censorship – Page 31 – Hellbound and Down

UK Report Says Online Censorship Law Doesn’t Go Far Enough

The UK Parliament’s Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has spoken. And what it wants, in no uncertain terms, is an internet where opinions are shrink-wrapped, inspected, and potentially vaporized for being slightly off-script.

Its latest report, published with all the gravitas of a white paper on national survival, is framed as a response to the “Southport unrest” of 2024; a kerfuffle of confused narratives and bottle-throwing that apparently requires rethinking the entire relationship between the state, the internet, and the British people’s right to say something online.

We obtained a copy of the report of you here.

The Committee’s proposal is a legal downgrading of content they don’t like, and mass surveillance of users.

But don’t worry, it’s all in the name of “public safety” and “combating misinformation.” Which is the modern policy equivalent of “just trust us.”

Despite the ink barely being dry on the Online Safety Act, a law so sprawling and riddled with ambiguity it makes War and Peace look like a pamphlet, the Committee wastes no time throwing it under the bus.

Keep reading

How The British Government Silenced the “Free” Press, Made Truth Illegal

There are cover-ups, and then there’s whatever the British Government just pulled.

Imagine torching £7 ($9.4) billion of public money, risking 100,000 lives, creating an immigration scandal, and then, when the inevitable outrage starts to bubble, slapping a gag order on the entire country and pretending it never happened.

This is banana-republic behavior with better tailoring.

Because for nearly two years, a superinjunction, the kind usually deployed when a Premier League footballer’s pants have wandered off again, was used to silence journalists and the free press, gag Parliament, and stop the public from learning that the Ministry of Defence had done something catastrophically inept.

It began in August 2023 when journalist David Williams discovered that the Ministry of Defence had managed to leak the identities of 18,800 Afghans who had worked with British forces; drivers, and translators. Their families included, we’re talking about 100,000 people now, allegedly, squarely in the Taliban’s crosshairs. All because some bright spark couldn’t handle a spreadsheet.

Someone in Whitehall realized that explaining to the public how a government that wants to introduce digital IDs, biometric databases, and centralized health records, can’t even keep the data of war-zone informants safe might, just might, be a tough sell.

Now, in a functioning democracy, this is the point where the Government admits the error, apologizes profusely, and gets on with fixing the mess. But that’s not what happened.

Instead, the Conservative Government went nuclear. It reached for a superinjunction. A legal instrument so secretive, that you can’t even mention that it exists. It’s the Voldemort of British law: he who must not be named, and also must not be reported on, discussed in Parliament, or even acknowledged in polite company.

Ever since the data hit the fan, ministers, hidden behind a wall of censorship so thick it could double as a North Korean border post, have been quietly orchestrating one of the largest peacetime migration missions in British history.

Keep reading

‘Did Jesus pack heat?’: Progressive professor who censored Christian student faces backlash

An English professor at Eastern Maine Community College faces blowback — including calls from Republican lawmakers in the state to resign — after instructing a Christian conservative student to drop the issue of gun rights from her essay.

Katherine Parker, a student at Eastern Maine Community College, was instructed to choose a topic for a persuasive essay assignment in Professor Carol Lewandowski’s oral communications class.

After choosing a topic, students were to identify and respond to an opinion piece from a public source. Parker chose a piece from Maine columnist Douglas Rooks titled “Maine Legislature derelict in its duty on ‘red flag.”

In it, the longtime journalist called for the Maine legislature to hold a public hearing on a red flag bill, which would allow firearm removal from individuals posing imminent danger, and to ultimately pass the measure, calling it a “reasonable” restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. Parker agreed with holding a hearing, but objected to restricting gun rights.

“I’m a big Second Amendment advocate,” she told The College Fix in a telephone interview. “I believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves and defend their family, and to defend against tyrannical government, should the case arise.”

Keep reading

France opens criminal probe into X algorithms under Musk

A French prosecutor has opened a criminal investigation into social platform X and its owner, Elon Musk, on accusations of “creating bias in France’s democratic debate.”

The investigation comes after Musk’s artificial intelligence (AI) company, xAi, deleted multiple posts from its chatbot Grok that included antisemitic comments. Among them, Grok called itself “MechaHitler” and insinuated that the Jewish people were controlling Hollywood.

French National Assembly member Thierry Sother and European Union Parliament member Pierre Jouvet asked Arcom, France’s digital content regulator, to look into Grok’s behavior Thursday.

“Since the July 4th update, Grok has substantially changed behaviors leading it to comment antisemitic ideas, to praise Hitler and even to support Le Pen,” Sother said to French media Libération.

X has not immediately responded to requests for comment.

X and Musk have been on French and European radars since January when Éric Bothorel, a French parliamentarian, raised concerns over X’s use of personal data, a biased algorithm and the reduction of diversity in posts.

He also denounced Musk’s personal interference within the platform, calling it “a true danger and a threat for our democracies,” according to Libération.

Keep reading

This Newly Implemented Online Speech Code Just Gave European Censors Another Weapon

Under the shadow of the European Union’s Digital Services Act censorship regime, Europeans already face fines, raids, and arrests for their social media posts, but starting July 1, the Code of Conduct on Disinformation has the force of law. The once-voluntary “code,” a 56-page document that spells out censorship strategies, is now an enforceable “benchmark” that the EU can use to measure tech companies’ censorship regimes.

The Code requires large online platforms to meet “tougher transparency and auditing obligations aimed at stamping out disinformation,” according to Tech Policy Press. Previously, the Code operated as a “self-regulatory framework” for tech companies before the EU “endorsed” its “integration” into the DSA.

The DSA “regulates online intermediaries and platforms” to police so-called “disinformation.” Under the law, which went into full effect last year, tech companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, and X are required to undergo independent audits that “assess” their management of “disinformation risks,” Tech Policy Press reported. The Code commitments will act as “benchmarks” for these assessments, where applicable.

In April of 2023, the EU designated 19 large tech companies required to comply with the DSA. All of these companies serve more than 45 million monthly users in the EU, and 14 of them are U.S.-based, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco told The Federalist. As of June, the Commission is still “supervising” these tech companies under the DSA.

“The EU is trying to impose its draconian, very restrictive free speech regime on the world,” Tedesco said in an interview.

Full adherence to the Code is now a “marker of DSA compliance” for companies, according to Tech Policy Press. “While signing on [to the Code] remains optional,” “failing to adhere to its commitments may now trigger investigations or fines.”

Keep reading

Sweden Cracks Down On OnlyFans – Will U.S. Follow Suit?

The X-rated social media platform OnlyFans is experiencing real growth, with revenue, content, and user numbers all on the rise. The site’s over 4 million “creators” sell content – including images, videos, and personalized chats – to more than 300 million subscribers, or “fans.” It’s primarily a sex site, and claims that the platform isn’t powered by porn are usually accompanied by winks and nods to the contrary.

OnlyFans keeps a 20% cut of what users pay, boasting $1.3 billion of revenue in 2023. It’s a lucrative approach to monetizing porn consumption, but the platform just hit a legal roadblock in a seemingly unlikely country.

Sweden, which in 1971 became the second country in the world to formally legalize all forms of pornography, has not been as soft on prostitution. In 1999, the country criminalized the purchase of sex, but not the sale, in efforts to protect vulnerable women from facing stiff legal consequences.

That policy will now apply to the virtual world. As of July 1, Swedes could face up to a year in prison for paying someone for personalized online sexual services, including sexting and video content. The new law also criminalizes promoting or profiting from others who perform sex acts for payment on demand, forcing OnlyFans to pull out of Sweden.

In a country known for libertines more than prudes, the law passed with broad, cross-party support. “The idea is that anyone who buys sexual acts performed remotely should be penalized in the same way as those who buy sexual acts involving physical contact,” said Gunnar Strommer, Sweden’s Justice Minister and a member of the Moderate party.

Keep reading

UK: Ofcom-Backed Study Could Be Part of a Push to Extend “Impartiality” Rules to Online Media

A government-funded research campaign spearheaded by Ofcom and Cardiff University will raise red flags among free speech advocates, as it aims to scrutinize the so-called impartiality of political news coverage across UK media.

This expansive project, backed by £755,625 ($1,028M) in public funds from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), specifically includes online and broadcast outlets and coincides with the run-up to the 2024/25 general election.

Though framed as an academic endeavor, the collaboration involves not only researchers but a cadre of mainstream broadcasters with longstanding ties to government regulation.

These include the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky News, and ITN. Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator and enforcer of the wide-reaching and controversial online censorship law, the Online Safety Act, is a central partner.

The project description emphasizes “challenging but urgent questions” about how political coverage is presented to the public and hints at future interventions under the pretense of raising editorial standards.

Cardiff University, which is leading the study, openly states that it intends to “identify where editorial standards can be raised to better inform…audiences.”

While no explicit call for regulatory changes is made, the language closely mirrors the justification often used to extend oversight, particularly toward newer or nonconforming media platforms.

The announcement states that “accusations of so-called media bias abound, often fuelled by edited clips circulating across online and social media platforms rather than scientific studies of news reporting.”

Impartiality rules enforced by Ofcom have repeatedly been used as tools to investigate and sanction broadcasters like GB News and TalkTV which have a large online presence.

Keep reading

Congress Exposes Government-Corporate Collusion Behind Censorship of Conservative Voices

A House Judiciary Committee investigation led by Chairman Jim Jordan has exposed what may be the largest government-coordinated censorship operation in U.S. history. Over two years, the committee has documented how federal agencies, major corporations, universities, and even foreign governments colluded to silence conservative voices, manipulate public discourse, and erode the First Amendment, what investigators now call the “Censorship-Industrial Complex.”

The investigation, which began with social media platforms, has now expanded to include artificial intelligence. In March 2025, Jordan sent letters to 16 major tech companies, including Google, Apple, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic, demanding documents related to potential Biden administration pressure to censor lawful speech in AI systems. The committee is investigating whether the administration “coerced or colluded” with AI firms to suppress content, marking a significant new front in the censorship inquiry.

Evidence from tens of thousands of internal emails and documents obtained via congressional subpoenas reveals a coordinated censorship campaign targeting dissenting views on everything from COVID-19 vaccines to the 2020 election. At the center was the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an initiative of the World Federation of Advertisers whose members control nearly $1 trillion in annual ad spending, about 90% of the global market.

House investigators describe GARM as an “advertising cartel” that used ad boycotts, content moderation, and “disinformation” labels to defund conservative outlets and pressure platforms into compliance. Internal communications show GARM co-founder Robert Rakowitz privately called silencing President Trump his “main thing” and compared his speech to a “contagion” that needed containment.

Investigators found direct coordination with foreign regulators, including the European Commission and Australia’s eSafety Commissioner. In one message, a European official urged advertisers to “push Twitter to deliver on GARM asks.” Australia’s Julie Inman Grant praised GARM’s “significant collective power” and asked for updates to guide her office’s regulatory decisions.

Internal emails show GARM members openly admitting they “hated the ideology” of conservative outlets like Fox News, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart. GroupM, the world’s largest media buying agency and a GARM Steer Team member, put The Daily Wire on a “Global High Risk exclusion list” under “Conspiracy Theories,” without citing any conspiracy content.

Perhaps most revealing was GARM’s pressure campaign against Spotify over Joe Rogan. When Rogan suggested young, healthy people might not need COVID vaccines, GARM threatened to pull ads across all of Spotify. Yet GroupM didn’t even advertise on Rogan’s show, proving this wasn’t about brand safety but ideological control.

GARM collapsed in August 2024 after X (formerly Twitter) sued for antitrust violations. The World Federation of Advertisers claimed they lacked the resources to defend the case, effectively admitting defeat.

Keep reading

	freemattpodcast on Trump Admin Weighs Emergency P…
	freemattpodcast on Muslim-Majority Turkey Detains…
	Bigus Macus on DOJ Seizes Over $560,000 in Cr…
	Study: Homeschool Ki… on Study: Homeschool Kids Outperf…
	HP McLovincraft on New design!