Tag: censorship

Japan Rides The Censorship Bandwagon

The manufacturer of the replicon mRNA Covid “vaccine” in Japan, Meiji Seika Pharma, has brought a lawsuit against a member of the Japanese parliament, Kazuhiro Haraguchi. Haraguchi had commented that the Covid injections are “akin to a biological weapon,” a statement which the Meiji Pharma president claimed was beyond the bounds of acceptable expression.

However, statements like Haraguchi’s about the dangers of the Covid mRNA injections are now commonplace in many nations, and drug companies do not seem to be suing people for making them, at least in the US. Instead, state attorneys general in Kansas and Texas have been suing Pfizer for misrepresenting its Covid injections.

In general, Japan has been gradually evolving into a place where it is difficult to publicly express ideas unapproved by powerful business interests and officialdom. In addition to government and mainstream news media collusion to keep Covid medical realities from the Japanese public, the government passed a law to squelch nonconforming messaging online.

The intentions behind this measure are clear: Prominent government figures have openly declared their conviction that “misinformation” is a major problem in Japan. In December 2024, Prime Minister Ishiba stated that he was considering more regulations concerning Internet discourse that he considers problematic, and a prominent LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) politician named Noda commented recently that Japan was being influenced more and more by “fake” information.

In May 2024, Japan’s parliament passed a law to enable the quick elimination of defamatory posts from social media platforms like Facebook and X. By this law, such platforms would have to make explicit sites for taking requests to delete posts and also make clear their criteria for taking down posts. The new law went into effect on April 1, 2025.

Unsurprisingly, some Japanese YouTube vloggers are expressing concerns that, under the new set of regulations, their vlogs may soon be targeted as purveyors of “misinformation,” especially when they criticize government policy.

Only online media platforms are targeted in this development, even though Japanese print communications and TV programs have also often been guilty of spreading harmful disinformation. Ironically, in many instances, this is not because they are unregulated but precisely because they are under the thumb of government agencies.

For example, the Japanese National Police Agency has deliberately leaked information about people under investigation in order to pressure them into confessing to crimes. Since the Japanese public often naively believes that suspicion equals guilt, this tactic results in terrible consequences for the unjustly accused.

In 1996, after an unsuccessful attempt by the Aum Shinrikyo cult to assassinate three Japanese judges, police leaked to news media outlets some details of their investigation of Yoshiyuki Kono, an innocent man whose family was also severely injured in the attack.

Kono’s experience of being hounded by both the authorities and the mainstream news media mirrors that of Richard Jewell, the heroic security guard who became a suspect after the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. The FBI deliberately leaked details of their investigation to American mainstream news outlets, which proceeded to harass and condemn Jewell along with the investigating FBI agents, though the case eventually unraveled.

Even before the social media platform law, Japanese news media outlets were effectively controlled by the government. As a result, Japan was ranked lowest among all Group of Seven nations for freedom of the press in the World Press Freedom Index. Japan’s overall ranking dropped from 68th to 70th after the 2024 social media law was passed. 

The reasons for this are the press club system and the self-censorship of most Japanese reporters. Each government ministry has a press club consisting of representatives from prominent news media outlets, and they receive official briefings from government officials. However, these members of the press can be banned from these briefings if they do anything that reflects badly on the government.

Keep reading

EU Commission Sues Five Member States Over Censorship Law Non-Compliance

Five EU member countries are being taken to court by the EU Commission for failure to “effectively” comply with the bloc’s online censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA).

DSA, and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), are EU’s key regulations often criticized for centralizing the bloc’s power in the digital sphere at the expense of free speech, and tech companies’ business interests – but also, it appears, the sovereignty of member countries.

Among the “May infringements package” covering various areas regulated by the EU is the section dedicated to the digital economy. It is here that the Commission announced legal action against Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, and Spain.

These countries have been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union; Bulgaria, meanwhile, has been put on notice and may eventually also find itself in court, unless it empowers a national digital services coordinator (DSC, a role established under DSA) and “lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements (of DSA).”

The EU Commission said that designating and empowering DSCs is an essential step in enforcing the DSA rules and “in ensuring the uniform application” of the regulation across the bloc.

Of the five EU members that are already in court, Poland has not designated or empowered a DSC at all, while the other four have done that – but failed to “entrust them with the necessary powers to carry out their tasks under the DSA.”

All five countries have yet to come up with rules regarding penalties for DSA infringement.

Keep reading

Inside the Brussels Showdown Over Europe’s Speech Police

On a mild Brussels morning, inside the halls of the European Parliament, a group of politicians, legal scholars, and policy skeptics gathered to talk about a piece of legislation most Europeans haven’t read, but which may soon be quietly reshaping how they speak, share, and think online.

Yesterday’s event, hosted by MEPs Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, with support from ADF International, focused on the increasingly controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), a law initially sold as a digital shield against misinformation and tech giant abuse, but which critics now say has evolved into something more aggressive.

The conference title “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression” tells you everything you need to know about the mood in the room.

Virginie Joron, a French MEP, opened the event with a direct shot at what she sees as the DSA’s unspoken evolution. “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act,” she said. Her argument: a law intended to protect rights is now being used by institutions to regulate dissent on platforms like Facebook, Telegram, and X.

Many have previously tried to dismiss this as anti-Brussels paranoia. But even the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour has flagged the DSA’s “chilling implications” for open debate in Europe.

The devil, as always, lives in the definitions. Who decides what’s “disinformation”? What counts as “hate speech”? How far can governments go in flagging and removing content that someone, somewhere, considers problematic?

Paul Coleman, the Executive Director of ADF International, doesn’t seem particularly reassured by the current answers. “Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago,” he told the room.

Keep reading

European Commission Accused of Orchestrating $735M Speech-Control Campaign

A new report has uncovered an expansive and quietly orchestrated campaign by the European Commission to shape public discourse through nearly €649 ($735M) million in taxpayer-funded projects aimed at regulating online speech.

Titled Manufacturing Misinformation: The EU-Funded Propaganda War Against Free Speech, the document was released by the think tank MCC Brussels and authored by Dr. Norman Lewis, a seasoned analyst of digital communication and regulatory policy.

Behind the EU’s frequent calls to combat “hate speech” and “disinformation” lies what the report describes as a vast ideological infrastructure designed to erode free expression under the guise of safety and civic empowerment.

The Commission, the report states, “has funded hundreds of unaccountable non-governmental organizations and universities to carry out 349 projects related to countering ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation’ to the tune of almost €650 million.”

That staggering figure surpasses what Brussels spends on transnational cancer research by over 30%, a discrepancy the report calls deliberate: “The EU Commission regards stemming the cancer of free speech as more of a priority than the estimated 4.5 million new cancer cases and almost two million cancer deaths in Europe in 2022, for example.”

While EU officials present these programs as public-interest research, the report argues they constitute a form of “soft authoritarianism,” enshrining speech codes and narrowing acceptable opinion through bureaucratic manipulation. “This is a top-down, authoritarian, curated consensus,” it states, “where expression is free only when it speaks the language of compliance established by the Commission.”

Many of these initiatives feature a distinct use of vague and euphemistic terminology, part of what the report calls “NEUspeak;” a deliberate linguistic strategy designed to obscure intent and preempt scrutiny. The project acronyms alone, such as FAST LISA and VIGILANT, are described as a form of branding deceit.

Keep reading

Trump Signs Take It Down Act

President Donald Trump has now signed into law the Take It Down Act, a measure designed to address the spread of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including increasingly prevalent AI-generated deepfakes.

While the legislation is being celebrated by both major parties as a victory for online safety, particularly for children and victims of abuse, it has also raised concerns about the potential for overreach, selective enforcement, and the erosion of free speech under the guise of digital protection, particularly because of the broad wording of the bill.

The law’s most prominent advocate within the administration has been First Lady Melania Trump, who campaigned heavily for its passage and made rare public appearances to promote it. During the Rose Garden signing ceremony, President Trump invited her to add her signature beneath his, an unusual but symbolic gesture that underscored her role in pushing the legislation forward.

“This legislation is a powerful step forward in our efforts to ensure that every American, especially young people, can feel better protected from their image or identity being abused,” Mrs Trump said. In her remarks, she repeated her criticism of AI and social media, calling them “the digital candy for the next generation,” and warned that these technologies “can be weaponized, shaped beliefs, and sadly affect emotions and even be deadly.”

President Trump, for his part, appeared to dismiss constitutional concerns. “People talked about all sorts of First Amendment, Second Amendment. They talked about any amendment they could make up, and we got it through because of some very brave people,” he said.

Earlier in the year, during his March 4 address to Congress, Trump had signaled his intent to sign the bill. “The Senate passed the Take It Down Act…Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”

While made in jest, the remark pointed to an unresolved issue: how this law will be enforced, and who will benefit most from it.

There is no denying the harm caused by NCII. Victims often struggle to remove intimate images, whether real or AI-generated, while the content continues to spread. The Take It Down Act requires websites to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a complaint. But, just like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), platforms have little way of determining if a complaint is legitimate or being used as a censorship mechanism.

That timeline is designed to offer swift recourse to victims. However, the law’s broad wording leaves its applications open to interpretation.

The bill defines a violation as involving an “identifiable individual” engaged in “sexually explicit conduct,” without offering a clear or narrow definition of what that conduct entails. This vagueness creates a gray area that could easily be used to suppress satire, parody, or even critical political speech.

Keep reading

JD Vance Warns EU Censorship and Fines Threaten US Free Speech and First Amendment Values

Vice President JD Vance sounded the alarm this week over the growing international push to restrict speech, warning that aggressive censorship trends in Europe could soon clash with American constitutional principles.

Speaking with Glenn Beck, Vance stressed that transatlantic influence runs deep, and the speech policies being advanced in Europe aren’t confined to their borders.

“The kind of social media censorship that we’ve seen in Western Europe, it will and in some ways, it already has made its way to the United States. That was the story of the Biden administration silencing people on social media,” Vance said.

He argued that the US must take a firm stance in defense of First Amendment ideals and not allow foreign pressures to shape domestic policies, particularly in the digital space. “So we’re going to be very protective of American interests when it comes to things like social media regulation. We want to promote free speech. We don’t want our European friends telling social media companies that they have to silence Christians or silence conservatives, and I think there is going to be that friction over the next ten years.”

While emphasizing that diplomatic ties remain intact, Vance acknowledged that serious ideological divisions are emerging. “It’s not that we are not friends, but there’re gonna have some disagreements you didn’t see 10 years ago.”

Vance’s concerns were prompted by a question from Beck regarding troubling developments in countries like Canada and within the EU. The digital censorship framework in Europe has gone well beyond theory, with major tech companies already feeling the brunt of regulatory threats. Firms like X, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok have faced mounting pressure to fall in line with EU speech codes or suffer severe financial consequences.

The EU has been leveraging the weight of its Digital Services Act (DSA) to pressure American tech companies into stricter content moderation, effectively threatening massive financial penalties if platforms fail to comply with the bloc’s speech regulations.

Keep reading

Telegram Founder: Macron Regime Interfered in Romanian Elections by Pressuring Him to Silence Conservatives Ahead of the Vote—Musk Backs Durov

In a disturbing and all-too-familiar turn of events, Romania’s recent presidential election has been marred by foreign interference, blatant censorship attempts, and an alarming assault on national sovereignty.

The increasingly desperate and unscrupulous globalist establishment—now led by France—is facing serious accusations of attempting to subvert Romanian democracy. Allegations have surfaced that French authorities pressured the founder of the influential social media platform Telegram to silence conservative voices after anti-globalist candidates Calin Georgescu and George Simion scored decisive victories—first in an annulled initial round, and again in the re-run that followed.

In the re-run of the first round of the election held on May 4, Simion, a conservative-nationalist firebrand who opposes military entanglements in Ukraine and champions Romania-first policies, threatened to upend the left-liberal globalist order by securing 40% of the vote.

But as we’ve all witnessed, an electoral defeat means little to the globalist establishment. Losing at the ballot box does not compel them to relinquish power—far from it.

Last year, when independent nationalist Calin Georgescu won the first round with a commanding lead, the Constitutional Court annulled the results, citing vague “irregularities” and supposed “Russian interference.” Unsurprisingly, no evidence was ever produced. Georgescu was then banned from running again—a chilling move condemned by pro-humanity forces across Europe and ignored completely or forcefully supported by globalist regime enjoyers.

US Vice President J.D. Vance even cited the case earlier this year as proof of the EU’s escalating war on democratic sovereignty, saying, when the people vote the wrong way, the elites just cancel the results

Now, a new bombshell threatens to further delegitimize the already illegitimate Romanian election.  Pavel Durov, founder of the encrypted messaging app Telegram, revealed that French intelligence directly pressured him to silence Romanian conservatives online ahead of the election. Durov named Nicolas Lerner, head of France’s Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE), as the official who attempted to strong-arm him during a private meeting in Paris.

Keep reading

Sen. Mike Lee’s obscenity bill is a free speech nightmare straight out of Project 2025’s playbook

A new bill in Congress threatens to dictate what Americans can read, watch and say online. On May 8, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah and Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill.,  introduced the “Interstate Obscenity Definition Act” (IODA) — a recycled attempt to ban online pornography nationwide.

While concerns about pornography, including moral and religious ones, are part of any healthy public debate, this bill does something far more dangerous: It empowers the federal government to police speech based on subjective values. When lawmakers try to enforce the beliefs of some Americans at the expense of others’ rights, they cross a constitutional line — and put the First Amendment at risk. 

The legislation aims to rewrite the legal definition of obscenity, an area of law that represents a very narrow exception to First Amendment protections.

The IODA seeks to sidestep the Supreme Court’s long-standing three-part test for obscenity, established in the 1973 case Miller v. California. The material must appeal to a prurient interest, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Lee’s bill would scrap that standard and replace it with a broader, far more subjective definition. It would label content obscene if it simply focuses on nudity, sex or excretion in a way that is intended to arouse and if it lacks “serious value.” 

By discarding the concept of community standards, the IODA removes a key safeguard that allows local norms to shape what counts as obscenity. Without it, the federal government could impose a single national standard that fails to account for regional differences, cultural context or evolving social values.

The bill also deletes the requirement that material be “patently offensive,” a crucial element that keeps the obscenity test anchored in societal consensus. Instead, it replaces it with a subjective inquiry into whether the work was intended to arouse or titillate. But intent is notoriously difficult to prove and easy to allege. That language could easily sweep in a wide range of protected expression, including art, health information and sex education.

Keep reading

The EU plot to crush free speech in Ireland

The European Commission in Brussels threatened to bring legal proceedings against Ireland last week. The Commission is demanding Ireland impose draconian restrictions on the right of its people to speak their minds. Yes, you read that right: according to the EU, Ireland has too much free speech.

The problem, as the EU sees it, is ‘hate speech’. In 2008, the EU hammered out a ‘framework decision’ on xenophobia, which requires all member states to forbid incitement to violence or hatred on the basis of race, religion or nationality. It also criminalises Holocaust denial, or ‘trivialisation’ of the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity.

Ireland, however, has not complied with the 2008 diktat. It hardly needed to, since it has had hate-speech laws of its own since 1989, which nearly go as far as what Brussels is demanding anyway. These laws ban speech likely to stir up hatred on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or membership of the Traveller community. Last year, the Irish government even imposed a new law that increases the length of prison sentences for crimes that are proven to be motivated by ‘hatred’ on the basis of any of those characteristics.

Yet according to the EU, none of this is good enough. In a communiqué released on 7 May, the Commission gave Ireland two months to enact the EU’s provisions on incitement to violence and Holocaust denial. If Ireland fails to do this, it faces punitive fines and a date at the European Court of Justice.

This threat should worry anyone who cares about free speech and democracy. For one thing, the laws demanded by the EU are a frontal attack on vital aspects of free speech. Of course Holocaust denial is appallingly offensive. It’s also very stupid, since there is no respectable argument that the Holocaust didn’t happen. But criminalising it is not the answer. Offensiveness doesn’t justify dragging people through the courts for what they say.

Keep reading

CENSORSHIP KINGDOM: Retired Constable to Sue UK Police After Arrest Over a Social Media Post Denouncing Anti-Semitism

The United Kingdom continues its decent into authoritarianism and censorship of social media content.

Now, a retired constable is getting ready to sue Kent Police after being arrested back in 2023 for posting a social media reply warning about rising anti-Semitism.

The Telegraph reported:

“Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham in Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers from the force he had served for a decade after replying to a pro-Palestinian activist on X.

The 71-year-old was detained for eight hours, interrogated and ultimately issued with a caution after officers visited his home on November 2 2023.”

Last week, Kent Police sent out a statement saying that the caution was a mistake and has been deleted from Foulkes’s record.

The local law enforcement agency admitted that it was ‘not appropriate in the circumstances and should not have been issued’.

“On Sunday, Mr. Foulkes accepted an offer from the Free Speech Union (FSU) to fund a legal challenge against the force for wrongful arrest and detention.

‘The FSU and Lord [Toby] Young have generously agreed to fully fund a lawsuit against Kent Police’, he said. ‘I’m extremely grateful for such excellent support and would urge anyone concerned about the sustained attack on free speech to please join the FSU. They’re fighting hard every day for all of us’.”

Keep reading