Tag: censorship

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

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 manifesto, Better 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