Tag: censorship

Witnesses Testify on CISA, GEC, and Tech Firms Coordinated Effort to Silence Dissent Online

A contentious Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday laid bare deep divisions over the role of the federal government in influencing what Americans are allowed to say online.

While Republican lawmakers and witnesses presented extensive evidence of federal agencies pressuring tech platforms to silence the dissent of the public, Democrats largely sidestepped those concerns and instead zeroed in on a controversy involving late-night host Jimmy Kimmel where ABC owner Disney temporarily took him off air over comments related to the assassination of political activist and commentator Charlie Kirk.

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) opened the hearing with a warning about what he described as a “vast censorship enterprise” operating under the Biden administration.

He called for the passage of two bills aimed at curbing such activity: the Collude Act, which would revoke Section 230 protections from tech firms that censor speech at the request of government officials or affiliated organizations, and the Censorship Accountability Act, which would allow citizens to sue federal employees who violate First Amendment rights by coordinating with private companies to suppress lawful expression.

“Congress must act to dismantle this unconstitutional alliance between Big Tech and Big Government that has deprived Americans of their most fundamental right,” Schmitt stated.

The hearing, titled “Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” featured testimony from several individuals who said they had been targeted as a result of government-backed efforts to influence speech online.

Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist, testified that his outlet was hit by a coordinated censorship campaign involving both US agencies and foreign-linked organizations.

Keep reading

Ukrainians told to stop sharing violent conscription videos

Ukraine’s conscription authorities have called on citizens to refrain from documenting cases of violent forced military enlistment, instead urging the population to “cherish” recruitment officers. 

The message, shared on Wednesday by the Kiev Regional Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TCK), condemned a Telegram channel called Stop TCK Ukraine, which has been circulating videos of men being violently detained and forced into enlistment vehicles – incidents popularly dubbed “busifications” that often go viral.

The center alleged the channel was part of Russian information warfare and told Ukrainians to “never (!) watch videos of ‘busification.’”

“For God’s sake, don’t film or share such videos,” the post read. “If the Russians turn you into sheep, they’ll slaughter you like pigs tomorrow. So cherish the TCKs, help the TCKs, assist and protect them. They are the only ones filling the ranks of frontline units.”

Keep reading

California “Hate Speech” Bill Would Crush Dissent

If enacted and it somehow clears legal challenges, California Senate Bill 771 will be the first online censorship law of its kind in America. It would also likely pave a path for other states run by people with no tolerance for dissent.    

On September 22, the California Legislature sent SB 771 to Governor Gavin Newsom. He has until October 13 to sign it. If he doesn’t veto or sign the proposal, it becomes law anyway.

Mainstream media outlets claim that SB 771 “targets social media platforms for the role they could play in aiding and abetting in hate crimes by pushing content that could lead to a hate crime.”

The bill allows people to sue social-media companies for up to $1 million per violation. If the litigant is a minor, the fine could double.

Tucker Carlson’s analysis of the bill is more accurate than the mainstream media’s. Carlson:

That’s a censorship law.… The state of California, under Gavin Newsom, is about to — we think — censor the opinions of Americans, not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they continue to do what they want to do in secret.

Coerced Censorship

The bill uses broad terms that make it easy to justify censorship. It reads:

California law prohibits all persons and entities, including corporations, from engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.

Merriam Webster defines “intimidated” as “to make timid or fearful.” Synonyms include “bully” and “frighten.” Fear and intimidation are subjective emotions that have significantly increased among America’s younger and more unstable generations. People are swimming in pools of victimhood and mental illness today. We constantly hear about a spike in anxiety. What happens when we create laws that allow litigation on the basis of largely subjective emotions?

But the more likely primary intent here is to coerce social-media companies into pre-censoring. The senior vice president of social-media company Parler, Elise Pierotti, said of the bill:

SB 771 isn’t about protecting civil rights, it’s California’s brazen attempt to export its one-party censorship regime to every corner of the internet. This bill hands Sacramento the power to bully platforms into preemptively scrubbing dissent on everything from border security to parental rights. We’ve seen Big Tech abuse vague “hate speech” rules to throttle conservatives for years, including shutting down our platform in 2021; now, lawmakers want to make it mandatory with teeth-shattering fines. This must be stopped before it buries the First Amendment.

Shoshana Weissmann, director of digital media at the R Street Institute, also suspects this is the drafter’s main agenda. She told the Daily Caller that “rather than risk liability for showing users content one could argue (even if it doesn’t actually) violate a law, platforms will over-moderate and remove posts in order to stay out of court.”

Keep reading

California’s Vague ‘Hate Speech’ Bill Would Force Big Tech To Censor Mainstream Conservative Views

alifornia lawmakers are once again leading the charge — not toward progress, but toward repression. Their latest move, Senate Bill 771 (SB-771), is being packaged as a bold stand against “hate” on social media. In reality, it’s a direct assault on the free expression and constitutionally protected speech of ministries, minority groups, and faith-based organizations.

The bill would force Big Tech to remove content that could be interpreted as “harassment” or “intimidation” based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and more — or face financially devastating lawsuits.

If Gov. Gavin Newsom signs this bill into law as expected, it will become one of the most dangerous speech-restricting laws in the country. Cloaked in the language of civil rights, SB-771 is built to punish dissent from progressive orthodoxy.

The target is anyone who dares to speak publicly about values or perspectives that conflict with the state’s ever-expanding list of protected identities. In practice, this means community groups sharing discussions on traditional family structures, cultural views on gender roles, or advocacy for certain social issues may find themselves silenced — not by law enforcement, but by tech giants eager to avoid legal risk.

The bills says:

California law prohibits all persons and entities, including corporations, from engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.

 3273.73. (a) A social media platform that violates Section 51.7, 51.9, 52, or 52.1 through its algorithms that relay content to users or aids, abets, acts in concert, or conspires in a violation of any of those sections, or is a joint tortfeasor in a violation of any of those sections, shall, in addition to any other remedy, be liable to a prevailing plaintiff for a civil penalty for each violation sufficient to deter future violations but not to exceed the following:

(1) For an intentional, knowing, or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to one million dollars

(2) For a reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to five hundred thousand dollars.


This language may appear just, but its sweeping terms — “intimidation,” “coercion,” even “aiding” — are dangerously vague. In the hands of ideologically motivated actors, they can be weaponized to silence constitutionally protected discourse under the guise of enforcing civil rights.

That’s the chilling brilliance of SB-771: it outsources censorship to the private sector under threat of state-enforced financial ruin. The law doesn’t need to directly ban speech — it just makes the cost of hosting it too high for Big Tech to tolerate. This will especially impact small ministries, minority-led organizations, and faith-based nonprofits with limited legal or technical resources. For them, one flagged post — perhaps a cultural reference taken out of context — could mean being shadow-banned or deplatformed altogether.

Keep reading

Tunisian Man Sentenced to Death for Facebook Posts Critical of President Kais Saied

A Tunisian court has handed down a death sentence to a man accused of posting critical remarks about President Kais Saied on Facebook, a decision that has sent shockwaves through the country’s already tense political climate.

Lawyer Oussama Bouthalja confirmed that 56-year-old day laborer Saber Chouchane was convicted over social media posts that mocked and denounced the president.

“The judge in the Nabeul court sentenced the man to death over Facebook posts. It is a shocking and unprecedented ruling,” Bouthalja said, describing the decision as both extraordinary and alarming.

Chouchane, who has little formal education, was arrested last year after running a Facebook page titled “Kaïs le misérable” (“Kaïs the Miserable”), a name openly deriding President Saied.

Reuters reported his online activity included satirical cartoons, posts urging protests, and messages that prosecutors described as attempts to “overthrow the state.”

Authorities accused him of spreading “false news” and “insulting the president,” charges that rights advocates argue are being used to silence dissent.

An appeal has been filed, according to Bouthalja, but Tunisia’s justice ministry has not commented on the case.

Although courts in Tunisia sometimes issue death sentences, no executions have been carried out for over 30 years.

Family members expressed disbelief and anguish following the ruling. “We can’t believe it,” said Jamal Chouchane, Saber’s brother. “We are a family suffering from poverty, and now oppression and injustice have been added to poverty.”

The verdict ignited a wave of outrage online, as Tunisians flooded social media with messages of disbelief and defiance.

Many see the ruling as a blatant attempt to intimidate government opponents and restrict free expression even further.

Opposition figures have been jailed on a range of charges, while rights organizations, including the Tunisian League for Human Rights and the CRLDHT, warn that the justice system is being weaponized to punish dissent.

The absence of transparency surrounding Chouchane’s posts has also drawn attention. Authorities have not released screenshots or transcripts, a move many view as an attempt to suppress the very content that challenged the government.

For Tunisians who once celebrated the country’s post-revolution commitment to free speech, this is a chilling new chapter.

Keep reading

TikTok censors posts about AIPAC’s influence after ownership change

TikTok has begun censoring posts that discuss the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the United States. This change follows a recent ownership transition to billionaires aligned with Israeli interests.

The decision to censor content related to AIPAC has raised concerns among users regarding freedom of expression on the platform. The specific nature of the posts being targeted has not been detailed, but the move has sparked discussions about the implications of ownership on social media content moderation.

This development comes amid ongoing political tensions and discussions surrounding AIPAC”s role in U.S. politics. Similar situations have been observed in other contexts, including recent developments in Madagascar, where protests have erupted over political issues, as reported in recent coverage.

No further information has been provided by TikTok regarding the criteria for censorship or the potential impact on user engagement. The situation continues to evolve as users and observers monitor the platform”s policies.

Keep reading

Rogan Rages At Media Silence On UK’s “Orwellian Nightmare” Free Speech Crackdown

Podcaster Joe Rogan has blasted the media and leftists for ignoring a massive crackdown on free speech and a move toward total dystopian surveillance in the UK, while focusing instead on Jimmy Kimmel being suspended for a few days.

“The fact that our mainstream media is relatively silent on this is insane,” Rogan stated during a recent episode of his show.

“This is an Orwell nightmare coming to life right in front of our face,” he further warned.

“You’re seeing a complete, total attack on one of the most fundamental principles of the Western world, which is your ability to express yourself,” Rogan continued, adding “And your ability to call out that you think that the policies that are being implemented in your country are destructive.”

Referring to people who have been arrested and even imprisoned for social media posts, Rogan noted “These people are not calling for violence. They’re not. They’re being arrested for wild things. People are being arrested for liking posts. Some people were investigated for viewing posts.”

He further cautioned that “12,000 people arrested by the police in the UK, the same place that just implemented digital ID.”

“No one’s flinching, no one in America is freaking out about what’s happening in the UK at all,” Rogan urged.

“I mean, you get people online that are kind of freaked out by it, but they’re way more freaked out by nonsensical things like whether or not what Jimmy Kimmel said in his monologue was offensive. They’ll go to the ends of the earth to fight that,” he asserted.

As we have highlighted, Prime Minister Kier Starmer recently announced Chinese communist-style digital tracking is coming to the UK with a new mandatory “right to work” scheme in the form of a universal ID called the “Brit Card”.

It’s all predicated on the back of out of control mass illegal immigration, with the leftists using the crisis created by the previous Conservative government and amplified by Starmer’s cabal in an attempt to rollout Orwellian style surveillance and control.

Keep reading

Co-Founder of Far Left Wikipedia Shares Webpage that Ranks Conservative News Outlets as ‘Unreliable” and Green Lights the Fake News Far Left Outlets

This week Tucker Carlson interviewed Larry Sanger a internet project developer and co-founder of Wikipedia.

During their discussion, Tucker Carlson burst out laughing as Wikipedia’s Co-Founder Larry Sanger shows him the website’s BLACKLIST of banned sources.

“It’s so funny. This is amazing.”

Once you see which websites count as “reliable” and which are excluded, you’ll be laughing alongside Carlson.

Wikipedia has the list posted here at their reliable sources entry.

BLACKLISTED:

  •  Breitbart
  •  Daily Caller
  •  Epoch Times
  •  Fox News
  •  New York Post
  •  The Federalist
  • The Gateway Pundit

Green Lit:

  • New York Times
  • Washington Post
  • CNN
  • MSNBC
  • The Nation
  • Mother Jones
  • GLAAD
  • TV Guide

Vigilant Fox posted the segment from Tucker’s interview.

Keep reading

Forcing baker to make same-sex wedding cake recreates printing press censorship: scholars to SCOTUS

hirty-five years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia led a Supreme Court majority to gut the free exercise of religion under the rubric of “neutral” and “generally applicable” law, a decision that most members of the current court “have called into doubt” even as lower courts employ the 1990 Smith precedent “to permit government oppression.”

So say a former federal appellate judge, the allegedly fifth-most cited legal scholar of all time and a dozen other First Amendment and antidiscrimination law scholars, who together urge SCOTUS to “emphatically cast aside” Smith in accepting a case whose central question it has repeatedly decided.

They are joined by 16 states and several religious denominations and advocacy groups in supporting Tastries baker Cathy Miller’s SCOTUS petition to hear her eight-year legal saga, after the California Supreme Court refused to review an appeals court ruling that overturned a trial ruling in Miller’s favor for refusing to design a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The Golden State “has repeatedly compared Cathy’s religious beliefs about marriage to racism,” her lawyers at religious liberty law firm Becket said. California made the same comparison when female inmates sued to block its law incarcerating males with them.

The California appeals court distinguished its ruling from SCOTUS precedents in favor of Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop and Lorie Smith’s 303 Creative, against Colorado’s compelled creation of cakes and websites for same-sex weddings respectively, by claiming the cake Miller refused to make “conveyed no particularized message about the nature of marriage.”

Miller’s petition asks SCOTUS to resolve whether “compelled participation in a ceremony” is banned only when third parties view that participation as “endorsement,” if Miller must show “unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct” to prove a law is not generally applicable, and if 1990’s Smith should remain at all.

Keep reading

Report: EU to Charge Meta Under Censorship Law for Failing to Remove “Harmful” Content

Meta Platforms is bracing for formal charges from the European Union, accused of not doing enough to police online speech on Facebook and Instagram.

The problem is the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a law that gives regulators the power to decide what counts as “illegal” or “harmful” content (a definition that includes “illegal hate speech”) and punish companies that fail to take it down.

The commission’s move could lead to a fine of up to 6% of Meta’s worldwide revenue, though the company will be allowed to respond before any penalty is finalized.

Officials in Brussels argue that Meta lacks an adequate “notice and action mechanism” for users to flag posts for removal.

The charge sheet, expected within weeks, according to Bloomberg, builds on an investigation launched in April 2024.

What the EU describes as a duty to protect users is, in fact, a mandate that forces platforms to censor more aggressively or face ruinous fines.

The commission would not comment on its plans, but Meta spokesperson Ben Walters rejected the accusations outright, saying the company disagreed “with any suggestion we have breached the DSA” and confirmed that talks are ongoing.

The DSA covers every major platform with more than 45 million active users in the EU.

Meta is currently facing two separate probes under the law: one focused on disinformation and illegal content, the other on protections for minors.

Supporters of the DSA insist it protects citizens, but the law essentially hands governments the authority to decide what speech is acceptable online.

No fines have yet been issued, but the pressure to comply has already chilled open debate.

Keep reading