister supra 62 Jeryl Bier The Southern Poverty Law Center Is Sitting on $477 Million The Weekly Standard April 24 2017 https tws io 2HpoWj5 63 Pulliam supra 57 Page 13 6 SPLC’s “hate” label significantly harms the prospect for civil discourse • SPLC’s hate label results in “dissent being de-legitimatized and political foes being demonized All those who oppose the Left are by definition ‘fascists ’ ‘white nationalists ’ ‘Islamophobes ’ ‘hate groups ’ or ‘extremists ’” 64 • “Taking people and groups with political views different from your own and lumping them with villains and gangsters is the mark of a bullying organization that aims to intimidate and even criminalize philosophical opponents ” 65 • In an article decrying SPLC’s lumping of “principled conservatives” together with “bigots” under the “hate group” label Megan McArdle observed “Given the increasing tendency of powerful tech companies to flex their muscle against hate groups we may see more and more institutions unwittingly turned into critics or censors not just of Nazi propaganda but also of fairly mainstream ideas ” 66 • Even Politico questioned whether “ a t a time when the line between ‘hate group’ and mainstream politics is getting thinner and the need for productive civil discourse is growing more serious fanning liberal fears while a great opportunity for the SPLC might be a problem for the nation ” 67 7 SPLC’s propaganda has incited violence – On a few occasions SPLC’s targeting tactics have incited violence and other dangerous threats The SPLC was cited as motivation for the attempted mass murder at the Family Research Council in 2012 68 and as a reason students rioted and assaulted a female professor at Middlebury College in 2017 69 Tech companies’ continued relationship with SPLC belies their professed commitments to diversity of thought and the free exchange of ideas Instead it demonstrates a commitment to bias and hostility toward conservative and religious groups and content Tech companies could take 64 Pulliam supra Zinsmeister supra 66 Megan McArdle Southern Poverty Law Center Gets Creative to Label 'Hate Groups' Principled conservatives are lumped together with bigots Bloomberg Sept 7 2017 https bloom bg 2xUrhdn 67 Schreckinger supra 68 Joel Gehrke FBI video Domestic terrorist says he targeted conservative group for being ‘anti-gay’ The Washington Examiner April 24 2013 https washex am 2DnXWz1 69 Ronald Radosh Liberal Intolerance Revives as Charles Murray Is Chased From Middlebury College The Daily Beast March 6 2017 https thebea st 2NTqzYJ 65 Page 14 an enormous step toward restoring civility and a true marketplace of ideas to their platforms by severing ties with SPLC and similar far-left advocacy organizations Conclusion Silicon Valley’s decision to heavily regulate—and in some instances ban—users’ expression puts the marketplace of ideas online at risk Opening this Pandora’s box has resulted in mounting pressure for tech companies to treat mainstream religious or conservative ideas like “hate speech ” 70 Every indication is that they plan to regulate users’ speech more not less Facebook for instance recently exposed an impending “hate speech” reporting function to users by accident 71 More silencing of religious or conservative speakers is sure to come Discrimination against religious and conservative users will continue unless Silicon Valley stops relying on SPLC and other far-left activists as “neutral” watchdogs 72 No one can trust tech companies whose policies are so obviously skewed It is understandable that Amazon and other tech giants have concerns about violent and extremist groups benefitting from their services But SPLC no longer focuses on identifying such groups Rather SPLC is a highly partisan organization that explicitly seeks to destroy conservative and religious groups 73 Tech companies seeking to exclude violent and extremist organizations must find a better way Any system that seeks to identify true extremist groups should use a process that relies on independent data that is not politically biased and that is neither dramatically over nor under inclusive There is no perfect solution but the best available approach is for tech companies to exclude from the “hate group” or “extremist” categories any 501 c 3 or 501 c 4 organization that has demonstrated to the IRS that it has a charitable or social-welfare purpose This approach will weed out nearly all groups that are truly extremist in character But if tech companies have concerns about certain 501 c 3 s or 501 c 4 groups they could institute advisory councils composed of respected conservative and liberal groups and allow these councils to resolve hard 70 Lee supra Eric Lieberman Facebook Says a Bug Accidentally Exposed Its Imminent Hate Speech Finder Daily Caller May 1 2018 https bit ly 2xwE0Uo 72 Censored How Online Media Companies are Suppressing Conservative Speech supra at iii 73 SPLC’s Hatewatch Blog https bit ly 2fqGsW9 71 Page 15 cases involving members of their own communities Dialogue and working together with both conservatives and liberals can create a workable solution What Silicon Valley should not do is to consult only far-left groups and empower them to make the rules and enforce the companies’ policies This has been the status quo for too long and it has resulted in the suppression of religious or conservative speech Congress should hold additional hearings and use its considerable influence to encourage Silicon Valley to stop relying on far-left groups like the SPLC set clear rules that treat everyone fairly and stop pretending that ideological disagreement is hate 74 Only then will the marketplace of ideas and America’s democratic system flourish 74 Censored How Online Media Companies are Suppressing Conservative Speech supra at iii Page 16 Jeremy Tedesco Senior Counsel and Vice President of U S Advocacy ________________________________________________ Jeremy Tedesco serves as senior counsel and vice president of U S Advocacy for Alliance Defending Freedom where he helps oversee the implementation of strategic initiatives and advocacy campaigns Since joining ADF in 2004 Tedesco has litigated cases protecting religious liberty free speech and the sanctity of human life He was co-counsel in Reed v Town of Gilbert at the U S Supreme Court where he successfully defended the free speech rights of a small church against government discrimination From 2015 to 2017 Tedesco directed the ADF Center for Conscience Initiatives where he specialized in protecting the freedom of conscience of individuals being unjustly forced to compromise their beliefs or else face heavy fines and punishment Numerous media outlets have interviewed Tedesco or published his comments They include Fox News CNN The New York Times USA Today The Washington Times PBS NPR and National Review among others Tedesco earned his Juris Doctor in 2004 from the Regent University School of Law where he was a recipient of West’s Academic Achievement Award He is a member of the state bar of Arizona admitted to the U S Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Arizona as well as multiple federal district and appellate courts Page 17