Tag: censorship

Loss of Narrative Control: How State Power Struggles Against Free Speech

The state is losing control over the dominant narratives in the competition of prevailing stories. Its apparatus of power responds predictably invasively and reveals its hostility toward dissenting opinions.

The German Bundestag’s Vice President Bodo Ramelow calls for stricter control of social media. “The platforms must be regulated,” Ramelow warns, demanding that operators “be held liable for what happens on their platforms.” In view of the “coarsening of language and writing” in the digital space, he advocates clear identity verification of users.

Of course, the former Prime Minister of Thuringia and self-confessed fanboy of cultivated socialism is as far removed from protecting free speech as he is from a fair exchange of arguments among different interest groups on an equal footing, where the state takes on the role of a passive guardian. No, Ramelow is a representative of the autonomously reproducing caste of statists, whose clearly articulated goal is to develop the state from a referee role into the dominant actor in the societal power field.

Socialism as a Viral Disease

A state that abandons its neutral role inevitably degenerates into an overbearing actor — socialism as a power construct is the consequence. One can also understand socialism in its revolving character as a kind of intellectual viral disease. Resentment, inferiority complexes, and failure translate in unstable personalities prone to one-dimensionality in societal disputes into vulgar fantasies of expropriation. Economic and cultural crises cause the rapid spread of this civilizationally deforming ideology — a mental pandemic gaining energy, whose discharge dissolves the pillars of civilization: private property, autonomy of action, family, religion, and cultural life.

It is of fundamental importance to understand at what point in the cyclical course of our society we have arrived. Ramelow’s talk can of course be dismissed as infantile utterances of a provincial politician and salon communist, who, like so many of his comrades, has carved a path through bureaucratic positions, public service, and NGO activism to eke out a life at maximum distance from normal reality. Yet in my opinion, this would be a superficial judgment. Ramelow’s unrestrained demands for control of the supposed sovereign are an expression of the final phase of the societal cycle. We stand at a turning point where representatives of the state feel the overstretching of their power, shaped in growing public debt, collapsing economies, and an as yet unspecific unrest among the people.

State Activates Last Resources

The left-wing power machine’s fight against dissenting opinions and political movements has long been institutionalized. In laws such as the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, the EU undertakes as a kind of “Ministry of Truth” the obscene attempt to bring social media platforms under state control to counteract its loss of power. Soft, emotionally charged, the enforcers of control cite transparency and youth protection to justify their overreach. The obligation to moderate content and disclose algorithms opens the door wide to political influence.

The citizen’s digital sovereignty as a counter-public, as a new regulatory mechanism against state media dominance, has become the newest battlefield of a society that passively watched the rise of initially gentle socialism and must now experience how from climate moralism and diversity hype emerges a passive-aggressive classic control socialism, which spares no effort to deploy state organs like the judiciary apparatus against the growing dissident movement. In this way, the state forges ever new weapons in the war of memes, a war long lost but seemingly continued as a rearguard action until the bitter end. Consider the flood of lawsuits with which failed representatives of societal transformation like Robert Habeck defend their criticism-immune safe zones.

The judiciary’s assault on U.S. President Donald Trump during last year’s election campaign, intended to sideline the Republican, will go down as a unique case in American judicial history. These cases accumulate into a fundamental problem, drawing the battle line between the state apparatus and the civic sphere so sharply that one can already fairly confidently predict the failure of this pathological control fetish. That the U.S. government has actually managed in recent geopolitical turmoil to initiate the first budget cuts to the propaganda vehicle USAID can be seen as a milestone victory in the open culture war against civic freedom.

Keep reading

Israel Cracks Down on Foreign Media Outlets with New ‘Zero Tolerance’ Censorship Policy

Israel is placing strict limits on video that news organizations can take at the scene of Iranian missile attacks.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi announced the policy, which requires prior approval from “the Israel Police, the Government Press Office (GPO), and the military [Israel Defense Forces] censor,” according to the Jerusalem Post.

“In accordance with new zero-tolerance enforcement measures led by the national security minister and the police commissioner, any transmission — live or recorded — from areas under missile fire must receive explicit clearance from the IDF censor,” GPO Director Nitzan Chen said.

The new policy was enacted after missile attacks in Beersheba, Holon, and Ramat Gan.

In those incidents, footage was appearing on Al Jazeera. The Jerusalem Post report said CNN and The New York Times were targeted by the new rule in addition to Al Jazeera.

Although some photographers said they represented other outlets, Israeli officials said the footage was used by Al Jazeera, regardless of who might have recorded it.

On Tuesday, Israeli police confiscated photo equipment used by journalists in Haifa.

Al Jazeera has made an unauthorized broadcast of a rocket strike on an Israeli oil refinery compound, something no Israeli media outlet was allowed to do.

“Following the successful coordinated enforcement against Al Jazeera broadcasts and others that violate censorship instructions and harm state security, we are implementing a new policy: All foreign journalists who wish to broadcast from Israel during wartime must receive specific written approval from the military censor — not only for the broadcast itself, but for the precise location, as well,” Ben Gvir and Karhi said.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid responded, criticizing the decision.

“Their decision to impose sweeping censorship will not be enforceable as long as people have cell phones with cameras, and it simply crushes the support that has emerged worldwide over the past week for the just war we are waging,” Lapid noted.

But Ben Gvir said broadcasts can be used as weapons.

Keep reading

Belgian Nationalist Given 12 Month Suspended Sentence Because Someone Else Shared a ‘Racist’ Meme

Belgian conservative-nationalist Dries Van Langenhove has again been sentenced on appeal to one year in prison as a suspended sentence for what the judge said were violations of the Racism and Negationism Act.

The sentence stems from racist memes that were not even posted by him, but by members of a group chat he administrated seven years ago.

The sentence was delivered today by the Court of Appeal in Ghent, although Van Langenhove does not accept the sentence, and the case now goes into cassation.

On X, Van Langenhove simply wrote, “Guilty. 12 months in jail. Madness.”

He later clarified upon receipt of the written verdict that the custodial sentence “appears to be a suspended sentence,” which he suspects is “most likely because the prisons in Belgium are literally full of illegal migrants.”

“Most people don’t realize that the end result of such a sentence is the same. One politically incorrect tweet can now put me in jail. One meme sent by someone else in a group chat I am in can turn the suspended sentence into an effective one. This suspended sentence is the gravest form of censorship they could pursue and an effective way to kill activism,” he added.

Keep reading

How China Is Censoring Scientific Research Across The Globe

We all know how serious environmental degradation is in China. Its emissions have skyrocketed, air and water quality have plummeted, and critical habitat and ecosystems have disappeared. That’s why unadulterated research on the topic is critical to better informed policy. But my recent experience shows that China’s censorship model is spreading to the West, hindering that research from taking place.

In 2012 I published an academic paper in the journal Environmental Politics coining the term “authoritarian environmentalism” to describe the way that environmental policy is made in China. This year, I was approached by Lu Liao, a professor of urban planning at Renmin University in Beijing, to submit a paper to a special issue on China in Environmental Policy and Governance, a respected journal published by the major academic publisher Wiley, based in New Jersey.

I suggested reviewing what we have learned about “authoritarian environmentalism” since 2012. “The idea of revisiting the 2012 paper sounds very timely and meaningful,” replied Liao, who sits on the editorial board of Environmental Policy and Governance.

That’s when things went awry. The proposal I sent her included a new research question about whether the policy model in China is flawed by design, a form of greenwashing intended to legitimate one-party rule rather than improve the environment.

After a few days, Liao wrote back to report some “intriguing context from my own position,” as she called it. “Due to current sensitivities around ideology and international relations in China, many Chinese universities are quite cautious about discussions involving certain terms, and faculty are prohibited from publish[ing] work on some sensitive topics.”

I was “invited” to withdraw my submission and seek publication elsewhere. China’s censorship regime was being extended to a Western scholar and to a Western academic journal.

I reached out to the journal’s editor, Andy Gouldson, professor of environmental policy at Leeds University, who has done work in China, seeking clarification. He confirmed that “there are sensitivities for the guest editors of the special issue” and invited me to submit the paper as a regular contribution. I’ll decline. I won’t publish in a journal that bends to China’s censorship regime.

Put aside the irony that my research on authoritarianism in China was sidelined by authoritarianism in China. The bigger scandal here is how Western academics and publishers are willing to allow PRC censorship to dictate the terms of their trade.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Orders UO to Pay $191K to PSU Professor Blocked for “All Men Are Created Equal” Comment

The University of Oregon is facing the financial consequences of an unconstitutional attempt to suppress speech after a federal judge ordered it to pay $191,000 in legal fees to Portland State University professor Bruce Gilley.

The order, issued by US District Judge John V. Acosta, follows a settlement reached in March 2025 in which the university acknowledged Gilley’s comments should not have been censored and agreed to implement major policy reforms.

The legal fees, which will be covered by UO’s insurer United Educators, include $147,070 awarded to the Institute for Free Speech (IFS) and $43,930 to the Angus Lee Law Firm.

These payments, combined with more than $533,000 that the university had already spent on its own legal representation by late 2024, push the cost of defending its actions to at least $724,000.

That figure excludes further expenses accrued since November.

These high costs are directly tied to UO’s decision to support its DEI officials after they blocked Gilley for replying “all men are created equal” to a university post on X.

This fee award reflects the substantial resources required to vindicate fundamental constitutional rights in the digital age, as well as the vigor with which the University of Oregon chose to defend unconstitutional policies,” said Del Kolde, IFS Senior Attorney.

“The university made a costly decision to prioritize DEI principles over constitutional principles, aggressively litigating this case for nearly three years rather than acknowledging the obvious, that blocking someone for quoting the Declaration of Independence violates the First Amendment.”

Keep reading

Telegram Founder Pavel Durov Blasts EU’s Digital Services Act as Gateway to Censorship and Centralized Control

While European regulators polish their halos and crank out legislation faster than Brussels can subsidize cheese, Pavel Durov is out here playing the role of a digital heretic.

In a French interview, the Telegram founder is sounding alarms over what he sees as a not-so-slow crawl toward speech control disguised as safety. The latest darling of the bureaucratic elite? The Digital Services Act is a piece of legislation that reads like it was written by a committee of risk-averse interns with a fetish for vague language and zero accountability.

Durov isn’t whispering his concerns at think tank luncheons or lobbying dinners. He’s calling it what it is: an institutional greenlight for censorship. “Once you legitimize censorship, it’s difficult to go back,” he says, which probably makes him the least popular dinner guest in Brussels since anyone asked about eurozone debt.

What makes this more than another libertarian tech rant is that Durov isn’t hypothesizing. He’s living it. Right now, he’s effectively stuck in France, being slow-roasted by criminal accusations that, according to him, are so flimsy they wouldn’t hold up in a Bluesky comment section.

“Nothing has ever been proven that shows that I am, even for a second, guilty of anything,” he insists.

One story in particular peels back the clean, professional veneer of Europe’s “rules-based” order.

Durov describes a charming little tête-à-tête with the head of France’s foreign intelligence service, the DGSE.

Over croissants and state-sponsored pressure, he was asked to delete Telegram channels tied to Romanian political activists.

He refused. Not with a polite “I’ll look into it” or some carefully lawyered dodge, but with what may be the most defiant line uttered by a CEO since Steve Jobs told IBM to get lost: “I told them I prefer to die than betray my users.”

Nothing screams “democracy in action” quite like a spy agency demanding censorship in a private meeting. At least they skipped the pretense.

Beneath the PR gloss of the Digital Services Act lies the basic truth of modern governance: power is being centralized and speech, sanitized.

Keep reading

X Sues New York For Demanding Social Media Data To Censor Speech

Social media company X sued New York to challenge a state law that requires social media companies to submit semi-annual reports about how they are suppressing certain kinds of speech to the New York attorney general. According to the lawsuit, provisions in the “Stop Hiding Hate Act” violate social media companies’ First Amendment rights and threaten free speech.

The law, in part, outlines “terms of service reports” in which companies must disclose to the state whether the terms of service for each of their platforms define certain “categories,” including hate speech, racism, extremism, misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. If their terms of service do include these categories, the companies would also be required to include those definitions in the report. The reports would also require companies to disclose a “detailed description” of their “content moderation practices” regarding these categories. Failing to submit the report could engender $15,000 per day. Governor Kathy Hochul signed the law in December, and it is set to go into effect this year.

X challenged the constitutionality of the “Content Category Report” portions of the law, arguing that they force companies to disclose “highly sensitive and controversial speech” protected under the Constitution. X also noted that content moderation “engenders considerable debate among reasonable people about where to draw the correct proverbial line,” and that “[t]his is not a role the government may play.”

Musk, who has described himself as a “free speech absolutist,” bought Twitter in 2022 to return the platform to “a digital town square” where ideas could be debated freely. He loosened the platform’s content moderation rules and readmitted suspended users, including President Donald Trump.

New York State Sen. Brad Holyman-Sigal and Assemblywoman Grace Lee, both Democrats, sponsored the law. In a letter that X quoted in the lawsuit, the two politicians said that X and Musk have a “disturbing record,” which “threatens the foundations of our democracy.” In a Tuesday statement responding to the lawsuit, the two lawmakers called social media companies, including X, “cesspools of hate speech,” and claimed the “Stop Hiding Hate Act” is necessary for “transparency.”

Keep reading

IDF Mandates Pre-Approval for Reporting Missile Strikes, Including on Social Media and Online Platforms

A new set of censorship rules issued by the Israel Defense Forces is raising alarms over media freedom and public transparency.

Brigadier-General Kobi Mandelblit, Israel’s chief censor, declared on Wednesday a mandate requiring prior approval for any reporting on where missiles or drones have struck, no matter the platform or location of publication.

According to the statement, “any person who prints or publishes printed matter or a publication regarding the location of a strike or hit by enemy war materiel, including missiles of any kind and UAVs, in the media or online (including social media, blogs and chats, etc.)” must now submit that material to the military censor for approval before it is released.

This directive applies to both domestic and international reporting, online and offline.

Keep reading

California Judge Blocks Trump Admin from Dismantling State Dept’s Censorship Agencies

A federal judge in California has halted the Trump administration’s effort to dismantle the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R-FIMI) Hub, formerly known as the Global Engagement Center (GEC).

In a June 13 order, US District Judge Susan Illston declared that the planned elimination of the unit, part of a broader push by the administration to downsize the federal government, violates an earlier injunction.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio may have prematurely celebrated the end of R-FIMI back in April when he said the censorship unit was “dead.”

Despite his announcement, legal barriers remain in place, preserving the agency’s existence. For now.

Through the intervention of the federal judiciary, R-FIMI, a program with a $50 million annual budget that has drawn fire for suppressing online speech under the pretense of combating “foreign disinformation,” has been granted an unexpected lifeline.

The agency, a legacy of the Obama administration, was launched in 2016 to monitor and counter alleged foreign propaganda, particularly from Russia.

But over time, its activities expanded into domestic spheres, drawing allegations that it pressured social media platforms to silence certain political voices ahead of the 2020 election.

Keep reading

Musk says he is providing Iran with Starlink as regime restricts internet

Elon Musk signaled late Friday night that he is providing Iranians with Starlink satellite internet after conservative analyst Mark Levin asked him to turn the service on in Iran during Israel‘s conflict with the country.

“The beams are on,” Musk said in a response to Levin’s request on X.

Levin’s initial post argued that if Starlink is turned on in the country, “Musk can put the final nail in the coffin of the Iranian regime.” Starlink is Musk’s satellite internet service.

Iran restricted internet access for millions of people following Israel’s strike on the country. Internet usage in the country heavily declined after the restrictions were issued, according to the internet monitoring group Netblocks. There hasn’t been a complete block of traffic, however, as Levin’s post suggested.

Keep reading