The STOP HATE Act: How Congress Plans to Outsource Censorship to Advocacy Groups

Compliance Hub

28 Jul 2025 — 11 min read

A bipartisan bill masquerading as counter-terrorism legislation threatens to create an unprecedented censorship regime, deputizing private organizations to police American speech

On July 23, 2025, Representatives Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Don Bacon (R-NE) stood alongside Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt in the U.S. Capitol to announce the reintroduction of what may be one of the most dangerous pieces of censorship legislation ever proposed in Congress. The Stopping Terrorists Online Presence and Holding Accountable Tech Entities (STOP HATE) Act represents a brazen attempt to circumvent the First Amendment by deputizing advocacy groups as speech enforcers, all while hiding behind the politically bulletproof rhetoric of "fighting terrorism."

What the STOP HATE Act Actually Does

Despite its counter-terrorism branding, the STOP HATE Act functions as a comprehensive speech regulation regime that would fundamentally alter how Americans communicate online. The legislation targets social media platforms with at least 25 million monthly U.S. users, subjecting them to new reporting requirements and potentially devastating financial penalties.

Key provisions include:

Mandatory Government Reporting: Platforms must provide detailed reports to the U.S. Attorney General explaining how they address content from Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs)
Policy Disclosure Requirements: Companies must explain the standards they use to determine whether content violates their terms of service
$5 Million Daily Fines: Platforms face staggering penalties of $5 million per day for non-compliance
Intelligence Reporting: The Director of National Intelligence must report on terrorist use of social media

While these requirements may sound reasonable in isolation, the bill's true scope becomes clear when examining the rhetoric of its sponsors and supporters.

The Real Target: Political Speech Critical of Israel

At the press conference announcing the bill, the mask slipped. Rep. Bacon went beyond discussing terrorism to suggest that even political speech critical of "pro-Zionist" lawmakers should be suppressed. He referred to a hypothetical article saying "we have to oppose congressmen who are pro-Zionists" as an example of antisemitic rhetoric that ought to be suppressed.

This isn't an accident or overreach—it's the point. When Gottheimer and Bacon first proposed the bill in 2023, they explicitly called on the government to register TikTok and Al Jazeera as foreign agents, with Bacon stating: "When our students and young people are openly supporting Hamas, we have to look to the source of the propaganda".

The timing is also telling. Gottheimer cited "supportive social media comments about the May 2025 murder of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington" and recent AI content as justification for the legislation. This pattern of using Middle East conflicts to expand censorship powers has become a familiar playbook.

The ADL: From Civil Rights to Censorship Enforcement

The central role of the Anti-Defamation League in promoting this legislation reveals the bill's true purpose. Once a legitimate civil rights organization, the ADL has transformed into what critics describe as a censorship advocacy group that routinely conflates criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism.

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt claimed the legislation would help combat "extremists online who are looking to seed divisions among us and drive hate", while characterizing social media platforms as "breeding grounds for antisemitic hate and disinformation." The ADL's 2024 Social Media Scorecard, cited in support of the legislation, reflects the organization's expansive definition of "hate speech" that often captures legitimate political discourse.

The bill essentially deputizes organizations like the ADL as government speech enforcers. As the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee warns, the legislation "deputizes and hands over 'speech enforcement authority' to zionist entities, giving them unfettered powers to police private social media companies".

A Bipartisan Assault on Free Speech

Perhaps most disturbing is the bipartisan nature of this censorship push. Civil libertarian journalist Glenn Greenwald observed: "There was [a] full consensus on the Right for the last decade that Big Tech censorship was a great evil, especially if pressured and demanded by the US Government. All that changed with it came time to censor for Israel".

This represents a complete abandonment of principled opposition to government-directed censorship when it serves particular political interests. Republicans who spent years denouncing Big Tech censorship are now actively promoting legislation that would massively expand it, while Democrats who once claimed to oppose authoritarian speech restrictions are leading the charge.

The Chilling Effect: Beyond the First Amendment

The STOP HATE Act's impact would extend far beyond its formal legal requirements. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee warns that "faced with that risk, companies will preemptively start deleting users who express views and opinions that could possibly open them up to fines".

This chilling effect is by design. The ADC notes that "After passage of the Patriot Act post 9/11, banks shuttered thousands of Arab- and Muslim‑American accounts not because their owners had been proven to support terrorism, but because the institutions feared crippling fines. The STOP HATE Act would reproduce the post 9/11 chilling effect in the digital sphere".

The legislation creates powerful incentives for platforms to err on the side of over-censorship rather than risk devastating financial penalties. When "hate speech" definitions are left to advocacy groups and government bureaucrats, the safest course for platforms is to remove any content that might possibly be deemed problematic.

Historical Context: The Slippery Slope of Hate Speech Laws

The dangers of hate speech legislation are not theoretical—they are documented throughout history and across the globe. Glenn Greenwald has extensively documented how "hate speech restrictions are used in those countries to suppress, outlaw, and punish more than far-right bigotry".

In France, "the country's highest court upheld the criminal conviction of 12 pro-Palestinian activists for violating restrictions against hate speech". In the UK, hate speech laws have been used against British Muslims criticizing military actions in Afghanistan. The ACLU itself "was borne out of an attempt by former President Woodrow Wilson to criminalize dissent from his policy of involving the U.S. in World War I".

The pattern is always the same: laws ostensibly designed to protect marginalized groups end up being used to silence dissent and protect those in power. As Greenwald notes, "When you empower society to outlaw ideas it hates most, that is who is most vulnerable".

The Broader Censorship Ecosystem

The STOP HATE Act doesn't exist in isolation—it's part of a coordinated global assault on internet freedom. Similar legislation is being implemented worldwide:

The UK's Online Safety Act requires age verification and content restrictions, causing multiple websites to shut down rather than comply
The EU's Digital Services Act compels platforms to remove "illegal content" as defined by any EU member state
KOSA (Kids Online Safety Act) would establish "duty of care" requirements that critics say will lead to broad censorship

All of these laws share common features: vague definitions of harmful content, enforcement through private intermediaries, and the systematic erosion of due process rights. They represent what digital rights advocates describe as "the censorship industrial complex."

The Constitutional Crisis

The STOP HATE Act poses fundamental constitutional problems beyond just First Amendment violations. By requiring platforms to report their moderation policies to the government and face massive fines for non-compliance, the legislation effectively turns private companies into state censors.

This violates the basic principle that the government cannot accomplish indirectly what it's forbidden to do directly. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the government cannot use threats or coercion to pressure private entities to suppress speech that the government could not ban itself.

The ADC correctly identifies that "By coercing companies to remove or suppress lawful content, the STOP HATE Act violates core constitutional protections, undermines Section 230's safe‑harbor framework, and invites discriminatory enforcement against marginalized communities".

The Technology Industry's Response

While some major tech companies have previously supported certain content moderation requirements, the STOP HATE Act's unprecedented financial penalties and reporting requirements represent a new level of government intrusion. The $5 million daily fines create existential threats for all but the largest platforms, effectively creating barriers to entry that will further consolidate the tech industry.

The legislation also undermines Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has been crucial for innovation and free expression online. By requiring detailed government reporting and threatening massive penalties, the law transforms platforms from neutral intermediaries into government-supervised content police.

International Implications

If enacted, the STOP HATE Act would have global implications for internet freedom. American social media platforms operate worldwide, meaning that U.S. government speech restrictions would effectively be exported globally. This follows the troubling pattern of European regulations like the Digital Services Act having extraterritorial effects on American speech.

The legislation also sets a dangerous precedent that authoritarian governments worldwide will cite to justify their own censorship regimes. As Greenwald warns, "Nothing strengthens hate groups more than censoring them, as it turns them into free speech martyrs, feeds their sense of grievance, and forces them to seek out more destructive means of activism".

What Real Counter-Terrorism Looks Like

Genuine counter-terrorism efforts focus on actual threats, not speech. Law enforcement agencies already have extensive tools to monitor and investigate real terrorist activities, including:

Targeted surveillance with proper judicial oversight
Financial tracking of terrorist funding networks
International cooperation on genuine security threats
Investigation and prosecution of actual terrorist activities

The STOP HATE Act offers none of these focused approaches. Instead, it creates a massive speech surveillance apparatus that would likely be ineffective against real terrorists while devastating for legitimate political discourse.

The Path Forward: Defending Digital Rights

The STOP HATE Act represents everything wrong with contemporary approaches to online content regulation. Rather than addressing genuine harms through targeted, constitutional means, it creates a sprawling censorship bureaucracy that threatens the foundational principles of American democracy.

Citizens and organizations should:

Contact their representatives to oppose this legislation
Support digital rights organizations fighting these censorship efforts
Educate others about the true scope and dangers of the bill
Advocate for constitutional alternatives that address legitimate concerns without sacrificing fundamental rights

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, and other digital rights groups have been sounding the alarm about these trends. Their work deserves support from anyone who values free expression in the digital age.

Conclusion: A Choice Between Freedom and Control

The STOP HATE Act forces a stark choice between two visions of the internet. The first envisions a free and open digital commons where ideas compete in a marketplace of ideas, where even offensive or unpopular speech is protected because we trust citizens to make their own judgments. The second envisions a managed and controlled information environment where government-approved organizations determine what Americans may read, share, and discuss.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee correctly warns: "No foreign nation, including Israel, should have the power to dictate what Americans can or cannot say. Our rights are not negotiable. When members of Congress and state lawmakers start compromising our freedoms to satisfy the demands of a foreign government, we lose what makes this country free".

The STOP HATE Act is not about fighting terrorism—it's about control. It represents an attempt to use the moral authority of anti-terrorism efforts to create an unprecedented censorship apparatus that would fundamentally transform American democracy.

The question facing Congress and the American people is simple: Will we allow our fundamental rights to be sacrificed on the altar of political convenience, or will we stand firm in defense of the principles that make democracy possible?

The future of American freedom may well depend on the answer.

This article draws upon extensive research into the STOP HATE Act, including official statements from sponsors, press releases, criticism from civil rights organizations, and historical analysis of similar legislation. All citations refer to publicly available sources documenting the scope and implications of this proposed legislation.