Tag: censorship

Judge: Yardley Officials Illegally Deleted Criticism on Facebook

A federal judge has determined that leaders of Yardley Borough, Buck’s County, Pennsylvania, unlawfully silenced a resident when they deleted his comment from the local government’s Facebook page.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The controversy centers on Earl Markey, a corporate trainer and active member of the local Republican committee.

In October 2022, Markey posted a comment on the Yardley Boro Facebook page urging voters to back a referendum that would have trimmed the borough council from seven members to five.

His comment was sharply critical of a sitting councilman.

Markey wrote, “Appointed Councilman Matt Curtin wants to raise property taxes by two mills. Stop unelected, out of touch investment bankers, like Matt Curtin, from volunteering our hard-earned money for higher taxes. Vote YES on the referendum to reduce the size of the Yardley Borough Council.”

Not long after, the comment disappeared.

The borough’s manager, Paula Johnson, labeled the post a personal attack. Council President Caroline Thompson approved its removal.

Markey saw this as a clear act of censorship and took legal action, filing a lawsuit against Thompson, Johnson, and the borough. He also named two other officials who were eventually removed from the case.

“For me that crossed a line,” Markey said. He described the deletion as “censorship by public officials.”

Although borough leaders tried to defuse the matter by letting Markey repost his comment, reimbursing his legal filing fee, and drafting a revised social media policy, Markey pressed forward with the lawsuit.

Keep reading

French Left-Wing MPs Introduce Amendment To “Reduce” Coverage Of Migrant Crime Stories

When reality does not mesh with the “narrative,” the left’s standard tactic is to turn to censorship, and the French left is no different. The French Greens and other left-wing parties now want to make sure that news stories are not used for ideological purposes by the “far right,” claiming that certain media outlets are causing a “moral panic” around immigration due to migrant murders.

According to a parliamentary amendment tabled on June 25, 2025, by a group of Green and left-wing MPs in the National Assembly, news stories of actual events that have happened, and actual lives lost, are being improperly used by the right.

Another post from the French Observatory for Journalism ,wrote: “BREAKING NEWS | Green and left-wing deputies submit an amendment to REDUCE the coverage of crime stories in PUBLIC media. The authors believe these stories are used for ‘political exploitation;’ the text cites the murders of Lola and Thomas.”

Keep reading

South Dakota Follows Texas with Broader Online Digital ID Law

The Supreme Court’s endorsement of Texas’ age verification law for adult websites has paved the way for a surge of similar online digital ID measures across the country.

South Dakota is the first to follow, as its new statute requiring age verification or estimation for sites distributing adult content takes effect today.

However the South Dakota law is much broader and applies to a wider range of websites, not just those that have a large percentage of adult content.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The law applies broadly to any platform that regularly deals in explicit material, without setting a specific threshold for how much of the site’s content qualifies.

This contrasts with Texas’ approach, where the rule kicks in if at least one-third of a site’s material is deemed pornographic.

Keep reading

Florida Bans State Funds for Groups Accused of Speech Policing

Florida has moved to shield public funds from being used to support what many see as efforts to police speech under the guise of media bias monitoring.

Under the state’s new fiscal year 2026 budget, taxpayer dollars can no longer be spent on advertising or marketing firms that contract with groups like NewsGuard, Ad Fontes, or the Global Disinformation Index (GDI).

The measure was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis on Monday.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

A press release from the Independent Media Council emphasized that the restriction is aimed at blocking state agencies from doing business with companies that rely on “politically biased media monitoring services.”

The council stated, “These monitoring groups purport to be impartial, but consistently skew their ratings to target conservative and independent media from receiving advertising from major brands.”

NewsGuard, one of the most prominent organizations caught in the spotlight, has received federal backing in the form of a $750,000 grant from the Department of Defense.

This funding helped the group develop its “Misinformation Fingerprints” technology, which it now offers to social media platforms, artificial intelligence developers, and tech firms as a tool for tracking so-called misinformation.

Keep reading

Censored BBC Documentary Exposes Israel’s War On Gaza’s Doctors.

Recently, the documentary “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack,” which was prevented from being aired on the British state-funded media outlet BBC, was acquired by the British channel “Channel 4” and the independent news outlet Zeteo for release.

Having seen the documentary, it is not surprising that it was censored – it is a horrific and deeply disturbing investigation into Israel’s systemic war on Gaza’s healthcare system, part of the wider genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

In this article, I will summarize some of the most shocking and disturbing revelations from the film.

Israel’s War On Gaza’s Hospitals.

The film- narrated by journalist Ramita Navai– begins with Navai noting that “Every one of Gaza’s 36 main hospitals has been attacked, forced to evacuate or destroyed, and Israel has been killing the very people trying to keep the healthcare system alive, it’s doctors and medics, despite healthcare workers being protected under international law”.

The film focuses on investigating specific cases, the Israeli attacks at Al Shifa hospital, the Indonesian hospital, Al Adwa Hospital, Nasser Hospital and Kamal Adwan Hospital.

Starting with Al Shifa, the documentary notes that the order was given to evacuate the hospital in 2023.

Dr Mohammed Abu Salmiya, the lead director at Al Shifa hospital, is interviewed in the documentary and recounts that “We ignored these messages as much as we could not forget that we work at Al Shifa hospital. Because it was the backbone of the entire health system in Gaza. By stopping al-Shifa from operating, you have disabled the whole health system in Gaza. As we did not abide by the messages, they started sending us rockets.”

As Ramita Navai notes, “On November 3rd (2023) , an Israeli strike hit a convoy of ambulances exiting the (Al Shifa) hospital. The Palestinian Red Crescent said 15 people were killed, and at least 60 were injured.”

Keep reading

Taxpayers WHACKED with $66k legal bill for E-Karen’s failure

The eSafety Commissioner’s failed legal battle against Elon Musk’s social media platform X and Canadian activist Chris Elston — better known as Billboard Chris — will cost Australian taxpayers approximately $66,000.

The Administrative Review Tribunal on Tuesday threw out a takedown order issued by Commissioner Julie Inman Grant in response to a controversial post by Elston criticising the World Health Organisation’s inclusion of radical transgender activist Teddy Cook on a policy panel.

In February 2024, Elston shared a post on X stating: “This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people’. People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.”

Inman Grant deemed the post “degrading” and issued a takedown notice to X on March 22, threatening the company with a $782,500 fine if it failed to remove the post. X blocked the content, but subsequently challenged the decision alongside Elston.

On Tuesday, the Tribunal sided with X and Elston, ruling the takedown order invalid. Deputy president Damien O’Donovan stated that there was no evidence Elston intended for Cook to see the post.

“In the absence of any evidence that Mr Elston intended that Mr Cook would receive and read the post, and in light of the broader explanation as to why Mr Elston made the post, I am satisfied that an ordinary reasonable person would not conclude that it is likely that the post was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm to Mr Cook,” the ruling read.

An eSafety spokesperson confirmed the legal challenge had so far cost “approximately $66,000”, and acknowledged the Tribunal’s guidance.

eSafety said it would continue an agenda to “protect Australians from online abuse” while taking the Tribunal’s findings into account.

Keep reading

California’s Pro-Israel AB 715: A Horrific Affront to Free Speech

While freedom of speech is one of the most prized freedoms celebrated in American society and the West, since the outbreak of the Gaza War, Zionist sympathizers in both major political parties have tried to quash dissent regarding US support for Israeli imperialism. In a new attempt to crush anti-war sentiments and indoctrinate millions of students into becoming pro-Israel sycophants, the California State Assembly has unanimously passed and referred to the State Senate a bill that would threaten freedom of speech in California public schools.

The bill, which seeks to add to already existing anti-discrimination legislation, would ban comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and language which “denies” Israel’s right to exist. After nearly two years of viciously slaughtering Palestinians, it has become clear to the United Nations, Amnesty International, and even once reluctant scholars that Israel is guilty of genocide. Therefore, comparisons between Nazi Germany and the State of Israel do not only seem valid, but necessary for adequately describing the severity of Israeli cruelty in occupied Palestine. Furthermore, the wording of “directly or indirectly denying the right of Israel to exist” is alarmingly unspecific. Many supporters of Israel, including those at the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), have equated denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish supremacist state with denying Israel’s right to exist at all. By declaring legitimate criticism or comparisons of Israel as anti-Semitic without any further debate or inquiry, California politicians seek to combat the growing trend of young Americans questioning the US-Israel relationship.

Fundamentally, this bill is a gift to authoritarianism in line with a host of other similar bills in the United States and throughout the West. Ironically, both the deep-blue California and the deep-red state of Florida are united in their endeavor to suppress criticism of Israel. Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 187, officially adopting the incredibly flawed aforementioned IHRA definition of anti-Semitism into law. In the United Kingdom, government officials have encouraged the police to treat those who wave the Palestinian flag or shout pro-Palestinian chants as racist criminals. Elsewhere, Germany has conducted raids on the homes of activists, and France has ordered a ban on pro-Palestine protests entirely.

Thankfully, numerous organizations and individuals have denounced this bill and encouraged the people of California to place pressure on the Senate and Governor Gavin Newsom to reject this bill. On the left, groups like the Jewish Educators Addressing Actual Antisemitism, CODEPINK, and Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area have condemned the bill. Other Muslim and Arab advocacy groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations California, the Arab Resource and Organizing Center Action, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, have similarly condemned the bill.

Keep reading

DOJ Joins Lawsuit Against Media-Tech Collusion Over Censorship

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is stepping into a legal battle that challenges the powerful alliance between major media outlets and tech corporations accused of stifling independent journalism.

The case, brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and a collection of independent publishers and reporters, targets the “Trusted News Initiative” (TNI), an international consortium that includes the likes of the BBC, Reuters, The Associated Press, and The Washington Post.

Central to the lawsuit is the charge that TNI and its tech partners unlawfully coordinated efforts to silence smaller media competitors by branding their work as “misinformation” or “disinformation” and throttling their reach online.

We obtained a copy of the notice of intent for you here.

The plaintiffs contend that this alleged scheme violates the Sherman Antitrust Act by effectively shutting independent voices out of the marketplace of ideas.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2023, had seen little movement until recently. The DOJ last week filed a formal notice in federal court indicating it will submit a statement of interest by mid-July. The agency cited the case’s focus on “anticompetitive collusion among competitors over product features” as a matter of federal concern.

For those fighting the case, the DOJ’s involvement signals a hopeful shift. Mary Holland, CHD’s CEO, called the announcement “welcome” and pointed to what she described as years of weak federal antitrust enforcement.

Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD’s general counsel, added that the DOJ’s interest could help break the logjam that has slowed the case, stating that she is “awaiting the statement of interest here with great interest.”

The plaintiffs represent a broad swath of independent media and public figures, including Creative Destruction Media, TrialSite News, The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, Health Nut News publisher Erin Elizabeth Finn, Dr. Joseph Mercola, journalist Ben Swann, and Ty and Charlene Bollinger, known for their platforms The Truth About Cancer and The Truth About Vaccines.

Keep reading

BBC bans ‘high-risk’ broadcasts after anti-Israeli calls

The BBC has announced that it will no longer broadcast or livestream performances deemed ‘high risk’. The British public broadcaster faced backlash after airing a set by punk-rap duo Bob Vylan at the Glastonbury Festival, during which the group chanted against the Israeli military.

The group’s lead vocalist encouraged the crowd to chant “Death, death to the IDF” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine must be, will be, inshallah, it will be free” during the performance last weekend. Videos circulating on social media show the crowd echoing the chants, with some waving Palestinian flags.

“We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on the BBC and want to apologise to our viewers, listeners, and in particular the Jewish community,” the broadcaster said in a statement released on Thursday.

The BBC noted that the band was classified as ‘high risk’ ahead of the festival, along with six other acts, but was still permitted to perform with “appropriate mitigations.” The company admitted to “errors” in the compliance processes and confirmed that Bob Vylan’s set has been permanently removed from BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds.

The outlet pledged to provide on-site editorial policy support at major music festivals and events moving forward. It also announced plans to issue clearer guidance on the criteria for withdrawing a livestream.

Keep reading

EU Turns Voluntary “Disinformation” Code Into Mandatory Rule Under New Censorship Law, Risking US Trade Tensions

On July 1, 2025, the European Union’s Code of Conduct on Disinformation became something else entirely. What was once pitched as a voluntary effort by tech companies to clean up their platforms is now an official requirement under the EU censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The biggest online platforms and search engines will need to meet strict transparency standards, undergo audits, and show that they can keep what Brussels calls “disinformation” in check. The message is clear enough: fall short during an audit, and expect to hear from the regulators.

Brussels couldn’t have picked a more delicate moment for this move. Trade negotiations with the United States are on a tight deadline, and the mood between the two is already tense.

This type of regulatory hardball has not gone unnoticed in Washington. American officials remember what happened when Canada tried something similar with its digital services tax.

President Donald Trump labeled the move as “obviously copying the European Union.”

Meta’s Joel Kaplan took to his podium to thank Trump for “standing up for American tech companies in the face of unprecedented attacks from other governments.” The result was that trade talks between the US and Canada hit a wall until Ottawa quietly shelved its tax plans.

Now the EU seems determined to test how far it can push its digital agenda without suffering the same fate. US politicians, mostly Republicans, have wasted no time calling out censorship disguised as risk management.

European officials are doing their best to dodge the charge.

The EU’s line is that the rules target systemic risks in algorithms and advertising rather than individual content.

Under the new system, platforms labeled as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) will face yearly audits.

These audits are supposed to assess how well companies manage the risks linked to disinformation.

Keep reading