Tag: censorship

South Korean YouTube and “X” aggressively block access to alternative views on South Korean Election

While “X” has been largely liberated by Elon Musk inside the United States and Mark Zuckerberg has lifted his totalitarian thumb on YouTube inside of America a bit, South Korean variants have missed the memo on this topic.  The “Fact Checkers” and Global Elite Dis-Information cult is alive and well in South Korea – largely funded and directed by the Chinese Communist Party.

On June 24, 2025, a Press Conference was held at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. while tens of thousands of South Koreans gathered in Seoul and other locations in South Korea at midnight Korea Standard Time to publicly watch the simulcast.

South Korean YouTube and “X” have blocked and removed replays of this Press Conference, while key persons like rising star and former Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn has had his “X” account shut down.

Even the display of South Korea’s flag – well known throughout the world is being censored.  Just like the American Democrat Party, the South Korean Democrat Party despises their own National Flag.

Keep reading

Police ‘assessing’ comments made by Kneecap and Bob Vylan after Glastonbury acts spark outrage with remarks

Avon and Somerset Police are examining video footage from Glastonbury Festival to determine if criminal offences were committed during performances by bands Bob Vylan and Kneecap on Saturday afternoon.

The force announced on social media: “We are aware of the comments made by acts on the West Holts Stage at Glastonbury Festival this afternoon.

“Video evidence will be assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation.”

The investigation centres on comments made by punk duo Bob Vylan and Irish rap trio Kneecap during their sets at the festival’s West Holts Stage.

Keep reading

Kneecap vs. the Israel Lobby: How a Rebel Band Shook Britain

ABelfast rap group with no record deal, no security detail, and no filter is now the target of British counter-terror police, tabloid smear campaigns, and the full force of the Israeli lobby. Their crime? Saying ‘Free Palestine’ too loudly.

Over recent months, Irish rap trio Kneecap has been embroiled in a series of public controversies. In late April, the band was placed under official investigation by British counter-terror police, over a comment made by one of its members at a November 2023 concert—“The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.” A month later, another was formally charged for displaying the flag of Hezbollah, a proscribed terror organization under British law, at a London gig.

These developments have led to a welter of cancellations of Kneecap concerts and condemnation from mainstream sources. Yet, fans have forcefully rallied behind the group, and subsequent publicity has introduced the band to new audiences the world over, who are highly receptive to Kneecap’s outspoken, unrepentant anti-Zionism and infectious tunes. Furthermore, the band remains scheduled to perform at Glastonbury Festival in late June, a major British cultural institution, despite calls from parliamentarians to ban them from appearing.

Pressure has been brought to bear on the BBC not to feature Kneecap’s performance in its regular broadcast of the festival, which reaches tens of millions of people globally every year. The state broadcaster has so far stood firm. But there are palpable indications the Israeli lobby is undeterred, and has activated pro-Israel actors in Britain to torpedo the group, if not others, in the process. The stakes are high for Tel Aviv—Kneecap’s loud and proud Palestine solidarity represents an international public relations nightmare.

On June 2, Irish garage punk band Sprints revealed via Instagram that their management had been contacted by a reporter from The Daily Mail, asking if they intended to play at Glastonbury if Kneecap were “banned from the festival.”

The reporter added:

It would be really useful if you could clarify your views on Kneecap and how you feel about them performing at Glastonbury later this month. Do you feel comfortable sharing a platform with them? Will you protest if Glastonbury prevents the band from performing? Do you have any free speech concerns if they are banned, or safety concerns if they perform? It would be really helpful if you could respond with your thoughts by [June 5].”

Accompanying commentary from Sprints stated, “Daily Mail rats trying to drum up support to ban [Kneecap] from Glastonbury. Kneecap are not the story, the genocide in Palestine is the story. Let us be unequivocally clear, we will forever be comfortable sharing the stage with people who use their platform for good and to speak up for those who can’t. Free Palestine.”

The Daily Mail reporter in question was Sabrina Miller. A product of various Israeli lobby Hasbara training programs since high school, over the past five years, she—first as a student, then as an award-winning mainstream journalist—has racked up a lengthy, unpardonable record of targeting public figures in Britain for personal and professional destruction. While accusing Israel’s critics of antisemitism, Miller has also sought to foment anti-Muslim animus. Now, it appears she and the vast lobbying infrastructure behind her have focused their efforts decisively on Kneecap.

Keep reading

“Queer Booksellers” Owned Bookstore in San Francisco Bans Harry Potter and Other Books by J.K. Rowling

Booksmith, a San Francisco bookstore owned by self-described “queer booksellers”, recently announced it is banning books by Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling over Rowling’s pro-woman group.

The British author Rowling has taken a strong stand in the transgender battle, opposing men pretending to be women invading women’s and girls’ spaces and establishing the United Kingdom based private fund, J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund, “A legal fighting fund for women protecting their sex-based rights” for women in the UK and Ireland.

The Booksmith owners were triggered by Rowling’s statement last month she was self-funding the women’s group she founded and was not accepting donations, “I looked into all options and a private fund is the most efficient, streamlined way for me to do this. Lots of people are offering to contribute, which I truly appreciate, but there are many other women’s rights orgs that could do with the money, so donate away, just not to me!”

Keep reading

How To Free America From EU Censorship

On January 20, 2025, the first day of his second presidential term, Donald Trump signed an executive order: “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” The bad old days of the “censorship-industrial complex,” allegedly responsible for suppressing online speech under President Joe Biden, were over.

Except they weren’t. The driving force behind online censorship had never been the U.S. government, which meant that freedom of speech could not be restored by the stroke of a president’s pen. Rather, the European Union has wielded its Digital Services Act (DSA) to restrict the speech not just of Europeans but especially of Americans and other English-speakers. The E.U. has not violated the free-speech rights of Americans, since it has no obligations under the U.S. Constitution. But it has vitiated those rights, essentially nullifying the First Amendment in cyberspace.

The DSA is not a “threat” to free speech, as some American commentators put it, implying that possible danger lies in the future. Because the DSA is in force now, all major online platforms and search engines must comply with it to remain on the E.U. market. There is effectively no free speech on the internet nowadays, at least not on the major platforms falling under the DSA’s strictest provisions, but only more or less heavily curated, algorithmically managed speech.

Some supporters of President Trump might find this hard to believe. After all, the president’s most prominent ally and advisor is Elon Musk, whose purchase of Twitter in 2022 was said to be motivated by a desire to restore free speech to the platform. But Musk has always insisted that “freedom of speech is not freedom of reach,” and there’s the rub. Using platform algorithms to restrict reach artificially is a form of censorship, one that is not only compatible with the DSA but even encouraged by the E.U.

The Trump Administration can truly restore free speech to the internet only by confronting the European Union. The administration needs to challenge the DSA, to get it repealed or at least neutered. If the E.U. refuses to back down, then the administration will need to work with Congress to pass a law ensuring that American tech companies cannot comply with the DSA by restricting Americans’ First Amendment rights.

Keep reading

Ad Titans Promise To End Censorship Bias To Gain Power

Two of the world’s most powerful advertising firms, Omnicom and Interpublic Group (IPG), have formally agreed to dismantle their involvement in politically driven advertising coordination, marking a major policy reversal amid a growing federal crackdown on viewpoint-based censorship in the media economy.

The firms, who are set to merge in a $13.5 billion deal approved Monday by the Federal Trade Commission, will be subject to rigorous compliance mandates and are now bound by a commitment to cease all current and future coordination aimed at directing advertising revenue based on political beliefs.

The consent agreement represents a rare and forceful rebuke of ideological collusion within the advertising sector and comes following allegations from media outlets that they were demonetized and blacklisted by advertisers over their political views or coverage.

Under the terms outlined by FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, Omnicom and IPG must fully cooperate with federal investigations into past practices and submit regular reports demonstrating compliance.

The proposed order “imposes restrictions that prevent Omnicom from engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers’ political or ideological viewpoints,” the FTC said.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The new conditions prohibit the merged entity from participating in any initiative that influences ad placement based on ideological or political criteria. In addition to annual reporting, the companies must provide immediate documentation to the FTC upon request and support inquiries into previous coordination to blacklist media organizations.

Keep reading

What Are They Hiding? Judicial Watch Fights Pam Bondi and Kash Patel for Records on Biden Regime’s Twitter Censorship

Judicial Watch has sued the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to unseal records from meetings between Twitter executives and the Biden FBI to censor the American people. 

The lawsuit was filed in 2023 after the FBI ignored a FOIA request for the records of meetings between June 2020 and December 2022.

For some reason, Trump’s DOJ is still fighting against Biden’s censorship efforts, which specifically targeted conservatives, including The Gateway Pundit’s reporting on election fraud, being exposed.

Via Judicial Watch:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a hearing is ordered by U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan for June 18 at 11 a.m. ET in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for “Twitter Files” records concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop and other censorship. The only issue remaining in the lawsuit is the FBI’s continued hiding of records documenting two meetings between Twitter and the Biden FBI.

Judicial Watch filed the April 2023 lawsuit against the Justice Department, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence after the FBI failed to respond to a December 2022 FOIA request for the records of any FBI official and key Twitter employees between June 2020 and December 2022 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice(No. 1:23-cv-01163)).

The lawsuit references Yoel Roth, Vijaya Gadde, and Jim Baker, who were prominent in internal discussions at Twitter about censoring the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story, as journalist Matt Taibbi revealed in the December 2022 release of the “Twitter Files.”

“It is frustrating beyond belief for Judicial Watch to have to go to federal court for basic information on Biden’s abuse of the FBI, using Twitter to censor and monitor Americans,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Fitton said after the hearing that the DOJ was “arguing why the American people should not be able to see what the Biden FBI was planning with Twitter.”

Keep reading

Obama Wants Filters Not Freedom

Barack Obama’s recent appearance at The Connecticut Forum once again revealed a troubling truth: the political establishment is becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea of government-managed speech.

In an extended conversation with historian Heather Cox Richardson, the former president signaled that his tolerance for open discourse ends where his ideological preferences begin.

Amid warnings about the spread of “propaganda” and falsehoods online, Obama floated the notion of imposing “government regulatory constraints” on digital platforms.

His rationale? To counter business models that, in his opinion, elevate “the most hateful voices or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous, in the sense of inciting violence.”

But it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see what’s really being proposed: a top-down mechanism to filter speech based on government-approved standards of truth.

This wasn’t framed as a direct assault on the First Amendment, of course. Obama was careful to qualify that such regulations would remain “consistent with the First Amendment.”

But that’s little comfort when the very premise involves the government determining which voices deserve a platform. Once the state takes a role in deciding what is true or acceptable, the line between moderation and censorship evaporates.

Obama’s remarks included a reference to a saying he alleges is attributed to Russian intelligence and later adopted by Steve Bannon: “You just have to flood the zone with so much poop…that at some point people don’t believe anything.”

This, he argued, is the tactic used by bad actors to disorient the public. What he failed to acknowledge is that the antidote to this isn’t more control, but more speech. Free people, given access to a full spectrum of views, are capable of discerning fact from fiction without government supervision.

The real danger isn’t “too much speech.” It’s the increasing desire to place speech under bureaucratic management.

Obama’s suggestion that some speech is too “hateful” or “dangerous” to be left unchecked invites a future where those in power decide what the public is allowed to hear, a vision completely incompatible with a free society.

And we’ve already seen how that plays out.

Keep reading

The Censorship-Industrial Complex Has Now Become Self-Perpetuating

I’ve covered a lot of speech crime indictments here at the plague chronicle.

Before Covid, these things hardly ever happened.

Occasionally you’d find the odd article about a dumb tourist who was cited for throwing a Nazi salute in public or something, but that was it. The whole area just didn’t matter.

The German state acquired a kind of political Long Covid from the pandemic.

Its agents learned from their virus repressions that they could get away with a lot more than they ever thought, and they also learned to view ordinary people as their adversaries.

A third thing happened too, in that lockdowns moved a lot of discourse to the internet, and the German elite discovered for the first time that they and their policies suffer a popularity deficit there. To explain this, our baffled and offended if powerful social media naifs borrowed the malevolent concept of “disinformation” from the Anglosphere. They began whining and crying and beating their breasts and clutching their pearls about disinformation. None of them did this so hard and so insistently as the Greens, because the Greens represent the views of the German political elite, and as an elite they feel entitled to scold, control discourse, and tell other people what to do.

That’s my potted history of how we got to this world, with pensioners being sent to jail for typing the wrong three-word phrase on the internet and YouTubers being fined thousands of Euros because some computer programme hallucinated into their banal complaints about poor internet reception a contextually incoherent Nazism. If you’re unlucky enough, you can get nailed for literally anything, and we only hear about a tiny minority of these cases. For a lot of people, the summary judgements they receive from the court are embarrassing, baffling and not worth the trouble. Those who can will just quietly eat the fine and try to get on with their lives.

In past pieces, I’ve drawn comparisons to the DDR, and I’ve also tried to characterise political repression as something that all states get up to when their ruling classes become threatened. I stand by all of that, but I’ve neglected to explain why our present situation is unique.

Europe and particularly Germany have entered a totally new era when it comes to government interference with personal expression. We’ve never seen anything like this before, it is going to get a lot worse, and nobody anywhere has the slightest interest in dialling this back. The prosecutions are escalating and they will only become more pervasive and ridiculous.

What is happening resembles classic “totalitarian” political tactics only superficially. The DDR employed literal bureaucrats and secret policemen whose job it was to censor speech according to defined standards and to punish or intimidate those who said inconvenient things. An analogy would be the farmer who decides there are too many rabbits eating his cabbages, and so he goes out and shoots them.

Modern Germany just can’t go out and shoot rabbits, and the reason has nothing to do with liberal democratic freedoms. We can’t even build bridges. Over a century ago, the Kingdom of Saxony required only two or three years to build the first Carola Bridge over the Elbe in Dresden. The SS destroyed that monument in 1945 to slow the Soviet advance, but the DDR needed only four years to build a replacement – the one that finally collapsed in September of last year. Today, in the best Germany of all time, we will require at least ten years and almost certainly more to build our third Carola Bridge. That is a very rough scale of how much ability the state has lost in the space of just a few generations.

The sclerotic, hyper-managerialised state that cannot build an uncomplicated 500-metre bridge across a river also finds censorship really, really hard. And so it has signed over this project to a whole world of NGOs, many of which now devote incredible resources to policing the internet all day.

We once had a farmer shooting rabbits, and that was bad enough if you happened to be a rabbit. Now we have an obese, bed-ridden, day-drinking farmer who can no longer fit through his front door. To solve his rabbit problem he has deputised a lot of autonomous agents, like the myxoma virus, to get rid of the hated rabbits instead.

This means he’s no longer in control of the process at all. The censorship happens all on its own, and for reasons of its own too.

It’s just something that a growing number of state-adjacent organisations do now, because there are institutional interests (jobs, funding) behind it.

How this happened is insidious.

Keep reading

UN Calls for “Climate Misinformation” to be Criminalised

“False claims obstructing climate action” – like claiming the Spanish blackout was caused by renewables

Climate misinformation turning crisis into catastrophe, report says

False claims obstructing climate action, say researchers, amid calls for climate lies to be criminalised

Damian Carrington Environment editorThu 19 Jun 2025 21.00 AEST

Rampant climate misinformation is turning the crisis into a catastrophe, according to the authors of a new report.

…

The researchers found climate denialism has evolved into campaigns focused on discrediting solutions, such as the false claims that renewable energy caused the recent massive blackout in Spain.

…

Climate misinformation – the term used by the report for both deliberate and inadvertent falsehoods – is of increasing concern. Last Thursday, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, called for misinformation and greenwashing by the fossil fuel industry to be criminalised. On Saturday, Brazil, host of the upcoming Cop30 climate summit, will rally nations behind a separate UN initiative to crack down on climate misinformation.

Keep reading