Afghan women lose their ‘last hope’ as Taliban shuts down internet

Fahima Noori had big dreams when she graduated from university in Afghanistan.

She had studied law, graduated from a midwifery programme and even worked in a mental health clinic.

But all that was taken away when the Taliban swept into power in 2021. They banned girls over the age of 12 from getting an education, severely restricted job options for women and recently removed books written by women from universities.

For Fahima, the internet was her last lifeline to the outside world.

“I recently enrolled in an online university [and] I had hoped to finish my studies and find an online job,” she said.

On Tuesday, that lifeline was cut off when the Taliban imposed a nationwide internet shutdown that is set to last indefinitely.

“Our last hope was online learning. Now [even] that dream has been destroyed,” said Fahima.

Her real name has been changed to protect her identity, as have the names of all others interviewed for this article.

Keep reading

YouTube Bows to Trump in Censorship Lawsuit, Will Pay Millions to Avoid Court

And then there were none.

YouTube, a Google subsidiary, became the last of three tech titans to settle a lawsuit brought forth by President Donald Trump, according to a blistering report from The Wall Street Journal.

The video sharing platform agreed to pay a hefty $24.5 million to settle lawsuits brought forth by Trump in 2021.

At the time, the president’s YouTube account had been banned following the Jan. 6 incursion at the U.S. Capitol.

YouTube claimed that they had gone to those extraordinary lengths to remove Trump’s channel to nix potential videos that may incite violence.

(The channel was reinstated in March 2023.)

The YouTube settlement is the second-biggest of the lawsuits brought against various tech titans by Trump — and that appears to be intentional.

The biggest settlement Trump had was with Facebook parent company Meta Platforms, which was for $25 million.

“Google executives were eager to keep their settlement smaller than the one paid by rival Meta, according to people familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

While $24.5 million does come in lower than the $25 million Meta paid, it’s more than double what X, formerly Twitter, paid Trump for a similar lawsuit, as the now-Elon Musk owned platform paid $10 million.

Interestingly, while Trump will “keep” most of this settlement money — $22 million — none of it will actually be going to him.

The Wall Street Journal noted that the money will be immediately rerouted to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall, tasked with building a grand ballroom near the White House.

The other $2.5 million will be dispersed among various other plaintiffs. There is no mention of attorney fees.

This decision comes months after YouTube was apparently having “productive conversations” with the Trump administration in June, per The Hill.

Keep reading

Canada To Revive Online Censorship Targeting “Harmful” Content, “Hate” Speech, and Deepfakes

A renewed censorship effort is taking shape in Canada as the federal government pushes ahead with a controversial bill targeting what it labels “harmful online content.”

Framed as a safeguard against exploitation and “hate,” the proposed legislation mirrors the widely criticized Bill C-36, which was abandoned after concerns about its vague language and expansive reach.

Bill C-63 would have established a powerful new Digital Safety Commission tasked with pressuring platforms to restrict user content.

If passed, the law would have compelled tech companies to remove flagged material such as intimate images shared without consent or child abuse content within 24 hours.

It also gives both the poster and complainant a chance to respond, but the final decision would ultimately fall to a state-backed regulator.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault attempted to justify the new push during a House of Commons committee meeting, stating the bill aims to remove “clearly harmful content” and is “designed to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

He added, “Online safety is certainly about protecting kids, but it’s obviously more than that.”

Beyond images and exploitation, the bill includes a broader mandate to police expression.

It calls for tougher Criminal Code penalties around so-called “hate propaganda,” including a life sentence for promoting genocide. It would create a new offense for “hate crimes” and let judges issue “peace bonds” to restrict someone’s freedom based on a prediction of possible future hate-based offenses.

On top of that, the proposal seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, allowing individuals to file complaints over online speech that meets a definition of “detestation or vilification,” as outlined by past Supreme Court decisions.

Keep reading

California’s Ministry of Truth: SB 771 is Gov. Newsom’s and Democrat’s Plan to Ban Speech They Hate

California Governor Gavin Newsom and Democrats in the Legislature claim they want to regulate social media over hate speech. Senate Bill 771 by Sen. Henry Stern (D-Los Angeles) claims this is about “Personal rights: liability: social media platforms.”

SB 771 is an “anti free speech” bill, comes entirely from California Democrats, and is designed to silence opposing opinions. The bill is not about moderating hate speech; it’s about banning speech Democrats hate. 

This isn’t California Democrats’ first rodeo. In 2018, Democrat California lawmakers pushed legislation to create jack-boot agents of government through a “Fake News Advisory Council” – an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” for the news they don’t like, I reported. “After having my Capitol Press Credential revoked in 2015 and only reissued after an Open Records Act request of 10-years of press credential applications, and viable threats of a First Amendment lawsuit, it appears Democrats in the California Legislature still don’t believe in making no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

That obviously stands today, 10 years later.

BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!

In April 2022, the Biden administration announced it had created the Disinformation Governance Board – its own Ministry of Truth – a part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Americans from all walks of life were horrified. Fortunately for the potential enemies of the state, the board’s executive director and disinformation czar Nina Jankowicz had already beclowned herself in videos that went viral, demonstrating her stunning bias and partisanship. Within three weeks the Biden Disinformation Governance Board was shut down, and many Americans heaved a sigh of relief.

But not California Democrats.

Keep reading

German State Public Radio and TV Broadcaster NDR Suppresses Explosive Documentary Exposing OCCRP Election Meddling and Secret U.S. Funding

Germany’s taxpayer-funded state broadcaster NDR is desperately trying to bury its own investigative documentary that exposes the shady journalist network OCCRP. The reason? The film caught OCCRP chief Drew Sullivan on camera bragging that his organization was “responsible for overthrowing five or six governments.”

The revelations are devastating. NDR reporters uncovered that OCCRP—whose media partners include Der Spiegeland Die Zeit—was secretly bankrolled from the United States for decades. When the documentary turned out to be critical instead of a love letter, Sullivan reportedly pressured NDR to kill the project. The state broadcaster complied, scrapping the documentary before it aired and cutting ties with OCCRP in 2023. The scandal finally leaked in December 2024 through the French platform Mediapart.

Censorship and Threats Against an Elected Official

Now, as OCCRP is embroiled in a massive EU funding scandal, the suppressed film has resurfaced. MEP Petr Bystron (AfD) revealed through an inquiry that OCCRP received €600,000 from EU coffers immediately after the European elections—right after the network ran smear campaigns against conservative candidates, including Bystron himself.

Despite this interference, Bystron won his seat and published the hidden film online. That’s when NDR struck back, issuing him a cease-and-desist order and threatening fines of up to €50,000. The state broadcaster appears terrified that Sullivan’s own words might reach the public.

OCCRP in Panic Mode

Sullivan and OCCRP reacted furiously on X, dismissing the leaked documentary as “attacks” on their organization. But Sullivan offered no explanation as to how quoting his own on-camera admissions could be an “attack.” OCCRP also dodged questions from the Berliner Zeitung about its EU payments, merely insisting it was still “independent.”

Sullivan’s radical views are also on display elsewhere. After the brutal murder of American conservative Charlie Kirk, the OCCRP boss gloated: “A moment of silence is not appropriate. He was no hero. […] He was a racist, an anti-democratic liar.”

U.S. Fallout

The scandal is reverberating across the Atlantic. President Donald Trump already cut OCCRP’s lifeline by halting its funding via USAID. And now, U.S. media like Gateway Pundit and InfoWars are exposing how this so-called “investigative” network has been weaponized to manipulate elections and topple governments worldwide.

Keep reading

Georgetown, Knight Foundation Include FBI Russiagate Lawyer James Baker on Board of Censorship Organization

James Baker, the FBI’s top lawyer during Russiagate and later a key operative inside Twitter’s pre-Musk  censorship apparatus, has resurfaced on the board of a fresh institutional effort to lock down online speech.

As revealed in a new report from the Foundation for Freedom Online, Baker is seated on the board of the Knight-Georgetown Institute (KGI), a relatively new addition to the maze of “counter-disinformation” organizations that sprung up after Donald Trump’s first election victory in 2016.

Founded in 2024, KGI is a “counter-disinformation” hub co-founded by the Knight Foundation and Georgetown University. A top priority is state lawmaking – it is currently shopping a “toolkit” to state-level legislators, aimed at guiding the regulation of social media feeds.

As well as Baker, KGI’s board includes Alondra Nelson, Joe Biden’s acting director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, who oversaw a whole-of-government disinformation crackdown spanning 26 agencies, 14 universities, and 20+ NGOs. Another member is Nahiba Syed, a lawyer who defended the Steele Dossier in court.

In March 2025, KGI published its flagship manifestoBetter Feeds, supplying three suggested changes to social media feeds:

  1. Bridging – algorithms should favor “positive dialogue” over raw engagement, in effect suppressing content deemed too conflictual.
  2. Surveys – platforms should constantly poll users about what kinds of content they want to see, subtly nudging behavior.
  3. Quality metrics – content flagged as “toxic” or low quality should be downgraded, while exalted “award-winning” journalism or high-status outlets are boosted.

The “quality” standard is elastic — and subjective by design. Baker and his colleagues also openly praise censorship tools like NewsGuard and Google Jigsaw’s Perspective AI, both already weaponized to suppress conservative voices. NewsGuard, for instance, has blacklisted well-known conservative publications such as Breitbart News, Newsmax, and The Federalist.

Keep reading

Critics Accuse YouTube of Dragging Out Return Process for Banned Channels

YouTube is being criticized for what many see as backpedaling on its commitment to free speech, after pledging to restore banned accounts, only to continue removing new channels created by previously banned figures.

The initial assurance came in a letter dated September 23, 2025, addressed to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan.

In that communication, YouTube acknowledged its past enforcement actions, which included terminating channels over election-related and COVID-19 content under policies that have since changed. The company claimed that its current guidelines permit more room for such topics and asserted:

“Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the Company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.”

The same day, YouTube posted a message on X describing a “limited pilot project” that would provide “a pathway back to YouTube for some terminated creators to set up a new channel.”

However, the platform immediately added that this option would only apply to a “subset” of creators.

The vagueness of the commitment raised suspicion, which intensified when two prominent figures, Infowars founder Alex Jones and “America First” host Nick Fuentes, launched new channels that were almost immediately taken down.

Keep reading

FCC Threats Against Jimmy Kimmel Echo a Century of Speech Control

Days after the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Jimmy Kimmel joked on his show that the “MAGA gang [was] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” This prompted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr to threaten network broadcasting licenses, alleging that Kimmel’s show violates “public interest, convenience or necessity,” and to tell ABC that this could be resolved “the easy way or the hard way.” The following day, ABC announced the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel LIVE!—a decision it reversed on Monday after public outcry. 

Many conservatives, trying to remember where they put their keys and their beefs about cancel culture, see this as the way the cookie crumbles. Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), however, believes that Carr was wrong and called this “mafioso” behavior “dangerous.” The dispute highlights a century-old tension: political control over broadcast licenses and the power to shave free speech.

Broadcast TV and radio authorizations—held by stations in the ABC network—state that private companies cannot claim ownership of the radio spectrum. Access to airwaves is a privilege, not a right. This dates to the 1927 Radio Act, proposed by then–Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover and signed by President Calvin Coolidge. Its rules were repeated virtually verbatim in the 1934 Communications Act, amended in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and constitute today’s law of the land.

The greatest problem with censorship is the ease with which subtle demands by politicians slant the news, particularly in the choice (or rejection) of controversial topics. But it is the law backing up the government’s powerful authority that makes that influence work. Fred Friendly’s fascinating book The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, describes one of the sensational cases where a permit to speak was actually cancelled. In the WXUR case, a Philadelphia station was operated by the highly opinionated Rev. Carl McIntire, a “suspended” Presbyterian minister. Although his organization raised $5,000 to support Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967, McIntire was considered an antisemite by the National Council of Churches, the Urban League, and the B’nai B’rith. They objected to his “intemperate attacks on other religious denominations…and political officials.” The organizations called for McIntire’s broadcast license to be revoked (denied for renewal) by the FCC because its programs “help[ed] create a climate of fear, prejudice and distrust of democratic institutions.” 

McIntire lost WXUR in 1973—the only time such a right was extinguished under the so-called Fairness Doctrine. But legions of speakers have been cowed and hushed. As early as 1929, the left-wing stations WEVD (named for Eugene V. Debs) and WCFL (owned by the Chicago Federation of Labor) were warned about espousing their radical views. WEVD was accused in a 1929 renewal at the Federal Radio Commission of being “the mouthpiece of the Socialist Party.” WCFL was branded a “propaganda” outlet. Both enterprises read the room and backed away from their edgy politics and full-time line-ups. WCFL merged into the NBC conglomerate, while WEVD—cadging donations to stay alive—limped along by sharing most of the week’s broadcast time with commercial outlets. 

One of the great 20th century judicial liberals, D.C. Senior Court of Appeals judge David Bazelon, originally supported the FCC’s attack on McIntire’s ownership of WXUR. His First Amendment rights were compromised, under the 1943 NBC Supreme Court verdict, based on the “physical scarcity” doctrine. This posits that there are only a limited number of frequencies—a limit imposed by nature, not the government—and so the regulator has to select the best content to fill those slots. It was an uncompelling argument at the time: Resources in limited supply are sold to bidders every day without FCC (or other) administrative assignment. There are actually unlimited spectral slots, not just counting what technology might deliver (tell me the top limit on satellite radio channels or Internet radio stations), but in divvying the old AM dial into finer slices. 

Keep reading

No, Senator Van Hollen: Stations Choosing Not To Air Kimmel Isn’t Censorship

It’s very clear that the Democratic Party has no idea what the First Amendment means and what free speech is.

They have spent the past week telling us there’s a Constitutional right to have a high-paying late-night talk show, calling the short-lived suspension of Jimmy Kimmel “censorship.” It’s not. It was a business decision by ABC/Disney and stations like Sinclair and Nexstar to not air a show after the host made inflammatory comments about Charlie Kirk.

Even with Kimmel’s return to his show, several Sinclair stations have opted to not broadcast his show.

That, of course, is their right.

But Democrats like California State Senator Scott Wiener vowed to break up Sinclair for not airing Kimmel, and now Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is calling Sinclair’s decision not to air Kimmel “censorship” too.

While FCC Chair Brendan Carr did comment on the situation and talk about possible consequences for ABC/Disney and Kimmel, the FCC did not demand the suspension of Kimmel’s show. That decision came from the network after Kimmel refused to tone down the rhetoric (and the future of Kimmel’s show has long been in doubt anyway).

Keep reading

Popular South Korean Pastor Sits Behind Bars for Speaking Out – Radical Left in South Korea Is Using Democrat Party Tactics to Crush the Opposition

A Pastor Sits Behind Bars for Speaking Out

In a shocking development, South Korean authorities have dismissed a legality review request filed by Pastor Hyunbo Son, keeping him behind bars on allegations of “election law violations.”

On September 24, the Busan District Court rejected Pastor Son’s request for release, citing “flight risk.” Pastor Son’s alleged offense was posting a video of a conversation with a candidate on social media, expressing support for one candidate while criticizing another during an election period.

In South Korea, election law violations are almost always punished with fines.

Detention is nearly unheard of. Yet Pastor Son — who led the “Save Korea” movement and organized mass rallies against the impeachment of President Yoon — is now imprisoned as if he were a dangerous criminal.

Political Persecution Disguised as Law

Observers note that the case goes far beyond technical election law issues. Pastor Son is not an ordinary church leader; he is a conservative Christian figure who mobilized thousands against the left-wing government’s political purge of President Yoon. His imprisonment is widely seen as an attempt to weaken conservative unity and intimidate the Christian community.

Keep reading