Tag: censorship

Von der Leyen’s paws are all over Ireland’s counter disinformation strategy

The government of Ireland’s 55 page counter disinformation strategy, available for free download here, is worth perusing to show how pervasive and thorough Von der Leyen’s emerging censorship web is. The first thing that critical readers might note is that there is no mention of Irish sources of disinformation, but that Russian sources of disinformation are mentioned five times.

In addition to that blatant show of Russophobia, its obsession with Moscow shows that this report is not only lop-sided, biased and partisan but that it comes up short in the empirical stakes as well. Though one might imagine that such a government funded report would give example after example of mis-information to bolster its case, that would be to mis-interpret its function, which is to put in place the censorship pillars on which not only Ireland but all of von der Leyen’s Europe will rest. Far better to close the angle, forget specific examples of mis-information and prattle on with catechisms of pseudo scientific cliches.

Thus, though there is no mention of the recurring patterns of NATO false flag operations that other SCF contributors frequently draw attention to, there are lists after lists of the pillars that must be legislated for to make not only Ireland but all of Europe safe again from the free flow of information.

The table of contents shows how the report is neatly divided into a number of sections to achieve von der Leyen’s aims. We first of all have an overview of the issue, explaining how Ireland is challenged by disinformation and how Ireland and Europe must respond, presumably by banning Russia Today, which I can now only get by using a VPN. Although an empirical or applied approach might devote a line or two to the mortal challenge Russia Today or SCF’s excellent Bruna Frascolla poses to us all, there is none of that. Instead, we must accept that Russia Today and Bruna Frascolla are coming for our jugulars and only von der Leyen and her Irish-based minions can save us from them, which is rather odd as I find the information to noise ratio much higher in them than I do in the Irish or British media.

So much for their silly overview. The next section spells out five principles through which counter-information will be fought. These essentially amount to the European Union agreeing on a narrative and that narrative being bolstered from the local level right up to von der Leyen herself. No matter whether it is Israeli war crimes in Gaza or NATO war crimes in Ukraine and Syria, all parties will spread the agreed narrative and gang up on those, who might suggest subversive counter-narratives regarding Hunter Biden’s lap top, von der Leyen’s Covid 19 vaccine profiteering and so on. Regarding Covid 19, the views of paid political and scientific hucksters will be accepted and those with alternative views will be punished on whatever pretext best suits the particular situation.

Although freedom of expression will be guaranteed, that freedom will not extend to those heretics, who question the prevailing narrative and who thereby put the entire clown show at risk. “Resilience and trust” in the powers that be will be drilled into the masses and the civil society networks they work though and “corporate accountability and regulatory enforcement” will further cement the narrative into our collective psyche. As in all quasi-military campaigns, there will be “cooperation, collaboration and coordination”, otherwise known as C3 or command, control and communications by the U.S. Military. Finally, there will be punishments as a matter of principle for dissenters and other heretics.

Keep reading

Back With A Vengeance: Nina Jankowicz Calls On Europeans To Oppose The US

Nina Jankowicz, the former head of Biden’s infamous Disinformation Governance Board, was “back with a vengeance.” 

After the outcry over the board led to its elimination, Jankowicz did what many of the displaced disinformation experts have done: she peddled her dubious skills to Europeans and others like a wandering rōnin without a master. 

Now, Jankowicz has appeared before one of the most anti-free speech bodies in the world — the European Union — to call upon those 27 countries to fight against the United States, which she called a world threat.

How the “Mary Poppins of disinformation” came to alight upon Europe is a familiar tale. 

The European Union has become the global hub for censorship efforts and, after she departed from the government, Jankowicz made a beeline for Europe.

I have been a long critic of Jankowicz, who became an instant Internet sensation due to a musical number in which she sang “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation” in a TikTok parody of the song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” 

After the Biden Administration reluctantly disbanded her board, she later moved to join a European group as a foreign agent to continue her work to block views that she considers disinformation.

The false portrayal of the United States as a lawless, autocratic nation no doubt thrilled the Europeans. 

In announcing her heading a private disinformation group called the American Sunlight Project, Jankowicz used the same hysteria to attract donors, insisting that “Disinformation knows no political party. Its ultimate victim is our democracy.”

Of course, Jankowicz herself has been accused of disinformation that served one particular party. 

She was previously criticized for allegedly spreading disinformation and advocating censorship.

The ultimate irony is that Jankowicz knows that she can count on many of us in the free speech community to support her right to spread such sensational and inflammatory information. 

Keep reading

‘Fact-Checking’ Was Always Just Censorship. Polls Show Americans Could See Through It

Legacy media and Big Tech colluded with so-called “fact-checkers” to censor Americans’ speech for years — from Covid-19 to the Hunter Biden laptop story to the 2020 election to former President Joe Biden’s mental decline. Now, these self-appointed arbiters of speech are losing power because the public can see through their lies.

Mentions of “misinformation” and “disinformation” — the left’s favorite terms for disapproved speech — on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News have apparently dropped to the lowest levels since 2020, according to Axios. “Professional fact-checking went mainstream during the first Trump administration, but it’s since become politicized,” Sara Fischer wrote for Axios. 

The outlet should know, as it has engaged in repeated propaganda operations under the guise of “fact-checking.” After reporting former Vice President Kamala Harris was “appointed by Biden as border czar,” Axios tried to fact-check Republicans, claiming “she never actually had” the title. As The Federalist previously reported, this is the same outlet whose co-founders demanded now-President Donald Trump apologize for getting shot in the head.

So Axios’ admission that fact-checking has “become politicized” is telling. It speaks to the fact that Americans are no longer willing to fall for media hoaxes. After all, Pew Research found that this year, public support for censorship fell for the first time since 2018. And as Axios reported, the number of so-called “fact-checking” sites had been growing since before 2016 — but in recent years, it began falling. 

Keep reading

US wants UK to ditch ‘hate speech’ laws to secure trade deal – media

The administration of US President Donald Trump wants the UK government to repeal hate speech laws in order to secure a trade deal between the two nations, the Independent reported on Wednesday, citing claims by sources close to US Vice President J.D. Vance. 

In a recent interview, Vance spoke of his admiration for the UK and expressed optimism about the negotiations.

Washington and London are “working very hard on a trade deal” within the new US tariff regime, he told the British website UnHerd on Tuesday. 

However, the sources reportedly claimed to the Independent that Vance’s optimism on a trade deal “is a way of putting further pressure on the UK over free speech.” 

“If a deal does not go through, it makes Labour look bad,” they reportedly said. 

Keep reading

Declassified Biden-Era Domestic Terror Strategy Reveals Broad Surveillance, Tech Partnerships, and Global Speech Regulation Agenda

A once-classified federal strategy paper has surfaced, pulling back the curtain on how the Biden administration planned to address domestic terrorism. Released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard after legal pressure from America First Legal (AFL), the document shows a government effort that stretches far beyond traditional national security work.

We obtained a copy of the documents for you here.

The 15-page plan, dated June 2021, outlines a series of objectives aimed at curbing domestic extremism. What’s caught critics’ attention, however, is how broadly the strategy defines the threat. Violence is only part of the concern. The rest seems focused on speech, ideology, and the online flow of information.

AFL sounded the alarm in an April 2 letter, accusing the administration of turning federal power inward. The group warned that officials were labeling “disfavored views” as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “hate speech” and then moving to suppress them under the banner of national security. The letter called it an attempt to “weaponize” the government against its own citizens.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Tulsi Gabbard responded on April 5, thanking AFL “for your work” and promising action. “We are already on this,” she said, “and look forward to declassifying this and other instances of the government being weaponized against Americans.” She pledged to restore “transparency and accountability” across the intelligence community.

Keep reading

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Shuts Down US Censorship Agency Remnants

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has officially ordered the closure of the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI) office, ending a controversial chapter in what he described as a “shameful” period of federally sanctioned speech suppression.

The move dismantles the only formal office in the department tasked with countering foreign propaganda but, as Secretary Rubio and many others have noticed, it had morphed into something far more troubling: a taxpayer-funded engine that repeatedly ended up silencing American voices.

“For centuries, the United States served as a beacon of hope for millions of people around the world,” Rubio said in a statement. “Over the last decade though, individuals in America have been slandered, fired, charged, and even jailed for simply voicing their opinions…That ends today.”

His decision to eliminate R/FIMI follows years of escalating concern over how programs meant to counter foreign disinformation have instead repeatedly targeted domestic speech.

The office, created in late 2024 as a scaled-down continuation of the now-defunct Global Engagement Center (GEC), claimed to focus exclusively on foreign influence campaigns. Yet evidence increasingly showed that both R/FIMI and its predecessor were entangled in activities that penalized Americans for their political views.

While framed as a defensive measure against foreign adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran, the actual outcomes of these efforts routinely involved actions that resulted in blacklisting American media outlets, throttling their reach online, and labeling dissenting opinions as dangerous misinformation. The censorship was indirect but impactful: through partnerships with nonprofits and tech platforms, GEC-funded projects influenced what Americans could say, see, and share.

Keep reading

Canada: Mark Carney Vows Internet Speech Crackdown if Elected, Citing Online “Pollution” of Misogyny, Conspiracies

It was supposed to be a routine campaign pit stop, the kind of low-stakes political affair where candidates smile like used car salesmen and dish out platitudes thicker than Ontario maple syrup. Instead, Mark Carney found himself dodging verbal bricks in a Hamilton hall, facing hecklers who lobbed Jeffrey Epstein references like Molotovs. No rebuttal, no denial. Just a pivot worthy of an Olympic gymnast, straight to the perils of digital discourse.

“There are many serious issues that we’re dealing with,” he said, ignoring the criticism that had just lobbed his way. “One of them is the sea of misogyny, antisemitism, hatred, and conspiracy theories — this sort of pollution online that washes over our virtual borders from the United States.”

Ah yes, the dreaded digital tide. Forget inflation or the fact that owning a home now requires a GoFundMe. According to Carney, the real catastrophe is memes from Buffalo.

Keep reading

Congress Takes Another Step Toward Enabling Broad Internet Censorship

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday advanced the TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146) , a bill that seeks to speed up the removal of certain kinds of troubling online content. While the bill is meant to address a serious problem—the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)—the notice-and-takedown system it creates is an open invitation for powerful people to pressure websites into removing content they dislike. 

As we’ve written before, while protecting victims of these heinous privacy invasions is a legitimate goal, good intentions alone are not enough to make good policy. 

This bill mandates a notice-and-takedown system that threatens free expression, user privacy, and due process, without meaningfully addressing the problem it claims to solve. The “takedown” provision applies to a much broader category of content—potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content at all—than the narrower NCII definitions found elsewhere in the bill. The bill contains no protections against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Lawful content—including satire, journalism, and political speech—could be wrongly censored. 

The legislation’s 48-hour takedown deadline means that online service providers, particularly smaller ones, will have to comply quickly to avoid legal risks. That time crunch will make it impossible for services to verify the content is in fact NCII. Instead, services will rely on automated filters—infamously blunt tools that frequently flag legal content, from fair-use commentary to news reporting.

Keep reading

BitChute Discontinues Video-Sharing Service for UK Residents Over Online Censorship Laws

BitChute, a platform widely recognized for its commitment to free expression and open discourse, has officially withdrawn its services from the United Kingdom, citing untenable regulatory conditions under the UK’s recently enacted censorship law, the Online Safety Act. The move comes in direct response to regulator Ofcom’s newly enhanced authority, which enables the communications regulator to levy fines as high as 10% of a company’s global revenue if deemed non-compliant with the Act’s sweeping censorship demands.

This shift in regulatory climate marks what some view as a profound erosion of digital freedoms in the UK. BitChute’s decision could serve as the first signal of a broader exodus, with other international platforms potentially following suit to avoid the heavy-handed oversight now codified in British law.

In a detailed public statement posted to its website, BitChute explained the rationale behind the drastic step:

“After careful review and ongoing evaluation of the regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom, we regret to inform you that BitChute will be discontinuing its video-sharing service for UK residents.”

The platform highlighted the unpredictable and burdensome nature of the new legal framework, emphasizing the Act’s expansive mandates on content moderation and the discretionary powers it grants Ofcom to enforce them. BitChute warned that these provisions create an environment of legal ambiguity, placing platforms at the mercy of vague standards and severe penalties.

“The BitChute platform has always operated on principles of freedom of speech, expression and association…However, the evolving regulatory pressures—including strict enforcement mechanisms and potential liabilities—have created an operational landscape in which continuing to serve the UK market exposes our company to unacceptable legal and compliance risks.”

The company has implemented immediate restrictions: UK residents can still upload content to the platform, but none of their videos will be accessible to other UK-based users. Their content will remain viewable to users in other countries, who can interact with it as usual.

“The significant change will be that this UK user-posted content will not be viewable by any other UK user, but will be visible to other users outside of the UK.”

This effectively means that while UK-based creators are not entirely barred from participation, their voices are now digitally cordoned off from fellow citizens, a result of legal constraints rather than technical ones.

Keep reading

Senate Probes Meta Over Alleged Censorship Tools and Data Sharing Ties with Chinese Communist Party, Whistleblower Testifies

US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, on Wednesday organized a hearing about Meta’s alleged work to develop custom censorship tools for China’s Communist Party (CCP) and share user data with China – which Meta denies.

Whistleblower and former Facebook Director Global Policy Sara Wynn-Williams, who left the company at some point around 2018, presented her testimony during the hearing dubbed, “A Time for Truth: Oversight of Meta’s Foreign Relations and Representations to the United States Congress.”

Senator Josh Hawley, who chaired the meeting, showed internal Facebook documents that Wynn-Williams previously shared with Congress, that appeared to corroborate the whistleblower’s claims.

Wynn-Williams accused Meta executives of “repeatedly” undermining US national security and betraying American values as they allegedly set out to build “an $18 billion business in China” and work directly with the CCP, including censoring a Chinese dissident.

According to her testimony, Meta executives are guilty of lying to employees, shareholders, Congress, and the American public about the giant’s dealings with China, which she dubbed “illegal and dangerous,” dating back to 2015.

One of Wynn-Williams’ allegations is that Facebook’s “moderation” tools for the CCP allowed those using them to censor access to content in entire regions, or on particular dates, such as the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Wynn-Williams also claimed that Meta was willing to allow access to user data, including that of Americans, as it built a physical pipeline between the US and China, which the latter country could have used to intercept information.

“The only reason China does not currently have access to US user data through this pipeline is because Congress stepped in,” she told the committee.

Keep reading