I 
118TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 4791 
To prohibit Federal employees and contractors from directing online platforms 
to censor any speech that is protected by the First Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JULY 20, 2023 
Mr. JORDAN (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana, Mr. MOORE of Ala-
bama, Mrs. SPARTZ, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. ISSA, Mr. VAN 
DREW, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Mr. STEUBE, Ms. 
STEFANIK, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. BUCK, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. KILEY, 
Mr. CLINE, and Mr. GAETZ) introduced the following bill; which was re-
ferred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and in addition 
to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Energy and Commerce, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned 
A BILL 
To prohibit Federal employees and contractors from directing 
online platforms to censor any speech that is protected 
by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Free Speech Protection 
Act’’. 
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 
In this Act: 
(1) COVERED INFORMATION.—The term ‘‘cov-
ered information’’ means information relating to— 
(A) a phone call; 
(B) any type of digital communication, in-
cluding a post on a covered platform, an email, 
a text, and a direct message; 
(C) a photo; 
(D) shopping and commerce history; 
(E) location data, including a driving route 
and ride hailing information; 
(F) an IP address; 
(G) metadata; 
(H) search history; 
(I) the name, age, or demographic infor-
mation of a user of a covered platform; and 
(J) a calendar item. 
(2) COVERED PLATFORM.—The term ‘‘covered 
platform’’ means— 
(A) an interactive computer service, as 
that term is defined in section 230(f) of the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
20:28 Aug 09, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
230(f)); and 
(B) any platform through which a media 
organization disseminates information, without 
regard to whether the organization disseminates 
that information— 
(i) through broadcast or print; 
(ii) online; or 
(iii) through any other channel. 
(3) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budg-
et. 
(4) EMPLOYEE.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except where otherwise 
expressly provided, the term ‘‘employee’’— 
(i) means an employee of an Execu-
tive agency; and 
(ii) includes— 
(I) an individual, other than an 
employee of an Executive agency, 
working under a contract with an Ex-
ecutive agency; and 
(II) the President and the Vice 
President. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—With re-
spect to an individual described in subpara-
graph (A)(ii)(I), solely for the purposes of this 
Act, the Executive agency that has entered into 
the contract under which the employee is work-
ing shall be construed to be the Executive agen-
cy employing the employee. 
(5) EXECUTIVE AGENCY.—The term ‘‘Executive 
agency’’— 
(A) has the meaning given the term in sec-
tion 105 of title 5, United States Code; and 
(B) includes the Executive Office of the 
President. 
(6) PROVIDER.—The term ‘‘provider’’ means a 
provider of a covered platform. 
SEC. 3. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
(1) The First Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States guarantees— 
(A) freedoms concerning religion, expres-
sion, assembly, and petition of the government; 
(B) the freedom of expression by prohib-
iting the government from restricting the press 
or the right of an individual to speak freely; 
and 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(C) the right of an individual to assemble 
peaceably and to petition the government. 
(2) Freedom of speech is an essential element 
of liberty that restrains tyranny and empowers indi-
viduals. 
(3) Writing in support of a Bill of Rights, 
Thomas Jefferson stated that ‘‘[t]here are rights 
which it is useless to surrender to the government, 
and which yet, governments have always been fond 
to invade. These are the rights of thinking and pub-
lishing our thoughts by speaking or writing.’’. 
(4) The Supreme Court of the United States 
(referred to in this section as the ‘‘Court’’) has 
upheld the right to speak free from governmental in-
terference as a fundamental right. 
(5) The Court, in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 
U.S. 319 (1937), wrote that freedom of thought and 
speech ‘‘is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of 
nearly every other form of freedom’’. 
(6) In Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 
Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 
(1994), the Court stated the following: ‘‘At the heart 
of the First Amendment lies the principle that each 
person should decide for himself or herself the ideas 
and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
and adherence. Our political system and cultural life 
rest upon this ideal. Government action that stifles 
speech on account of its message, or that requires 
the utterance of a particular message favored by the 
Government, contravenes this essential right . . . 
[and poses] the inherent risk that Government seeks 
not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to 
suppress unpopular ideas or manipulate the public 
debate through coercion rather than persuasion. 
These restrictions ‘rais[e] the specter that the Gov-
ernment may effectively drive certain ideas or view-
points from the marketplace.’ For these reasons, the 
First Amendment, subject only to narrow and well- 
understood exceptions, does not countenance govern-
ment control over the content of messages expressed 
by private individuals.’’. 
(7) In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 
(1992), the Court explained that the First Amend-
ment to the Constitution of the United States ‘‘gen-
erally prevents government from proscribing speech, 
or even expressive conduct, because of disapproval of 
the ideas expressed. Content-based restrictions are 
presumptively invalid.’’. 
(8) The case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 
444 (1969), stands for the proposition that speech 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
can be suppressed only if the speech is intended, and 
is likely to produce, imminent lawless action. 
(9) Justice William Brennan, in his majority 
opinion for the Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 
397 (1989), asserted that ‘‘[i]f there is a bedrock 
principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that 
the government may not prohibit the expression of 
an idea simply because society finds the idea itself 
offensive or disagreeable.’’. 
(10) Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his majority opin-
ion for the Court in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 
lll U.S. lll (2023), stated, ‘‘The First 
Amendment envisions the United States as a rich 
and complex place where all persons are free to 
think and speak as they wish, not as the government 
demands.’’. 
(11) As evidenced in disclosures from various 
social media companies, Federal officials in recent 
years have sought to censor legal speech on plat-
forms operated by those companies by using the 
power of their offices to influence what opinions, 
views, and other content that users of those plat-
forms may disseminate. 
(12) White House officials and officials of Ex-
ecutive agencies sought to silence narratives on so-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
cial media platforms on issues relating to the 
COVID–19 pandemic. 
(13) The Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention engaged with officials at Facebook and Twit-
ter to request that certain posts be flagged as 
‘‘disinformation’’ and held regular meetings with 
those companies to share instances of what govern-
ment officials determined to be ‘‘misinformation’’ 
about the COVID–19 pandemic that had been 
spread on the platforms operated by those compa-
nies. 
(14) In the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation communicated with 
high-level technology company executives and sug-
gested that a New York Post story regarding the 
contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop were part of a 
‘‘hack and leak’’ operation. 
(15) On April 27, 2022, the Department of 
Homeland Security announced the creation of a 
Disinformation Governance Board (referred to in 
this paragraph as the ‘‘Board’’). The Director of the 
Board, Nina Jankowicz, sought to establish an 
‘‘analytic exchange’’ with ‘‘industry partners’’. In 
congressional testimony, Secretary of Homeland Se-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
curity Alejandro Mayorkas provided misleading testi-
mony about the actions of the Board. 
(16) Since 2020, 2 nonprofit organizations af-
filiated with the Global Disinformation Index (re-
ferred to in this paragraph as ‘‘GDI’’) have received 
a total of $330,000 in grants from Federal agencies. 
GDI maintains a list of ‘‘global news publications 
rated high risk for disinformation’’. Major adver-
tising companies seek guidance from this purported 
‘‘nonpartisan’’ group to determine where advertising 
money should be spent. Despite the self-proclaimed 
‘‘nonpartisan’’ nature of the list, GDI includes a 
host of reputable media outlets, such as Reason, 
RealClearPolitics, and the New York Post. 
SEC. 4. EMPLOYEE PROHIBITIONS. 
(a) PROHIBITIONS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—An employee acting under 
official authority or influence may not— 
(A) use any form of communication (with-
out regard to whether the communication is 
visible to members of the public) to direct, co-
erce, compel, or encourage a provider to take, 
suggest or imply that a provider should take, or 
request that a provider take any action to cen-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
sor speech that is protected by the Constitution 
of the United States, including by— 
(i) removing that speech from the ap-
plicable covered platform; 
(ii) suppressing that speech on the ap-
plicable covered platform; 
(iii) removing or suspending a par-
ticular user (or a class of users) from the 
applicable covered platform or otherwise 
limiting the access of a particular user (or 
a class of users) to the covered platform; 
(iv) 
labeling 
that 
speech 
as 
disinformation, misinformation, or false, or 
by making any similar characterization 
with respect to the speech; or 
(v) otherwise blocking, banning, delet-
ing, 
deprioritizing, 
demonetizing, 
deboosting, limiting the reach of, or re-
stricting access to the speech; 
(B) direct or encourage a provider to share 
with an Executive agency covered information 
containing data or information regarding a par-
ticular topic, or a user or group of users on the 
applicable covered platform, including any cov-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
ered information shared or stored by users on 
the covered platform; 
(C) work, directly or indirectly, with any 
private or public entity or person to take an ac-
tion that is prohibited under subparagraph (A) 
or (B); or 
(D) on behalf of the Executive agency em-
ploying the employee— 
(i) enter into a partnership with a 
provider to monitor any content dissemi-
nated on the applicable covered platform; 
or 
(ii) solicit, accept, or enter into a con-
tract or other agreement (including a no- 
cost agreement) for free advertising or an-
other promotion on a covered platform. 
(2) 
EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding 
subpara-
graph (B) of paragraph (1), the prohibition under 
that subparagraph shall not apply with respect to an 
action by an Executive agency or employee pursuant 
to a warrant that is issued by— 
(A) a court of the United States of com-
petent jurisdiction in accordance with the proce-
dures described in rule 41 of the Federal Rules 
of Criminal Procedure; or 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(B) a State court of competent jurisdic-
tion. 
(3) EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE.— 
(A) IN
GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 
provision of title 5, United States Code, and 
subject to subparagraph (B), the head of an 
Executive agency employing an employee who 
violates any provision of paragraph (1) (or, in 
the case of the head of an Executive agency 
who violates any provision of paragraph (1), the 
President) shall impose on that employee— 
(i) disciplinary action consisting of re-
moval, reduction in grade, suspension, or 
debarment from employment with the 
United States; 
(ii) a civil penalty in an amount that 
is not less than $10,000; 
(iii) ineligibility for any annuity under 
chapter 83 or 84 of title 5, United States 
Code; and 
(iv) permanent revocation of any ap-
plicable security clearance held by the em-
ployee. 
(B) SPECIFIC CONTRACTOR DISCIPLINE.— 
In the case of an employee described in section 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:18 Aug 08, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4791.IH
H4791
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS