Tag: censorship

European Commission Launches €5.69M European Fact-Checking Funding Network to Advance “Democracy Shield” and Expand Censorship Infrastructure

The European Commission has launched a €5 million initiative presented as a fact-checking support program; but beneath the surface, it reads as yet another calculated step toward institutionalizing censorship across the European Union.

This call for proposals is marketed as a tool to “protect democracy” and combat “disinformation,” but the structure, goals, and affiliations of the program point clearly to the opposite: a top-down, publicly funded apparatus for narrative enforcement.

Slated to run until September 2, 2025, the project is open not only to EU Member States but also to candidate countries like Ukraine and Moldova; jurisdictions framed as highly vulnerable to “foreign interference,” especially pro-Kremlin disinformation.

This strategic framing serves a dual purpose: justifying increased surveillance of content and securing narrative dominance in geopolitically sensitive areas.

The program’s core deliverables; protecting fact-checkers from so-called “harassment,” creating a centralized repository of “fact-checks,” and building emergency “response capacity;” sound benign to some. But stripped of the euphemism, this is a blueprint for constructing a continent-wide content control grid.

The “protection scheme” offers legal and cyber assistance to fact-checkers, but more crucially it reinforces the narrative that opposition to these groups constitutes abuse rather than legitimate disagreement.

The “fact-check repository” enables centralized curation of what counts as “truth,” and the “emergency response” function gives the Commission a pretext to fast-track suppression efforts in politically sensitive moments.

Most telling is the program’s requirement that participating organizations be certified by either the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) or the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

Many of their members, such as AFP and Full Fact, already work directly with major social media platforms like Meta under third-party moderation schemes. This effectively means the EC is reinforcing an exclusive gatekeeper class, already aligned with corporate censorship programs, now endowed with taxpayer funds and the backing of the European bureaucracy.

At least 60% of the funding will go to third parties, who must co-finance their participation.

Keep reading

CBC Brags About Shutting Down Popular Political Clips YouTube Channel

A rising Canadian YouTube channel that had been pulling major traction has suddenly been banned following an aggressive report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which labeled the channel a “content farm” and reached out to YouTube directly. Not long after, the channel was gone.

“It’s just one example of what experts refer to as the ‘content’ or “engagement” farming phenomenon, in which individuals or organizations tailor their content to tap into the algorithm of the platform and boost their popularity,” the CBC explained in an article, as if this isn’t something that most YouTubers do.

Real Talk Politiks, the creator behind the now-deleted account, took to X on Sunday to reveal what happened, pointing the finger at government-aligned media and tech collusion.

“CBC, Canada’s state-funded media just got YouTube to terminate my channel — not for breaking rules, but for having the wrong political views,” the post read.

Despite operating without strikes, policy violations, or deceptive content flags, the channel was wiped.

What sparked the removal, according to CBC’s own report, was an AI-generated video of Ronald Reagan that allegedly lacked a clear label; something that might typically warrant a correction or warning, not a digital purge.

The CBC leaned into the narrative, bragging about its work in getting the channel shut down, and published a YouTube video titled “How we shut down one of Canada’s biggest news ‘content farms’.”

Keep reading

ADL Regional Director Calls for Government-Regulated Online Censorship

The Anti-Defamation League’s David Goldenberg is demanding a broad overhaul of how speech is governed on the internet, calling for both government intervention and intensified corporate censorship. In a recent appearance, Goldenberg, who heads the ADL’s Midwest operations, expressed frustration over what he sees as declining efforts by tech firms to suppress online content he deems hateful.

Citing Meta’s rollback of its fact-checking team in the United States, he argued that platforms must be forced to take action. “You have a platform like Meta that just gutted its entire fact-checking department…And so what we need to do is we need to apply pressure in a real significant way on tech platforms that they have a responsibility, that they have an absolute responsibility to check and remove hateful speech that is inciteful.”

Goldenberg advocated not just for voluntary moderation, but for legislative and regulatory measures, both at the federal and state level, that would compel platforms to act as speech enforcers. He pointed to efforts in states like California as examples of where local governments are already testing such models.

His concern centers around what he perceives as an ecosystem of radicalization made easily accessible by today’s digital infrastructure. He warned that extremist ideologies no longer require obscure forums or dark web communities to spread. “It used to be you had to fight going into the deep dark web… Now… it’s easier and easier to be exposed in the mainstream,” he said.

Framing the online environment as a catalyst for violence, Goldenberg argued that free access to controversial viewpoints must be curtailed. He called for social media companies to take a stronger stance by excluding users whose views fall outside accepted boundaries, adding that regulation should enforce this responsibility.

He zeroed in on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a critical piece of legislation that shields platforms from legal liability over user-posted content. “Congress needs to amend Section 230, which provides immunity to tech platforms right now for what happens,” Goldenberg said. He dismissed comparisons between modern platforms and telecommunications companies, referencing past remarks by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg about how phone providers were not liable for threats made over calls. Goldenberg’s view was blunt: “These tech platforms are not guaranteed under the Constitution. They’re just not.”

From his perspective, private companies should be free to “kick people off, to de-platform,” and if they fail to do so voluntarily, they must be pressured or regulated into compliance. He described accountability as a mechanism for shaping behavior, stating, “Accountability is a tool that can be incredibly effective in changing behavior.”

Keep reading

Rubio Announces Visa Restrictions on Foreign Nationals Involved in Censoring Americans

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on May 28 new visa restrictions against foreign nationals involved in censoring the speech of U.S. citizens.

“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,” Rubio announced in a post on social media platform X.

“Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life—a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority.”

Rubio said foreign nationals involved in suppressing the rights of Americans shouldn’t be allowed to visit the United States.

“Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over,” he said.

Keep reading

Justices Alito, Thomas blast SCOTUS for passing on censorship of ‘only two genders’ student

When the Supreme Court put the onus on states to set their own abortion policies with 2022’s Dobbs ruling, it unexpectedly subjected pro-life activists and their legislative allies to an onslaught of abortion-expansion proposals that made it into even red states’ laws, with a pro-life research group concluding last week that abortions are rising.

By passing on a case that sought to protect student expression that questions gender ideology from censorship in public schools, SCOTUS may similarly send free speech, gender-critical, religious freedom, conservative and pro-life advocates scrambling at the state and school district levels to protect nondisruptive speech at odds with progressive shibboleths.

The high court Tuesday turned away pleas from those advocates and Republican state attorneys general to hear and reverse the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against Liam Morrison, upholding his Massachusetts middle school’s ban on wearing shirts that read “there are only two genders” and, after his first punishment, “there are only censored genders.” 

First Circuit Chief Judge David Barron – previously a Justice Department lawyer known for secretly advising the president who later nominated him that Barack Obama could legally kill Americans by drone strike – had portrayed the issue as a matter of judicial deference.

Keep reading

Trump Sent A ‘Free Speech Squad’ To The UK To Investigate Erosion Of Rights

President Trump has dispatched a cadre of State Department officials to the UK to monitor and investigate the growing attacks on freedom of speech by the British government.

The Telegraph reports that “A five-person team from the US State Department spent days in the country,” and among a host of other issues they looked into a crack down on pro-life activists voicing, or in many cases silently expressing opposition to abortion clinics.

The report notes that Trump’s free speech squad, specifically from the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), “met with five activists who had been arrested for silently protesting outside abortion clinics across Britain.”

The visit demonstrates that Trump is acutely aware of the threat to freedom that is growing in the UK and is willing to intervene in British affairs as required.

The activists, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, Rose Docherty, Adam Smith-Connor, Livia Tossici-Bolt and Father Sean Gough, a Catholic priest, were all arrested for standing outside abortion clinics on public roads and silently praying.

Keep reading

Japan Rides The Censorship Bandwagon

The manufacturer of the replicon mRNA Covid “vaccine” in Japan, Meiji Seika Pharma, has brought a lawsuit against a member of the Japanese parliament, Kazuhiro Haraguchi. Haraguchi had commented that the Covid injections are “akin to a biological weapon,” a statement which the Meiji Pharma president claimed was beyond the bounds of acceptable expression.

However, statements like Haraguchi’s about the dangers of the Covid mRNA injections are now commonplace in many nations, and drug companies do not seem to be suing people for making them, at least in the US. Instead, state attorneys general in Kansas and Texas have been suing Pfizer for misrepresenting its Covid injections.

In general, Japan has been gradually evolving into a place where it is difficult to publicly express ideas unapproved by powerful business interests and officialdom. In addition to government and mainstream news media collusion to keep Covid medical realities from the Japanese public, the government passed a law to squelch nonconforming messaging online.

The intentions behind this measure are clear: Prominent government figures have openly declared their conviction that “misinformation” is a major problem in Japan. In December 2024, Prime Minister Ishiba stated that he was considering more regulations concerning Internet discourse that he considers problematic, and a prominent LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) politician named Noda commented recently that Japan was being influenced more and more by “fake” information.

In May 2024, Japan’s parliament passed a law to enable the quick elimination of defamatory posts from social media platforms like Facebook and X. By this law, such platforms would have to make explicit sites for taking requests to delete posts and also make clear their criteria for taking down posts. The new law went into effect on April 1, 2025.

Unsurprisingly, some Japanese YouTube vloggers are expressing concerns that, under the new set of regulations, their vlogs may soon be targeted as purveyors of “misinformation,” especially when they criticize government policy.

Only online media platforms are targeted in this development, even though Japanese print communications and TV programs have also often been guilty of spreading harmful disinformation. Ironically, in many instances, this is not because they are unregulated but precisely because they are under the thumb of government agencies.

For example, the Japanese National Police Agency has deliberately leaked information about people under investigation in order to pressure them into confessing to crimes. Since the Japanese public often naively believes that suspicion equals guilt, this tactic results in terrible consequences for the unjustly accused.

In 1996, after an unsuccessful attempt by the Aum Shinrikyo cult to assassinate three Japanese judges, police leaked to news media outlets some details of their investigation of Yoshiyuki Kono, an innocent man whose family was also severely injured in the attack.

Kono’s experience of being hounded by both the authorities and the mainstream news media mirrors that of Richard Jewell, the heroic security guard who became a suspect after the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. The FBI deliberately leaked details of their investigation to American mainstream news outlets, which proceeded to harass and condemn Jewell along with the investigating FBI agents, though the case eventually unraveled.

Even before the social media platform law, Japanese news media outlets were effectively controlled by the government. As a result, Japan was ranked lowest among all Group of Seven nations for freedom of the press in the World Press Freedom Index. Japan’s overall ranking dropped from 68th to 70th after the 2024 social media law was passed. 

The reasons for this are the press club system and the self-censorship of most Japanese reporters. Each government ministry has a press club consisting of representatives from prominent news media outlets, and they receive official briefings from government officials. However, these members of the press can be banned from these briefings if they do anything that reflects badly on the government.

Keep reading

EU Commission Sues Five Member States Over Censorship Law Non-Compliance

Five EU member countries are being taken to court by the EU Commission for failure to “effectively” comply with the bloc’s online censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA).

DSA, and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), are EU’s key regulations often criticized for centralizing the bloc’s power in the digital sphere at the expense of free speech, and tech companies’ business interests – but also, it appears, the sovereignty of member countries.

Among the “May infringements package” covering various areas regulated by the EU is the section dedicated to the digital economy. It is here that the Commission announced legal action against Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, and Spain.

These countries have been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union; Bulgaria, meanwhile, has been put on notice and may eventually also find itself in court, unless it empowers a national digital services coordinator (DSC, a role established under DSA) and “lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements (of DSA).”

The EU Commission said that designating and empowering DSCs is an essential step in enforcing the DSA rules and “in ensuring the uniform application” of the regulation across the bloc.

Of the five EU members that are already in court, Poland has not designated or empowered a DSC at all, while the other four have done that – but failed to “entrust them with the necessary powers to carry out their tasks under the DSA.”

All five countries have yet to come up with rules regarding penalties for DSA infringement.

Keep reading

Inside the Brussels Showdown Over Europe’s Speech Police

On a mild Brussels morning, inside the halls of the European Parliament, a group of politicians, legal scholars, and policy skeptics gathered to talk about a piece of legislation most Europeans haven’t read, but which may soon be quietly reshaping how they speak, share, and think online.

Yesterday’s event, hosted by MEPs Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, with support from ADF International, focused on the increasingly controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), a law initially sold as a digital shield against misinformation and tech giant abuse, but which critics now say has evolved into something more aggressive.

The conference title “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression” tells you everything you need to know about the mood in the room.

Virginie Joron, a French MEP, opened the event with a direct shot at what she sees as the DSA’s unspoken evolution. “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act,” she said. Her argument: a law intended to protect rights is now being used by institutions to regulate dissent on platforms like Facebook, Telegram, and X.

Many have previously tried to dismiss this as anti-Brussels paranoia. But even the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour has flagged the DSA’s “chilling implications” for open debate in Europe.

The devil, as always, lives in the definitions. Who decides what’s “disinformation”? What counts as “hate speech”? How far can governments go in flagging and removing content that someone, somewhere, considers problematic?

Paul Coleman, the Executive Director of ADF International, doesn’t seem particularly reassured by the current answers. “Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago,” he told the room.

Keep reading

European Commission Accused of Orchestrating $735M Speech-Control Campaign

A new report has uncovered an expansive and quietly orchestrated campaign by the European Commission to shape public discourse through nearly €649 ($735M) million in taxpayer-funded projects aimed at regulating online speech.

Titled Manufacturing Misinformation: The EU-Funded Propaganda War Against Free Speech, the document was released by the think tank MCC Brussels and authored by Dr. Norman Lewis, a seasoned analyst of digital communication and regulatory policy.

Behind the EU’s frequent calls to combat “hate speech” and “disinformation” lies what the report describes as a vast ideological infrastructure designed to erode free expression under the guise of safety and civic empowerment.

The Commission, the report states, “has funded hundreds of unaccountable non-governmental organizations and universities to carry out 349 projects related to countering ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation’ to the tune of almost €650 million.”

That staggering figure surpasses what Brussels spends on transnational cancer research by over 30%, a discrepancy the report calls deliberate: “The EU Commission regards stemming the cancer of free speech as more of a priority than the estimated 4.5 million new cancer cases and almost two million cancer deaths in Europe in 2022, for example.”

While EU officials present these programs as public-interest research, the report argues they constitute a form of “soft authoritarianism,” enshrining speech codes and narrowing acceptable opinion through bureaucratic manipulation. “This is a top-down, authoritarian, curated consensus,” it states, “where expression is free only when it speaks the language of compliance established by the Commission.”

Many of these initiatives feature a distinct use of vague and euphemistic terminology, part of what the report calls “NEUspeak;” a deliberate linguistic strategy designed to obscure intent and preempt scrutiny. The project acronyms alone, such as FAST LISA and VIGILANT, are described as a form of branding deceit.

Keep reading