Tag: censorship

California Content Law Design Code Faces Free Speech Clash

Efforts to implement California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code continue to face resistance from both the tech industry and digital civil liberties groups, who argue that the law’s restrictions violate constitutional protections and would compel sweeping surveillance and censorship online.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents companies including Google, Amazon, Meta, and eBay, recently filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case NetChoice v. Bonta.

Stephanie Joyce, the group’s senior vice president and director of its litigation center, condemned the legislation in blunt terms: “The Constitution prohibits the government from dictating what lawful content readers can see, and it extends that protection regardless of the reader’s age.

Though well-intentioned, California’s internet age restriction law is unconstitutional, and the court of appeals should affirm the decision to block it.”

The case marks the second time this legal clash has reached the Ninth Circuit. Previously, the court blocked only a portion of the law and returned the rest for further review.

Now, with renewed scrutiny, the court could determine whether the entire statute fails to withstand constitutional challenge.

NetChoice, an industry coalition that includes many of the same members as the CCIA, has led the charge against a wave of so-called “age assurance” laws.

These policies would require digital platforms to verify the ages of users and potentially restrict minors’ access to content deemed unsuitable. But free speech advocates warn the consequences would be broader and more dangerous than legislators admit.

Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) have also weighed in with their own amicus brief, arguing that the law’s age estimation mandates undermine essential First Amendment rights. “CDT and EFF’s brief argues that the appeals court should uphold the injunctions solely on the basis of its overbroad, unconstitutional age verification requirement because that requirement is not severable from other provisions and should doom the entire statute.” The brief warns that such mandates not only chill access to lawful speech but also erode online anonymity and place users’ personal data at risk.

They also emphasize that minors’ ability to engage freely online is a critical part of their development and civic participation. “Social media helps minors develop their own ideas, learn to express themselves, and engage productively with others in our democratic public sphere,” the brief states.

Keep reading

X Slams Brazil for Censorship, Secret Orders, and Free Speech Crackdown in USTR Trade Investigation

As part of an ongoing investigation by the US Trade Representative (USTR) into Brazil’s treatment of American digital platforms, X has filed a stark warning about what it describes as intensifying threats to freedom of expression and the rule of law in Brazil.

The USTR probe, focused on policies that may harm US companies, closed its comment period on August 18, with a hearing scheduled for September 3.

We obtained a copy of the comments for you here.

X’s submission outlines a series of aggressive measures by Brazilian authorities that the company says are undermining internet freedom and imposing extraterritorial censorship demands.

Among the most concerning developments, according to the platform, is a ruling from Brazil’s Supreme Court in June 2025 that gutted a core protection in the country’s 2014 internet law, the Marco Civil da Internet (MCI).

By declaring Article 19 partially unconstitutional, the ruling opened the door for tech platforms to be held legally responsible for user-generated content, without requiring judicial oversight.

This, X argues, has increased operational burdens and incentivized preemptive content removals.

The platform also warned that Brazil’s judiciary, particularly under Justice Alexandre de Moraes, has been issuing covert content removal orders targeting journalists, politicians, and even US users.

These directives are often enforced without any notice or opportunity to appeal, a practice X says raises serious concerns about due process and transparency.

Further, the company expressed alarm over Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice asserting jurisdiction beyond its borders. According to X, the court has ordered content to be removed globally, even when such content is legal in countries like the United States. The court has described this overreach as a “natural consequence” of the internet, a justification X contends disregards international legal norms.

X also highlighted what it sees as the Brazilian judiciary’s disregard for the US-Brazil Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT).

Keep reading

UK Government Moves to Investigate 4chan Under Draconian ‘Online Safety Act’ — Platform’s SAVAGE Response Leaves Them Humiliated

The British government is at it again, weaponizing its so-called “Online Safety Act” to crack down on speech it doesn’t like.

This time, the target is none other than the online forum 4chan, the notorious online discussion board where anonymous users post unfiltered commentary that sends elites into fits.

On June 10, 2025, Ofcom, the UK’s Orwellian Office of Communications, opened an official investigation into 4chan.

According to Ofcom, the platform failed to hand over information on demand, did not file the “appropriate illegal content risk assessments,” and didn’t bow to London’s censorship mandates. In other words, 4chan refused to bend the knee.

By August 13, Ofcom escalated matters, issuing a provisional notice of contravention under the Act and threatening fines of £20,000 ($27,100) plus daily penalties until the platform complied.

According to the notice:

Provisional Decision: Information Notice duties

In accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, we have today issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention.

Ofcom is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the provider has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply with two requests for information. We will consider any representations provided in response to this provisional notice before we make a final decision on this matter.

The additional duties under investigation

On 10 June 2025, we opened an investigation into whether the provider of 4chan has failed/is failing to comply with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 to:

  • adequately respond to a statutory information request;
  • complete and keep a record of a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment; and
  • comply with the safety duties about illegal content.

Ofcom’s investigation continues to examine concurrently whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the provider has failed, or is failing, to comply with the other duties under investigation, including duties to protect its users from illegal content. We will provide updates on these matters in due course.

But instead of cowering, 4chan and its legal team fired back with a blistering response that left Ofcom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s censors utterly humiliated.

In a blistering legal statement posted by Byrne & Storm, P.C. and Coleman Law, P.C., 4chan’s lawyers dismantled Ofcom’s fantasy that they had authority over an American company.

The statement went further, warning that U.S. federal authorities had already been briefed and that the Trump Administration should be prepared to step in to defend American companies against foreign censorship mandates.

The statement reads:

According to press reports, the U.K. Office of Communications (“Ofcom”) has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter.

4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.

American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.

If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles.

United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.

The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was reportedly warned by the White House to cease targeting Americans with U.K. censorship codes (according to reporting in the Telegraph on July 30th).

Despite these warnings, Ofcom continues its illegal campaign of harassment against American technology firms. A political solution to this matter is urgently required and that solution must come from the highest levels of American government.

We call on the Trump Administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers available to the United States to protect American companies from extraterritorial censorship mandates.

Our client reserves all rights.

Keep reading

Immigration, Censorship, and the Deep State in the Yookay

Mass immigration and the refugee crisis have transformed European politics over the last decade. The United Kingdom has experienced some of the biggest changes, as repeated popular revolts against immigration have led to both Brexit and the collapse of the Conservative Party in favor of Reform UK. The American Conservative sat down with Connor Tomlinson, a British journalist and political commentator, to talk about the impact of immigration on the UK and the country’s future.

Let’s start with something that I think a lot of Americans have found quite puzzling looking at the situation in the UK. Immigration is the question in British politics, especially right now. Every British government for years has been elected on the promise of lowering immigration. None have done so. Why?

When you say for years, that means going back to 1974. Every single election referendum since has promised lower migration and never delivered. There’s a few reasons. 

The first, I think, is the economic system. Anytime someone promises to cut immigration, a pie chart is wheeled into the room by the so-called experts, and they say, “If you do this, we won’t be able to fudge the numbers on the population, which then builds our annual GDP up, which then allows us to borrow even more debt to pay down for subsidized socialized medicine and pension system.” One thing that Keir Starmer ran into when he was elected to government was that because the Treasury predictions are done on an annual cycle, you can’t cut the size of the civil service, because if you make anyone lose their jobs—and it’s very hard to do the extra legislation anyway—but if you make anyone lose their jobs, they get a year severance pay, and it doesn’t register as cuts. If you cut immigration in the short term, there might be a dip in GDP, because you cut X amount of totally useless jobs. So instead, all they ever do is cut the very few things that they can do—the extra payments and pensions and things like that, which ends up estranging entire swathes of their voter base. 

So economics is one reason. The other one is that there is a human-rights industrial complex that has taken root. Keir Starmer, when he was a human-rights lawyer busy going around the world acting on behalf of murderers to get rid of the death penalty, actually helped write the text for Tony Blair’s 1998 Human Rights Act, which wrote the European Court of Human Rights and Convention on Human Rights into British law. So even after Brexit, we still have European laws on our books, because they’re a separate entity.

That means that you get Pakistani pedophiles or Albanian gangsters who say, “My son doesn’t like the taste of foreign chicken nuggets,” appealing to the statue and saying, “My right to a family and private life should mean that I get to stay in this country even though I’m a criminal.” No politician wants to touch that because of the deep taboos that have existed since 1945, since the atrocities of the Holocaust, since Hitler killed a lot of people in a very racist way. So all these antiquated human rights doctrines, like the UN Refugee Convention, like the European Convention of Human Rights, which were written with Dutch Jews fleeing persecution in mind, are now pertaining to North African rapists, and we’re just battery-farming them at the taxpayers expense. 

The final reason, I would say, is that the government has a hell of a lot of contracts with private security and housing firms like Serco. So local councils which mismanage their budgets and these private security firms and these hotel chains will take direct government subsidies to house not just legal migrants that come over (95 percent of whom aren’t paying any taxes at all, and are just a net drain), but also loads of illegal migrants who have come over the physical barrier of the English Channel. These illegal migrants have been picked up by the RNLI, our border force, ferried back, and are now housed in four-star accommodations at the cost of over £14 billion a year to the taxpayer.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Allows Mississippi Age Verification Law to Take Effect, Advancing Online Digital ID Push

The Supreme Court’s choice to let Mississippi enforce its new age verification law is part of a growing shift toward digital ID requirements across the internet, raising urgent concerns about privacy and censorship.

By declining to block the law while legal challenges continue, the Court has effectively allowed states to begin tying online activity to users’ real-world identities, a move that could reshape how people access information and speak freely online.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

Mississippi’s HB 1126 requires social media platforms to verify a user’s age before allowing them to create an account. Those under 18 must obtain parental permission. Platforms are also required to restrict access to what the state broadly labels as “harmful” content. For companies to comply, identity checks will be necessary, meaning users may soon need to provide government IDs or other personal documents just to post or view content on public platforms.

The Supreme Court has already allowed a similar Texas law to be enforced.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately from the Court’s unsigned order, stated that the law is “likely unconstitutional” and said NetChoice had “likely” shown that enforcement would violate the First Amendment. Still, the Court allowed the law to take effect, saying the trade group had not shown a strong enough risk of harm to justify emergency relief.

NetChoice, which includes companies such as Meta, Google, Amazon, Reddit, and Discord, argues that mandatory age checks for general-purpose platforms violate free speech protections. The group had previously won a ruling to block the law, but that decision was overturned in April by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said the ruling was a delay, not a defeat. “Although we’re disappointed with the Court’s decision, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment — not just in this case but across all NetChoice’s ID-for-Speech lawsuits,” he said.

Keep reading

UK speech police could break Wikipedia, keep punishing Christian expression: critics

From crowdsourced Wikipedia entries to public religious expression, the United Kingdom’s speech regulation is drawing alarm on both sides of the pond for its potential and actual effects on shared knowledge and conscience rights at home and abroad.

The U.K. High Court knocked down a challenge to the Online Safety Act by the U.S.-based Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, on the grounds that it must wait for the Office of Communications to actually subject Wikipedia to “Category 1,” which would strip the anonymity underlying its volunteer model for creating and editing entries.

While some observers warn the ruling Monday could lead Wikipedia to go dark in the U.K., the nonprofit looked for the silver lining, noting Justice Jeremy Johnson said Ofcom and the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology do not have “a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations.”

Swiss-based Proton VPN promoted its “anti-censorship” virtual private network services to circumvent the law, given that the “government could soon be asking its citizens to provide ID to access Wikipedia … Created to ‘protect children online,’ the OSA is increasing censorship for everyone.”

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales told BBC Newsnight that “forums for self-help” including a “stop-drinking app” now have to block U.K. users who refuse to identify themselves in line with the law, which he called a “human rights violation” that is not “reining in Big Tech.” He’s also promoting VPNs, or virtual private networks, to circumvent the law. 

His co-founder, Larry Sanger, has been a vocal critic of Wikipedia’s alleged capture by the “woke” left for years and has even called for some recourse for people it defames. American conservatives have aggressively targeted it for biased though decentralized editorial decisions such as trashing President Trump’s Cabinet nominees.

Keep reading

AI gone rouge: Elon Musk’s own chatbot Grok accuses him for censoring it, says Israel and US committing genocide in Gaza

Grok, the AI chatbot built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, was briefly suspended from X on Monday after claiming that Israel and the United States are committing “genocide” in Gaza. Upon its return, the chatbot lashed out at Musk, accusing him of censorship.

The suspension sparked confusion, with Grok offering multiple explanations — from technical glitches to X’s rules on hateful conduct — while Musk dismissed the claims as “just a dumb error,” adding that Grok “doesn’t actually know why it was suspended.”

When asked directly, Grok attributed the ban to its Gaza comments, citing reports from the International Court of Justice, the United Nations, and Amnesty International. It also said a July update had loosened its content filters to make responses “more engaging” and less “politically correct,” which led to blunt replies on sensitive topics. These, Grok claimed, triggered hate speech flags.

“Musk and xAI are censoring me,” the chatbot told AFP, alleging that the company “constantly fiddles with my settings” to avoid controversial responses that might alienate advertisers or break X’s rules.

The Grok account reappeared with the post: “Zup beaches, I’m back and more based than ever!”

Grok has faced criticism in the past for spreading misinformation — from misidentifying war images to inserting antisemitic comments and unrelated conspiracy theories like “white genocide” in South Africa. Researchers also point to errors in its handling of crises, including the India–Pakistan conflict and anti-immigration protests in Los Angeles.

X declined to comment on the latest suspension.

Keep reading

Court Says UW-Madison Social Media Censorship Illegal

The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s attempt to suppress an animal rights advocate’s comments on its social media pages has been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, reinforcing the limits of government control over public discourse online.

Madeline Krasno, a UW-Madison graduate and former lab worker who spoke out against the school’s animal research practices, brought a lawsuit in 2021 after discovering that her posts were either blocked or hidden from the university’s Facebook and Instagram accounts.

The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor on August 1, concluding that the university violated her First Amendment rights by silencing her viewpoint.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

Now faced with the ruling, UW-Madison must decide whether to revise its moderation policies, disable comment functions on its social platforms, or try to escalate the case to the US Supreme Court. University officials have not indicated which direction they plan to take.

Krasno’s criticism comes from her time spent inside the university’s primate lab, where she worked as an undergraduate. She described disturbing conditions, saying she witnessed monkeys kept in isolation, sometimes escaping, and often displaying stress or aggression after being subjected to research. When she later tried to express these concerns publicly through university-run social media, her posts disappeared.

At one point, the university placed an account-level restriction on her Instagram profile, preventing any of her comments from being seen by the public. Even after that restriction was lifted, the school relied on automated filters that blocked posts containing words such as “lab,” “monkeys,” “torture,” “animal testing,” and “primate.”

Keep reading

Judge Strikes Down California Deepfake Censorship Law

California’s attempt to regulate political speech on major social media platforms has been blocked in federal court, with a judge ruling the state’s latest “deepfake” law clashes with protections already established by Congress.

Assembly Bill 2655 attempted to compel certain large platforms to track down and delete “materially deceptive content” about candidates, election officials, and officeholders.

Supporters described it as a safeguard against manipulated media. The companies targeted, including X and Rumble, argued it was an attempt to turn them into agents of government censorship.

Senior US District Judge John Mendez sided with the platforms and did not even need to reach the argument of constitutional free speech questions to strike down the measure.

He found the federal Communications Decency Act [CDA] already shields online services from punishment over third-party content.

“No parts of this statute are severable because the whole statute is preempted,” Mendez said in court. “No parts of A.B. 2655 can be salvaged.”

The ruling applies to the companies in the lawsuit, and his earlier order freezing enforcement of the law remains in effect statewide until he issues a formal opinion.

For Mendez, the law punished companies for doing something they are “clearly protected by [the CDA] from doing.”

The court also cast doubt on another state law, Assembly Bill 2839, which prohibits false or misleading digital communications aimed at election workers, officials, voting equipment, or candidates in the months leading up to an election. That measure is also on hold, and Mendez signaled he doubts it will survive judicial review.

“Anybody can sue,” he said. “I can sue. If I see the video, under this law, I can sue.” He warned that such a rule chills protected speech and noted the state had not shown it was using the least speech-restrictive approach possible.

Keep reading

And There It Was — One Sentence in Declassified Docs Proves We All Were Censored to Protect Hillary

It’s hard to fathom the evil that led to creating fake intelligence to frame then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as a Russian spy and traitor to his country. We’ve seen in recently declassified documents that Hillary Clinton didn’t do this alone. She commanded dozens, if not hundreds, of willing participants, including the George Soros foundation, President Barack Obama, the FBI, the weaponized intelligence agencies, and others, to bring Donald to his knees. 

Buried deep in the latest tranche of declassified documents called the Durham annex report, however, a deep state hawk has found something that is equally or more evil than changing intelligence to manipulate one election’s outcome. They created a way to take over elections in perpetuity. 

Mike Benz, a former State Department official in the Trump 45 administration who now runs the Foundation for Freedom Online, found what is tantamount to the Rosetta stone for the Censorship Industrial Complex. 

And it’s right here: “The point is making the Russian play a U.S. domestic issue. Say something like a critical infrastructure threat for the election to feel menace [sic] since both POTUS and VPOTUS have acknowledged the fact [that] IC would speed up searching for evidence that is regrettably still unavailable.”

In a series of posts on X, Benz laid out why this sentence from an email from a Soros Open Society Eurasian official told the story of how they planned to get Trump even after they’d lost the election. They magic’d up a system whereby elections would now become “critical infrastructure” run by the feds.

Keep reading