Tag: censorship

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

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