Tag: censorship

‘Delete, Silence, Abolish’: America’s estranged allies ramp up perceived censorship, speech rules

Overt government control of the internet is expanding within America’s increasingly estranged allies and threatening to spill over national boundaries, likely renewing earlier confrontations with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the world’s richest man and creator of America’s newest nascent political party.

The European Union last week made its officially voluntary three-year-old “Code of Practice on Disinformation” legally binding under the Digital Services Act. It’s now a “Code of Conduct” to be used as a “relevant benchmark for determining DSA compliance” for Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Bing, TikTok, YouTube and Google Search.

These “very large” online platforms and online search engines were already signatories of the 2022 code, whose commitments include taking “stronger measures to demonetise disinformation,” increasing fact-checking across the EU and its languages and improved reduction of “current and emerging manipulative behaviour.”

Australia imposed an age-verification law for harmful content that makes the Texas law recently upheld by the Supreme Court look like a type-your-age prompt, applying to not only pornography but also “violent content” and “themes of suicide, self-harm and disordered eating,” in the words of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.

Last week she registered three of nine “codes” submitted by the online industry, covering “search engine services … enterprise hosting services and internet carriage services such as telcos,” and has sought “additional safety commitments” on remaining codes for “app stores, device manufacturers, social media services and messaging” and broader categories.

The same day, Canada suspended a U.S. tech firm tax to avoid trade recriminations from the Trump administration. Justice Minister Sean Fraser told the Canadian Press that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is taking a “fresh” look at predecessor Justin Trudeau’s proposed Online Harms Act, which went down in Trudeau’s political downfall.

Anti-censorship group Reclaim the Net flagged pressure on Carney’s government to revive C-63, which famed Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson claims would criminalize wrongthink. Trudeau-appointed Senator Kristopher Wells pressed Government Representative Marc Gold to commit to further criminalizing “hate” in a “questions period” last month.

Keep reading

UN Launches Task Force to Combat Global “Disinformation” Threat

The United Nations has unveiled its first Global Risk Report, placing what it terms “mis- and disinformation” among the most serious threats facing the world.

Tucked into the report is the announcement of a new task force, formed to address how unauthorized narratives might disrupt the UN’s ability to carry out its programs, particularly its centerpiece initiative, the 2030 Agenda.

Rather than encouraging open discourse or transparency, the organization has taken a route that centers on managing what information gets seen and heard.

While the language used suggests a concern for public welfare, the actual emphasis lies on shielding the UN’s agenda from interference.

According to the report, survey respondents that included member states, NGOs, private companies, and other groups overwhelmingly called for joint government action and multistakeholder coalitions to deal with the highlighted risks.

Yet there is no clear endorsement of more open communication or free expression. The dominant solution appears to be top-down control over public narratives.

This newly established task force has a single focus. Its job is to assess how so-called mis- and disinformation affect the UN’s ability to deliver on its goals.

The report does not describe how this benefits the public or strengthens democratic values. Instead, the team’s mission is about insulating UN operations from disruption, particularly as they pertain to the Sustainable Development Goals.

The SDGs, which make up the foundation of the 2030 Agenda, touch nearly every aspect of governance and development, from climate to education to healthcare.

Keep reading

Bombshell report exposes attempts by Muslim Council of Britain group to censor UK media

The Muslim Council of Britain’s media monitoring unit “acted in bad faith” by trying to suppress accurate reporting about terrorism and risks curtailing press freedom, a bombshell report has claimed.

Policy Exchange tonight released its 94-page report, titled ‘Bad Faith Actor: A study of the Centre for Media Monitoring’, which exposed the organisation’s inadequate methods of documenting Islamophobia and its partisan agenda.

Despite the CfMM claiming that 60 per cent of stories about Muslims are “offending” and negative, Policy Exchange found that just one complaint made by the group resulted in a newspaper being required to make a correction.

Policy Exchange revealed that CfMM, which sat on a working group at press regulator Ipso, counted factual reports of Islamist terror attacks in its 60 per cent figure of Islamophobic journalism, including a Manchester terror attack report by agency AP that accurately used the phrase “knife-wielding man yelling Islamic slogans”.

Keep reading

Canada Eyes Revival of Online Censorship Bill

As Canada’s government hints at reviving its shelved Online Harms Bill, concerns are mounting that this could signal a renewed assault on free speech. The legislation, once known as Bill C-63, had been left behind when Parliament was prorogued earlier this year.

Now, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, the Liberals appear ready to give their controversial plan another try, leaving civil liberties groups on high alert.

The Democracy Fund (TDF), a leading voice in the fight for free expression, has been quick to sound the alarm. Mark Joseph, TDF’s litigation director, argues that no sweeping new regime is necessary.

“There are laws in place that the government can, and does, use to address most of the bad conduct that the Bill ostensibly targeted,” he pointed out.

In Joseph’s view, any genuine gaps in the Criminal Code could be addressed with targeted amendments, rather than broad measures that risk suffocating debate.

“The previous Bill C-63 sought to implement a regime of mass censorship,” he warned, adding that TDF remains determined to resist efforts to criminalize speech and punish lawful debate.

The government, for its part, insists it is simply reassessing its approach. Justice Minister Sean Fraser has described the current review as a “fresh look” at how best to address online harms.

But for those who value open dialogue, such language offers little comfort, raising fears of government overreach cloaked in promises of safety.

Keep reading

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