Tag: censorship

California’s Pro-Israel AB 715: A Horrific Affront to Free Speech

While freedom of speech is one of the most prized freedoms celebrated in American society and the West, since the outbreak of the Gaza War, Zionist sympathizers in both major political parties have tried to quash dissent regarding US support for Israeli imperialism. In a new attempt to crush anti-war sentiments and indoctrinate millions of students into becoming pro-Israel sycophants, the California State Assembly has unanimously passed and referred to the State Senate a bill that would threaten freedom of speech in California public schools.

The bill, which seeks to add to already existing anti-discrimination legislation, would ban comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and language which “denies” Israel’s right to exist. After nearly two years of viciously slaughtering Palestinians, it has become clear to the United Nations, Amnesty International, and even once reluctant scholars that Israel is guilty of genocide. Therefore, comparisons between Nazi Germany and the State of Israel do not only seem valid, but necessary for adequately describing the severity of Israeli cruelty in occupied Palestine. Furthermore, the wording of “directly or indirectly denying the right of Israel to exist” is alarmingly unspecific. Many supporters of Israel, including those at the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), have equated denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish supremacist state with denying Israel’s right to exist at all. By declaring legitimate criticism or comparisons of Israel as anti-Semitic without any further debate or inquiry, California politicians seek to combat the growing trend of young Americans questioning the US-Israel relationship.

Fundamentally, this bill is a gift to authoritarianism in line with a host of other similar bills in the United States and throughout the West. Ironically, both the deep-blue California and the deep-red state of Florida are united in their endeavor to suppress criticism of Israel. Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 187, officially adopting the incredibly flawed aforementioned IHRA definition of anti-Semitism into law. In the United Kingdom, government officials have encouraged the police to treat those who wave the Palestinian flag or shout pro-Palestinian chants as racist criminals. Elsewhere, Germany has conducted raids on the homes of activists, and France has ordered a ban on pro-Palestine protests entirely.

Thankfully, numerous organizations and individuals have denounced this bill and encouraged the people of California to place pressure on the Senate and Governor Gavin Newsom to reject this bill. On the left, groups like the Jewish Educators Addressing Actual Antisemitism, CODEPINK, and Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area have condemned the bill. Other Muslim and Arab advocacy groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations California, the Arab Resource and Organizing Center Action, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, have similarly condemned the bill.

Keep reading

DOJ Joins Lawsuit Against Media-Tech Collusion Over Censorship

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is stepping into a legal battle that challenges the powerful alliance between major media outlets and tech corporations accused of stifling independent journalism.

The case, brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and a collection of independent publishers and reporters, targets the “Trusted News Initiative” (TNI), an international consortium that includes the likes of the BBC, Reuters, The Associated Press, and The Washington Post.

Central to the lawsuit is the charge that TNI and its tech partners unlawfully coordinated efforts to silence smaller media competitors by branding their work as “misinformation” or “disinformation” and throttling their reach online.

We obtained a copy of the notice of intent for you here.

The plaintiffs contend that this alleged scheme violates the Sherman Antitrust Act by effectively shutting independent voices out of the marketplace of ideas.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2023, had seen little movement until recently. The DOJ last week filed a formal notice in federal court indicating it will submit a statement of interest by mid-July. The agency cited the case’s focus on “anticompetitive collusion among competitors over product features” as a matter of federal concern.

For those fighting the case, the DOJ’s involvement signals a hopeful shift. Mary Holland, CHD’s CEO, called the announcement “welcome” and pointed to what she described as years of weak federal antitrust enforcement.

Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD’s general counsel, added that the DOJ’s interest could help break the logjam that has slowed the case, stating that she is “awaiting the statement of interest here with great interest.”

The plaintiffs represent a broad swath of independent media and public figures, including Creative Destruction Media, TrialSite News, The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, Health Nut News publisher Erin Elizabeth Finn, Dr. Joseph Mercola, journalist Ben Swann, and Ty and Charlene Bollinger, known for their platforms The Truth About Cancer and The Truth About Vaccines.

Keep reading

BBC bans ‘high-risk’ broadcasts after anti-Israeli calls

The BBC has announced that it will no longer broadcast or livestream performances deemed ‘high risk’. The British public broadcaster faced backlash after airing a set by punk-rap duo Bob Vylan at the Glastonbury Festival, during which the group chanted against the Israeli military.

The group’s lead vocalist encouraged the crowd to chant “Death, death to the IDF” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine must be, will be, inshallah, it will be free” during the performance last weekend. Videos circulating on social media show the crowd echoing the chants, with some waving Palestinian flags.

“We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on the BBC and want to apologise to our viewers, listeners, and in particular the Jewish community,” the broadcaster said in a statement released on Thursday.

The BBC noted that the band was classified as ‘high risk’ ahead of the festival, along with six other acts, but was still permitted to perform with “appropriate mitigations.” The company admitted to “errors” in the compliance processes and confirmed that Bob Vylan’s set has been permanently removed from BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds.

The outlet pledged to provide on-site editorial policy support at major music festivals and events moving forward. It also announced plans to issue clearer guidance on the criteria for withdrawing a livestream.

Keep reading

EU Turns Voluntary “Disinformation” Code Into Mandatory Rule Under New Censorship Law, Risking US Trade Tensions

On July 1, 2025, the European Union’s Code of Conduct on Disinformation became something else entirely. What was once pitched as a voluntary effort by tech companies to clean up their platforms is now an official requirement under the EU censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The biggest online platforms and search engines will need to meet strict transparency standards, undergo audits, and show that they can keep what Brussels calls “disinformation” in check. The message is clear enough: fall short during an audit, and expect to hear from the regulators.

Brussels couldn’t have picked a more delicate moment for this move. Trade negotiations with the United States are on a tight deadline, and the mood between the two is already tense.

This type of regulatory hardball has not gone unnoticed in Washington. American officials remember what happened when Canada tried something similar with its digital services tax.

President Donald Trump labeled the move as “obviously copying the European Union.”

Meta’s Joel Kaplan took to his podium to thank Trump for “standing up for American tech companies in the face of unprecedented attacks from other governments.” The result was that trade talks between the US and Canada hit a wall until Ottawa quietly shelved its tax plans.

Now the EU seems determined to test how far it can push its digital agenda without suffering the same fate. US politicians, mostly Republicans, have wasted no time calling out censorship disguised as risk management.

European officials are doing their best to dodge the charge.

The EU’s line is that the rules target systemic risks in algorithms and advertising rather than individual content.

Under the new system, platforms labeled as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) will face yearly audits.

These audits are supposed to assess how well companies manage the risks linked to disinformation.

Keep reading

VICTORY! After Four Years and Two Months British Nursing Council Drops Charges Against Dr. Niall McCrae for Publishing His Completely Factual Report on COVID Vaccine Risks on The Gateway Pundit in 2021

In the covid debacle, health professions played a major role in enforcing the official narrative. I can now reveal my experience with the UK Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC), who charged me with contradicting government guidance on vaccination and risking patients’ lives, after writing an entirely factual article on Gateway Pundit.

As a senior lecturer in psychiatric nursing at King’s College London, the NMC was my professional regulator.

When covid vaccines were introduced, I feared that blind faith and propaganda about an oxymoronic ‘miracle of science’ would lead to less impressive and harmful outcomes.

On 4th March 2021, Gateway Pundit published my article ‘British government study confirms Covid-19 vaccine risk’.  The article is linked below. This related to a Public Health England report showing increased infections soon after vaccination, which I attributed to a known phenomenon of temporary depletion in immunity.

Although factually accurate, a fact-check website labeled my article as ‘misleading’. On 8th March I was notified by the NMC of a referral by a ‘Dr Byrne’, who had seen my writing and found me on the register. The NMC began an investigation of my fitness to practise, alleging ‘failure to uphold your position as a registered nurse – in that you promoted health advice contrary to official health advice in the context of a global pandemic’.

From the outset, I was confident that the NMC had no reasonable case against me. I submitted my statement, supported by three experts (physician Helen Westwood, biostatistician Paul Cuddin, and nursing professor Roger Watson.  Cuddin wrote: ‘on the basis that there is consistent, increasing real-world and clinical evidence of increased infections in the two weeks after vaccination, the points raised by Dr Niall McCrae need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.’

Keep reading

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Children’s Health Defense Case Alleging Meta-Government Collusion to Censor Vaccine Speech

The Supreme Court has turned down a petition from Children’s Health Defense (CHD), leaving unexamined the group’s challenge to what it describes as collusion between Meta and federal agencies aimed at suppressing constitutionally protected speech.

The case, which dates back to 2020, centered on CHD’s allegations that Facebook, under government influence, targeted and silenced its views on vaccines and COVID-19.

CHD filed its initial complaint against Meta in August 2020 and later amended it, arguing that government officials worked alongside the tech giant to stifle dissenting opinions that the public had every right to hear.

The removal of CHD’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in 2022 only fueled concerns about the growing threat of coordinated censorship in digital spaces.

Those accounts, once a major source of alternative information for millions, remain banned.

In a decision last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Meta, holding that the company’s actions reflected private policy choices rather than government compulsion.

CHD hoped the Supreme Court would take up the case and examine whether that distinction truly shields Big Tech from accountability when it suppresses speech at the behest of public officials. But the justices declined, offering no explanation, as is typical in most of the thousands of petitions they review annually.

Keep reading

Silenced for Defending Colleagues: The Police Free Speech Fight Heating Up in the UK

Richard Cooke, the former chair of the UK’s West Midlands Police Federation, is preparing a legal challenge after being removed from office over comments he made defending his police force. Backed by the Free Speech Union, Cooke argues that his removal was an attack on his right to represent the views of officers.

The dispute began when Cooke responded on X to a Channel 4 News report that described racism and misogyny as widespread within West Midlands Police.

Cooke wrote: “I don’t recognize these attitudes. They do not represent us – we are an anti-racist organization.” In a separate post, he said: “Nonsense – and so was the report but these reporters rarely bother checking their sources.”

Following these posts, the Police Federation of England and Wales suspended Cooke.

The Federation barred him from seeking re-election for three years. According to the Federation, his comments risked alienating members who had experienced discrimination.

A spokesperson said: “Richard Cooke was removed from his role as Chair of the West Midlands Federation branch following an extensive process, which included an appeal. He was investigated following complaints from members about comments on social media which were judged by a panel of his peers to have been in breach of the Federation’s standards.”

The complaints came from two officers who appeared in the Channel 4 show. Cooke’s appeal was rejected after a hearing that he was not permitted to attend. His exclusion from the ballot led to a change in the Federation’s leadership.

Cooke had been elected chair three times since 2018. He describes his removal as a political decision intended to silence him.

Keep reading

Denmark Plans Sweeping Ban on Online Deepfakes to Combat “Misinformation”

Denmark is preparing legislation that would outlaw the sharing of deepfake content online, a move that could open the door to unprecedented restrictions on digital expression.

Deepfakes, which can involve photos, videos, or audio recordings manipulated by artificial intelligence, are designed to convincingly fabricate actions or statements that never occurred.

While governments cite misinformation concerns, broad bans risk stifling creativity, political commentary, and legitimate speech.

The Danish Ministry of Culture announced Thursday that lawmakers from many parties are backing the effort to clamp down on the distribution of AI-generated imitations of people’s appearances or voices.

The forthcoming proposal, according to officials, aims to block the spread of deepfakes by making it illegal to share such material. Culture Minister Jakob Engel-Schmidt argued that “it was high time that we now create a safeguard against the spread of misinformation and at the same time send a clear signal to the tech giants.”

But these assurances do little to address the chilling effect such measures could have on free expression.

Authorities describe the planned rules as among the most comprehensive attempts yet to confront deepfakes and their potential to mislead the public.

The United States last year introduced legislation criminalizing the non-consensual sharing of intimate deepfakes, while South Korea has imposed tougher punishments for similar offenses and tightened regulations on social media platforms.

Keep reading

European Researcher Bernadette Conrads Uncovers the Shadowy Reach of USAID Across Europe — Deep State Dollars, Election Meddling, and Censorship Campaigns Exposed

In an explosive sit-down interview with The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft back in March, European researcher Bernadette Conrads delivered a chilling exposé on the sprawling influence of USAID and its deep state-funded allies operating across the European continent.

Conrads, who currently serves as Head of Communications for MEP Petr Bystron of Germany’s populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), has spent the last five years tracing a tangled web of taxpayer-funded NGOs, censorship initiatives, and foreign election interference stretching from Washington, D.C. to Brussels.

While USAID may present itself as a harmless humanitarian initiative, Conrads warns it’s anything but.

“Foreign aid? No. It’s not about aid—it’s about control,” said Conrads. “It’s about censorship, regime change, and election interference.”

Her findings confirm what conservatives in America have long suspected: USAID and its sister organizations, like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), according to Conrads, are merely fronts for the CIA and other unelected power centers in the U.S. government.

These groups allegedly launder influence through NGO cover operations, rig foreign elections, silence dissenting media, and export the very same “deep state” corruption President Donald Trump has vowed to dismantle.

Conrads: “I think I’ve been interested in this topic for about five years—not specifically in USAID. I’m not an expert on USAID, but on these kinds of structures. There are many money pots like USAID. There’s also the National Endowment for Democracy. There are plenty of these organizations—organizations that work with the CIA and are deep state entities active around the world.

They create regime changes, control our media, and use so-called NGOs as covers for their operations. They call them NGOs—Non-Governmental Organizations—although they are funded by U.S. taxpayers. That’s a very crazy thing.

I’ve followed these structures over the past few years many times because I was constantly confronted with them. I faced media censorship—not directly by our governments, who also attempt such control—but very strongly by organizations like these, which are funded by USAID.”

Back in January, President Trump froze all foreign aid spending on Day 4 of his second term. Less than two weeks later, Elon Musk—appointed by Trump to lead the newly empowered DOGE group—completely shut down USAID. Musk called it “an organization beyond repair.”

In response, a rogue leftist judge in D.C. ordered Trump to reinstate $2 billion in aid payments—an absurd ruling that has ignited a new constitutional crisis over who really runs the country: the elected president or a network of unelected bureaucrats and activist judges.

“This isn’t about charity,” Hoft said during the interview. “This is about global control. About silencing voices like Gateway Pundit—using American dollars and foreign fronts to do it.”

Keep reading

Officials Erased from Existing Photos After North Korea’s National Humiliation

Welcome to North Korea, where making a very public mistake can potentially cost you your life.

That’s at least the worry for two senior officials involved with the sinking of a destroyer during its botched loss last month. According to multiple reports, the two men have been erased from state photos — and many fear they’ve been killed.

The ship was the second of a new class of destroyer to be launched by the hermit state from the shipyard in Chongjin — only things didn’t go as planned, as indicated by the fact they tried to cover it up with tarps.

And heads weren’t going to roll figuratively, but literally. The state-run Korea Central News Agency described the damage as “not serious” (going to disagree there) but “an unpardonable criminal act” (which, in North Korea, it definitely is).

Kim Jong-un, who was in attendance and watching when the sinking happened, said that the act “severely damaged the [country’s] dignity and pride” and resulted from “absolute carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism.”

Now, according to the New York Post, two of the high-ranking officials involved have been retconned out of existence in old photos — a clear sign that wherever they are, things ain’t good.

Admr. Kim Myong Sil and Hong Kil Ho — who are responsible for operating the shipyard in Chongjin — have been “expunged from the North Korean photographic record on orders of Kim — who blames them for the hermit kingdom’s inability to launch,” the Post reported on June 18.

Keep reading