Tag: censorship

The UK and Canada Lead the West’s Descent into Digital Authoritarianism

“Big Brother is watching you.” These chilling words from George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, 1984, no longer read as fiction but are becoming a bleak reality in the UK and Canada—where digital dystopian measures are unravelling the fabric of freedom in two of the West’s oldest democracies.

Under the guise of safety and innovation, the UK and Canada are deploying invasive tools that undermine privacy, stifle free expression, and foster a culture of self-censorship. Both nations are exporting their digital control frameworks through the Five Eyes alliance, a covert intelligence-sharing network uniting the UK, Canada, US, Australia, and New Zealand, established during the Cold War.

Simultaneously, their alignment with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, particularly Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9—which mandates universal legal identity by 2030—supports a global policy for digital IDs, such as the UK’s proposed Brit Card and Canada’s Digital Identity Program, which funnel personal data into centralized systems under the pretext of “efficiency and inclusion.” By championing expansive digital regulations, such as the UK’s Online Safety Act and Canada’s pending Bill C-8, which prioritize state-defined “safety” over individual liberties, both nations are not just embracing digital authoritarianism—they’re accelerating the West’s descent into it.

The UK’s Digital Dragnet

The United Kingdom has long positioned itself as a global leader in surveillance. The British spy agency, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), runs the formerly secret mass surveillance programme, code-named Tempora, operational since 2011, which intercepts and stores vast amounts of global internet and phone traffic by tapping into transatlantic fibre-optic cables. Knowledge of its existence only came about in 2013, thanks to the bombshell documents leaked by the former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence contractor and whistleblower, Edward Snowden. “It’s not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight,” Snowden told the Guardian in a June 2013 report. “They [GCHQ] are worse than the US.”

Following that is the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) 2016, also dubbed the “Snooper’s Charter,” which mandates that internet service providers store users’ browsing histories, emails, texts, and phone calls for up to a year. Government agencies, including police and intelligence services (like MI5, MI6, and GCHQ) can access this data without a warrant in many cases, enabling bulk collection of communications metadata. This has been criticized for enabling mass surveillance on a scale that invades everyday privacy.

Recent expansions under the Online Safety Act (OSA) further empower authorities to demand backdoors to encrypted apps like WhatsApp, potentially scanning private messages for vaguely defined “harmful” content—a move critics like Big Brother Watch, a privacy advocacy group, decry as a gateway to mass surveillance. The OSA, which received Royal Assent on October 26, 2023, represents a sprawling piece of legislation by the UK government to regulate online content and “protect” users, particularly children, from “illegal and harmful material.”

Implemented in phases by Ofcom, the UK’s communications watchdog, it imposes duties on a vast array of internet services, including social media, search engines, messaging apps, gaming platforms, and sites with user-generated content, forcing compliance through risk assessments and hefty fines. By July 2025, the OSA was considered “fully in force” for most major provisions. This sweeping regime, aligned with global surveillance trends via Agenda 2030’s push for digital control, threatens to entrench a state-sanctioned digital dragnet, prioritizing “safety” over fundamental freedoms.

Elon Musk’s platform X has warned that the act risks “seriously infringing” on free speech, with the threat of fines up to £18 million or 10% of global annual turnover for non-compliance, encouraging platforms to censor legitimate content to avoid punishment. Musk took to X to express his personal view on the act’s true purpose: “suppression of the people.”

Keep reading

Free speech documentary cancelled by London cinema

A London cinema has banned a documentary about free speech because it does not “align with our values and mission”.

Think Before You Post was due to play at Rich Mix in east London on November 25, followed by a Q&A session with contributors, before its producers were informed that the venue had decided against hosting the event.

Tom Slater, the editor of Spiked magazine, the libertarian publication behind the film, said he was sadly not surprised by the decision.

He said: “The event could only be considered controversial by those who think free speech is controversial. The cultural sector is overrun with woke scolds who wouldn’t know what free speech is if it bit them on the Birkenstocks.

“I suppose we should be happy to have been proven right. But vindication is cold comfort when it comes at the cost of a great evening of screening the film and discussing it with our contributors, friends and supporters.”

Rich Mix told Slater that it had revoked his booking on Monday in an email seen by The Times.

The email said: “Since confirming your booking, it has come to light that the content and speakers featured do not align with our values and mission here at Rich Mix. Our founding objectives are to support marginalised communities (primarily communities facing racial inequity), promote intercultural understanding, eliminate racial discrimination and foster equality of opportunity through arts and culture.”

Keep reading

UK Blocks Lucy Connolly, Jailed for Social Media Post, From Speaking in US on Free Speech Crackdown

Lucy Connolly, the British woman jailed in 2024 over a social media post, says senior government officials have blocked her from traveling to the United States to speak about online expression and state censorship.

The invitation came from Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who had arranged for her to testify on Britain’s handling of speech-related prosecutions.

Connolly was released from prison in August 2025. She remains under strict supervision until March 2026 as part of the country’s highest-level public protection scheme. The ban on travel, she says, was not issued by probation officers but was directed by government officials.

“They did go straight to the top. They bypassed probation and went, you know, to the government and yeah it came back as a ‘absolutely not,’” Connolly told GB News.

She said the original plan to travel involved direct outreach to Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s office.

“I don’t know the ins and outs of what was said and what happened. I just know that I got an answer back of “it’s a hard no.”

Connolly had been asked to speak in the US about the UK’s use of criminal charges for controversial online speech.

Authorities blocked the trip under MAPPA, the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements framework, a system typically reserved for individuals considered violent or sexually dangerous.

Connolly is currently held under MAPPA Level 3, the most intensive level, which places her under oversight from not only probation officers but also police, government press handlers, and other agencies.

Under the terms, she must request approval for any public appearance and is monitored in her daily life.

“I’m a MAPPA level three. I don’t know if you know what that means, but sex offenders and terrorists get put on MAPPA level three,” she said.

“So I’m not just answerable to probation… I have to ask them permission to do everything.”

Since her release, she has been denied permission to travel internationally and must seek formal clearance for any public engagement, including, she says, observing a parliamentary debate on whether prison is an appropriate response to social media offenses.

“They use the excuse of, well, it’s because of the press interest, you’re high profile with the press,” she said.

Connolly believes the monitoring has less to do with risk and more to do with optics. Her case, she says, has become politically inconvenient.

“You’re basically chucked in the same bag as sex offenders and some of the worst people in society, all because of that tweet,” GB News reporter Ben Leo told her. She replied, “A hundred percent.”

She also described being questioned by authorities over unrelated press attention, which was flagged internally as a concern. The incident, she said, was “something and nothing,” but was treated as a serious issue “because it’s me.”

Connolly says the government’s posture on speech no longer reflects a free society.

Keep reading

Google Censored Vaccine Info Long Before COVID — Could It Have Anything to Do With Parent Company Alphabet’s Deep Pharma Ties?

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Big Tech companies colluded with the government to silence dissent and criticisms of the lockdowns and a coercive mass vaccination campaign by censoring truthful information that did not align with the political agenda.

The Biden administration’s role in the censorship regime was the subject of a May 2024 congressional report titled “The Censorship-Industrial Complex.”

Three months after that report was released, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted in a letter to Congress that Facebook had censored factual information under pressure from the White House.

In September, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, responded to a congressional subpoena with a letter similarly disclosing how the Biden administration had pressured YouTube, owned by Google, to remove videos that didn’t even violate its content policies.

Alphabet called the practice “unacceptable and wrong” while insisting that it withstood the pressure and enforced only its own policies against “misinformation.”

That defense, however, sidesteps the fact that those content guidelines were created in collusion with the same “health authorities” advancing the authoritarian governance — like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and World Health Organization (WHO).

The result was that true information was censored while government-sanctioned disinformation was allowed to proliferate unchallenged.

As a United Nations official admitted at a September 2022 World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting, Google was helping government authorities to “own the science” in its internet search results.

In its letter to Congress, Alphabet noted that YouTube’s content policies had since evolved. Tacitly admitting how creators had been silenced for telling the truth, Alphabet promised to restore YouTube channels suspended for content no longer deemed misinformative.

So, Alphabet acknowledged the censorship but tried to absolve itself by blaming the White House and public health authorities.

The truth is that Google’s censorship of health-related content, including inconvenient facts about vaccines, predated COVID-19 and continues to this day. Could that be because Alphabet has its own deep financial ties to the pharmaceutical and biotech industries?

Alphabet’s ties to Big Pharma exist through numerous of its subsidiaries, including Calico, DeepMind, Isomorphic Labs and Verily Life Sciences. In this article, we will focus on the latter of Google’s sister companies.

Keep reading

EU’s Weakened “Chat Control” Bill Still Poses Major Privacy and Surveillance Risks, Academics Warn

On November 19, the European Union stands poised to vote on one of the most consequential surveillance proposals in its digital history.

The legislation, framed as a measure to protect children online, has drawn fierce criticism from a bloc of senior European academics who argue that the proposal, even in its revised form, walks a perilous line. It invites mass surveillance under a veil of voluntarism and does so with little evidence that it will improve safety.

This latest draft of the so-called “Chat Control” law has already been softened from its original form. The Council of the European Union, facing mounting public backlash, stripped out provisions for mandatory on-device scanning of encrypted communications.

But for researchers closely following the legislation, the revised proposal is anything but a retreat.

“The proposal reinstates the option to analyze content beyond images and URLs – including text and video – and to detect newly generated CSAM,” reads the open letter, signed by 18 prominent academics from institutions such as ETH Zurich, KU Leuven, and the Max Planck Institute.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

The argument, in essence, is that the Council’s latest version doesn’t eliminate the risk. It only rebrands it.

Keep reading

US House Committee Summons Australian Censor Julie Inman Grant Over Global Takedown Demands

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, is now facing transnational political clash after the US House Judiciary Committee demanded she appear before Congress to explain her office’s global content takedown efforts.

The committee, chaired by Republican Jim Jordan, argues that Australia’s Online Safety Act (OSA) has evolved into what he called a “foreign censorship regime” with implications for American speech.

In a letter sent Tuesday, Jordan described Inman Grant as a “zealot” and accused her of pushing an “expansive interpretation” of the OSA that “directly threatens American speech.”

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

He warned that her efforts to enforce content removals beyond Australia’s borders amount to an assertion of jurisdiction over foreign citizens and platforms.

Keep reading

Italian Court Orders Google to Restore Banned Catholic Blog

Google has been compelled by the Tribunale di Imperia to restore Messainlatino.it, a major Italian Catholic website that, as you may remember, the company had abruptly taken down from its Blogger platform in July.

The ruling, issued against Google Ireland Limited, the firm’s European branch, also requires payment of approximately €7,000 (about $8,100) in court costs.

The blog’s editor, Luigi Casalini, filed legal action after Google deleted the site without warning, claiming a violation of its “hate speech” rules.

The company’s notification consisted of a short, generic email and provided no explanation or chance to appeal.

For Casalini, whose publication had accumulated over 22,000 articles since 2008 and reached around one million monthly readers, the removal appeared to be less a matter of policy enforcement and more an attempt to silence dissenting religious opinion.

Messainlatino.it was well known for covering issues surrounding traditional Catholic liturgy and had been cited by major outlets.

Following Google’s action, questions were raised in both the European Parliament and Italy’s Chamber of Deputies.

Legislators noted that the deletion “raises serious questions about the respect for freedom of expression, speech and religion” as guaranteed by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

They also pointed to the Digital Services Act (DSA), which, despite being a censorship law, obliges platforms to apply their moderation policies with “due regard” for fundamental rights.

Casalini’s legal case focused on that provision. He argued that Google’s decision breached Article 14 of the DSA, which calls for a balance between policy enforcement and the user’s right to free expression.

As Casalini stated to LifeSiteNews, “Google acted in this way in violation of the Digital Services Act.”

Google responded through five lawyers based in Milan. The company claimed that an interview with Bishop Joseph Strickland, who opposed the ordination of women as deacons, violated its hate speech policy.

When the defense team countered that the post merely reported the bishop’s words and contained no discriminatory content, Google’s attorneys maintained in court documents that “it does not matter the source, more or less authoritative (bishop, Pontiff) of the post, if it violates the Policy.”

Keep reading

UN makes “landmark” deal on information integrity to shut up annoying denialists

Look out. Climate Denialism is a “security threat” now

As the Net Zero fantasy crumbles and the political tide shifts, the Blob has up’d the ante and pressed the red hot “security threat” button. Climate deniers are now such a mortal threat (to the sinecures of the Blobcrats) they must be contained.

As David Archibald says “When they have lost the argument, they change the rules.”

Countries seal landmark declaration at COP30—marking first time information integrity is prioritized at UN Climate Conference

Drafted in collaboration with civil society members of the Global Initiative Advisory Group, the Declaration has been endorsed by ten countries so far – Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay. 

“Climate change is no longer a threat of the future; it is a tragedy of the present,” said President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Belém. “We live in an era in which obscurantists reject scientific evidence and attack institutions. It is time to deliver yet another defeat to denialism.”

Oh, the horrible obscurantists! Humanity will be saved, but only if governments can rule without having to answer difficult questions.

The UN must be feeling fragile because the term “denialism” is decidedly unscientific — it is the language of political and religious struggle, not of atmospheric physics.

Perhaps they’re afraid the world might recognize that the UN is a superfluous, bloodsucking freeloader?  To make themselves useful, the UN are providing an excuse for sympathetic (socialist) governments to launch information integrity commissions, or to fund “research” into misinformation online.

Keep reading

Britain’s Speech Gulag Exposed: 10,000 Arrested Last Year For Social Media Posts

A damning study complete with an interactive map has revealed that UK police arrested nearly 10,000 people in 2024 for “grossly offensive” social media posts—equivalent to 30 arrests every single day—while knife crime, burglary, and sexual offences go unsolved.

This Orwellian crackdown, driven by vague “communications” laws, has turned Britain into an international embarrassment, with forces devoting more manpower to policing opinions than protecting citizens.

Compiled from Freedom of Information requests to 39 police forces, the data shows 9,700 arrests in 2024 alone under the Communications Act 2003 and Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Keep reading

Korean President Vows Harsh Penalties for “Hate Speech” and “Misinformation”

Korean President Lee Jae Myung has pledged to impose strict punishments for spreading what he calls “misinformation” and for engaging in discriminatory speech, warning that such behavior divides society and threatens democracy.

“We can no longer overlook hate or disinformation disguised as opinion,” he said. “Acts that distort facts or violate human dignity are crimes that must be punished as such.”

Yet the president’s vow, made during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, has also deepened unease among free expression advocates who fear that broad definitions of “false information” could open the door to government overreach.

“Truly anachronistic discrimination and hatred based on race, origin, and nationality are rampant in some parts of society,” Lee said at the Yongsan presidential office in Seoul.

“As our society becomes increasingly polarized, these extreme expressions continue to exacerbate social unrest.”

The remarks come as groups hold anti-China protests in downtown Seoul, and after reports that the head of the Korean Red Cross made racist comments toward foreign diplomats.

Lee described such actions as “crimes” that threaten daily life and must be “eliminated.” He added that hate speech and falsehoods were “spreading indiscriminately” online and declared, “We can no longer tolerate this.”

He urged political leaders to help “eradicate these hate crimes and fabricated information.”

But that phrase, “fabricated information,” has caused worry that the government could classify dissenting political views or unpopular opinions as punishable offenses.

In recent months, activists, including supporters of impeached former President Yoon Suk Yeol, have staged demonstrations in areas like Myeong-dong and Daerim-dong, waving banners that read “China Out” and tearing down images of President Xi Jinping.

Their rallies have intensified following the restoration of visa-free entry for Chinese tour groups and Xi’s visit to the APEC summit in Gyeongju.

The animosity toward Beijing also reflects domestic political divides that widened after Yoon’s short-lived martial law order. His supporters accuse China of meddling in South Korean elections and claim the current government’s engagement with North Korea risks Communist influence.

Keep reading