Tag: censorship

4chan and Kiwi Farms Tell Ofcom It Can’t Censor and Run From Lawsuits

Attorneys representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms have filed an opposition to the UK Office of Communications’ (Ofcom) motion to dismiss their US lawsuit, arguing that the British regulator’s attempt to enforce its Online Safety Act (OSA) on American platforms amounts to unlawful foreign censorship and overreach into the United States’ constitutional domain.

The filing, made in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on December 29, 2025, contends that Ofcom’s actions, sending legally binding “Section 100 Orders” via email to compel compliance with the OSA, violate US sovereignty and the First Amendment.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

The plaintiffs assert that Ofcom’s conduct has no legal force in the United States because it bypassed all recognized international service procedures, including the Hague Service Convention and the US–UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

Lawyers Ron Coleman and Preston Byrne argue that Ofcom’s regulatory model functions like a commercial enterprise rather than a sovereign body, funded through fees extracted from companies it regulates.

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the plaintiffs maintain that this structure places Ofcom’s operations within the “commercial activity” exception, thereby stripping it of immunity from suit in US courts.

The opposition brief situates the dispute within a broader geopolitical context, describing a “diplomatic standoff” between Washington and London over the reach of online speech laws.

Keep reading

‘We are the free world now’ — Europe declares war on free speech in the US

“We are the free world now.” Those words from Raphael Glucksmann, a French socialist member of the European Parliament, captured the pearl-clutching outrage of Europeans after the Trump administration did what no prior administration has ever done — stand up to Europe to defend the freedom of speech.

This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio barred five figures closely associated with European censorship efforts from traveling to the U.S. This includes Thierry Breton, the former European Union commissioner responsible for digital policy.

In a post on X, Rubio declared that the U.S. “will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship” and will target “leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States.”

Breton achieved infamy as one of the architects of the massive EU censorship system, which is now being globalized. Armed with the notorious Digital Service Act, Breton and others threatened American companies and officials that they would have to yield to European standards of free speech. After Breton learned that Musk was planning to interview Trump before the last presidential election, he even warned the X owner that he would be “monitored” and potentially subject to EU fines.

Socialist Glucksmann is now irate at “this scandalous sanction against Thierry Breton.”

“We are Europeans,” he declared. “We must defend our laws, our principles, our interests.” In other words, this is a war over whether Europe or the U.S. Constitution will dictate the scope of free speech for American companies and citizens.

Keep reading

DOJ scrambles to find VOLUNTEERS to help redact new Epstein files after sleuths used simple method to crack censored documents

The Justice Department is seeking volunteers to help redact more Epstein files over the ‘next several days,’ it has emerged.

A supervising prosecutor announced an ’emergency request’ from the DOJ to help with ‘remote document review and redactions related to the Epstein files,’ according to an internal email sent to the Southern District of Florida‘s US Attorney’s Office.

The email, which was reviewed by CNN, suggests the DOJ will release more files related to pedophile Jeffrey Epstein over the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. 

‘I am aware that the timing could not be worse,’ the official reportedly wrote in Tuesday’s email asking career prosecutors for assistance. ‘For some the holidays are about to begin, but I know that for others the holidays are coming to an end.’ 

The supervising prosecutor cited how officials have an ‘obligation to the public to release’ the files but in order to do so must make ‘certain redactions’ to ‘protect the identity of the victims, among other things.’

The DOJ has released a massive trove of Epstein files already, but there are many more to come with officials noting that overall there are hundreds of thousands of documents set to be released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Some of the files released by the DOJ were improperly redacted, allowing sleuths to easily reveal the censored information by copying and pasting blacked-out text into a word processing document, the New York Times reported.

The hack allowed viewers to reveal previously withheld names and entities. It also revealed additional details of Epstein’s alleged abuse – which the Daily Mail has opted not to publish – and money concealment tactics.

The Daily Mail understands the redactions that sleuths were able to hack through were applied by various courts, whose documents were then handed over to the DOJ and published in the Epstein files. Files redacted by the DOJ and FBI were unaffected.

Keep reading

Macron accuses US of ‘intimidation’ against EU

US visa restrictions against several senior EU officials amount to “intimidation and coercion” aimed at undermining the bloc’s digital policies and sovereignty, French President Emmanuel Macron has said.

On Tuesday, the administration of US President Donald Trump announced new sanctions targeting Thierry Breton, the former European Commissioner for Internal Market appointed by Macron himself, and four other officials over what it described as “efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose.”

At the core of the dispute are the EU’s Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, which impose strict competition and transparency obligations on large online platforms. Given that most such firms – including Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon – are headquartered in the US, American officials have argued the framework is discriminatory. Breton in particular was among the officials who played a pivotal role in establishing the EU digital rulebook.

Keep reading

Trump State Department Bars EU-Linked Globalists from Entry for Pushing Anti-Free Speech Censorship

The US Department of State, under the direction of Marco Rubio, has taken a rare and decisive step against European political figures accused of acting against American interests, barring several prominent individuals who’ve sought to censor free and open dialogue on American platforms.

The bold move signals a sharp and definitive break from years of deference—and even subservience—to Brussels’ ever-increasing, draconian regulatory ambitions.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio rightly framed the action as a defense of American free speech against what he described as organized, ideological pressure from abroad. He made it crystal clear that the era of tolerating overseas attempts to silence U.S. voices and American positions is over.

In a post on X, Rubio Wrote: “For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.

Keep reading

Google and Substack Warn Britain Is Building a Censorship Machine

Major American companies and commentators, including Google and Substack CEO Chris Best, have condemned the United Kingdom’s censorship law, the Online Safety Act (OSA), describing it as a measure that risks censoring lawful speech while failing to make the internet safer for children.

They argue that the law normalizes digital surveillance, restricts open debate, and complicates how global platforms operate in the UK.

Their objections surfaced through The Telegraph, which published essays from Best and from Heritage Foundation researchers John Peluso and Miles Pollard, alongside new reporting on Google’s formal response to an Ofcom consultation.

That consultation, focused on how tech firms should prevent “potentially illegal” material from spreading online, closed in October, with Ofcom releasing the submissions in December.

Google’s filing accused the regulator of promoting rules that would “undermine users’ rights to freedom of expression” by encouraging pre-emptive content suppression.

Ofcom rejected this view, insisting that “nothing in our proposals would require sites and apps to take down legal content.” Yet Google was hardly alone in raising alarms: other American companies and trade groups submitted responses voicing comparable fears about the Act’s scope and implications.

Chris Best wrote that his company initially set out to comply with the new law but quickly discovered it to be far more intrusive than expected. “What I’ve learned is that, in practice, it pushes toward something much darker: a system of mass political censorship unlike anywhere else in the western world,” he said.

Best describes how the OSA effectively forces platforms to classify and filter speech on a constant basis, anticipating what regulators might later deem harmful.

Compliance, he explained, requires “armies of human moderators or AI” to scan journalism, commentary, and even satire for potential risk.

The process, he continued, doesn’t simply remove content but “gates it” behind identity checks or age-verification hurdles that often involve facial scans or ID uploads.

“These measures don’t technically block the content,” Best said, “but they gate it behind steps that prove a hassle at best, and an invasion of privacy at worst.” He warned that this structure discourages readers, reduces visibility for writers, and weakens open cultural exchange.

Best, who emphasized Substack’s commitment to press freedom, said the OSA misdiagnoses the problem of online harm by targeting speech rather than prosecuting actual abuse or criminal behavior.

Keep reading

Irony Alert: Google Suddenly Champions Free Speech As UK Crushes Online Expression

In a stunning reversal, Google has slammed the UK for threatening to stifle free speech through its aggressive online regulations. This from the company infamous for its own censorship crusades against conservative voices and inconvenient truths. If even Google is raising the alarm, you know the situation in Britain has hit rock bottom.

The move signals a broader culture shift in Big Tech, where woke agendas are crumbling under pressure from free speech advocates. It’s no coincidence this comes after Elon Musk turned Twitter into X, a platform where ideas flow without the heavy hand of ideological gatekeepers.

Google, which has demonetized, shadow-banned, and outright censored content that doesn’t align with leftist narratives, now positions itself as a defender of open discourse, accusing Britain of threatening to stifle free speech in an escalation of US opposition to online safety rules.

Keep reading

Why Should Americans Die For European Tyranny?

After the European Commission levied a several-hundred-million-dollar fine on Elon Musk and his social media platform X earlier this month, journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote a damning post in which he excoriated Europe’s rank censorship and state-sponsored propaganda.  He accused the commission of engaging “in a deception campaign aimed at confusing” Europeans and Americans into thinking that European elites’ “goal” is anything other than “to censor the American people.”

Shellenberger pointed out that Musk’s fine came while European governments are demanding backdoor access to all private text messages (under the pretense of combatting the transmission of child pornography) and creating a so-called “Democracy Shield” of government-funded “fact-checkers” that enables “censorship by proxy.”  He also noted that the European Commission announced the fine to coincide with the rollout of the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy, in which President Trump makes this promise: “We will oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.”

Shellenberger put two and two together to make a provocative observation:

“The EU is now in direct violation of the NATO Treaty,” which “requires member states to have free speech and free and fair elections.  France and Germany are actively and illegally preventing political candidates from running for office for ideological reasons, namely their opposition to mass migration.  And the Romanian high court, with the support of the European Commission, nullified election results under the thin and unproven pretext of Russian interference, after a nationalist and populist presidential candidate won.”

As a parting shot, Shellenberger accused the European political class of betraying its own constitution, a document that purports to protect free speech:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.”  

How can the European Commission pretend to defend its own charter when it seeks to eradicate the free exchange of ideas on X, censor Americans’ speech, spy on citizens’ private text messages, and create an army of government-funded NGOs to justify censorship and push the commission’s propaganda?

Keep reading

US Suspends $41 Billion Tech Deal with UK over Online Censorship Laws

The great transatlantic tech romance has hit the skids. What was sold as a landmark agreement binding Silicon Valley brains to British ambition has been shoved into neutral, all because Britain decided it quite fancies telling American machines what they are allowed to say.

Washington has now suspended the much-trumpeted US-UK technology agreement, a decision driven by mounting alarm over Britain’s new censorship law, the Online Safety Act.

The idea that a British regulator might fine or muzzle American firms has landed in Washington like a dropped wrench.

One participant in the talks put it bluntly, telling The Telegraph, “Americans went into this deal thinking Britain were going to back off regulating American tech firms but realized it was going to restrict the speech of American chatbots.”

The Online Safety Act gives Britain the power to fine companies it believes are enabling “harmful” or “hateful” speech, concepts elastic enough to stretch around just about anything if you pull hard enough.

The communications regulator Ofcom has not been shy about using these powers.

Enforcement notices have already landed on the desks of major American firms, even when their servers, staff, and coffee machines are nowhere near Britain.

From Washington’s perspective, this looks less like safety and more like Britain peering over the Atlantic with a ruler, ready to rap American knuckles.

The White House had been keen on the £31 ($41) billion Tech Prosperity Deal, seeing it as a front door to closer ties on AI research and digital trade.

Instead, officials began to see the Online Safety Act as a mechanism for deciding what American platforms, and their algorithms, are allowed to say. Chatbots like ChatGPT or Elon Musk’s Grok suddenly looked like potential defendants in a British courtroom, accused of wrongthink.

Keep reading

UK Parliament Rejects Petition to Repeal Online Censorship Law, Calls for Expanded Censorship

This week in the UK, Parliament held a debate in response to a public petition that gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures calling for the repeal of the Online Safety Act (OSA).

It was a rare opportunity for elected officials to prove they still listen to their constituents.

Instead, the overwhelming message from MPs was clear: thanks for your concern, but we’d actually like even more control over what you can do online.

One by one, MPs stood up not to defend free expression, or question whether one of the most radical internet control laws in modern British history might have gone too far, but to argue that it hadn’t gone far enough.

“It’s Not Censorship, It’s Responsibility” (Apparently)

Lizzi Collinge, Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, insisted the OSA “is not about controlling speech.” She claimed it was about giving the online world the same “safety features” as the offline one.

This was a recurring theme throughout the debate: reassure the public that speech isn’t being restricted while calling for more mechanisms to restrict it.

Ian Murray, Minister for Digital Government and Data, also insisted the OSA protects freedom of expression. According to him, there’s no contradiction in saying people can speak freely, as long as they’re age-verified, avoid VPNs, and don’t say anything that might be flagged by a government regulator.

It’s a neat trick. Say you support free speech, then build an entire law designed to monitor, filter, and police it.

VPNs in the Firing Line

There is a growing fixation inside government with VPNs. These are basic privacy tools used by millions of people every day, often to protect their data. But several MPs, including Jim McMahon, Julia Lopez, and Ian Murray, suggested VPNs should be subject to age verification or regulatory restrictions.

It’s unclear whether these MPs understand how VPNs work or if they simply dislike the idea of anyone browsing the internet without supervision.

Either way, the intent is clear. The government wants fewer ways for people to browse anonymously.

Keep reading