Tag: free speech

German Court Fines Man €8,400 For Posting Banned Phrase

A court in the German town of Lindau has issued an €8,400 ($9,801) fine to a man over a post on X containing the phrase “Alles für Deutschland.” The man, identified as Andreas M., had written, “That’s exactly why I vote for the AfD. Everything for Germany,” in July of last year.

Months later, his home was raided at dawn by police, who confiscated laptops, phones, and hard drives.

According to Apollo News, authorities charged him under Section 86a of the German Criminal Code, a law banning slogans or symbols tied to unconstitutional or terrorist organizations.

While prosecutors pushed for a seven-month prison sentence, the court opted for a financial penalty. Both the state and the defense have filed appeals.

Andreas M. has stated that he was unaware of the slogan’s past use by Nazi Stormtroopers and said he intended the comment as a satirical show of support for the Alternative für Deutschland party.

His explanation was not enough to prevent prosecution. In modern Germany, the legal system increasingly treats such social media posts with suspicion.

This is not an isolated event. A growing number of Germans have faced police raids and fines over social media activity deemed offensive or unlawful in a nation without free speech protections.

The boundary between humor and criminal conduct has narrowed considerably, especially when directed at figures within the political mainstream.

Keep reading

Court Overturns Douglass Mackey Meme Conviction

A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of Douglass Mackey, the man prosecuted for posting satirical memes ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 9 that the government failed to prove Mackey knowingly participated in a conspiracy, a requirement under the statute used to charge him.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

Mackey had been found guilty in 2023 of violating 18 U.S.C. § 241, a law dating back to Reconstruction that punishes conspiracies to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. Prosecutors claimed that Mackey’s memes, which joked that Hillary Clinton supporters could vote via text, were part of a coordinated scheme to suppress votes.

That case has now unraveled.

“The mere fact that Mackey posted the memes, even assuming that he did so with the intent to injure other citizens in the exercise of their right to vote, is not enough, standing alone, to prove a violation of Section 241,” wrote Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston in the court’s opinion. Because Section 241 applies only to conspiracies involving “two or more persons,” the government had to prove that Mackey entered into an agreement with others, a threshold it did not meet.

Prosecutors attempted to tie Mackey to private Twitter message groups such as “War Room” and “Madman #2,” where users discussed political memes.

The court found no evidence that Mackey saw, let alone participated in, any of the conversations that allegedly formed the conspiracy. “This the government failed to do,” the panel wrote, noting that “Mackey did not send any messages in the War Room in the two weeks before he tweeted the text-to-vote memes.”

Keep reading

‘Delete, Silence, Abolish’: America’s estranged allies ramp up perceived censorship, speech rules

Overt government control of the internet is expanding within America’s increasingly estranged allies and threatening to spill over national boundaries, likely renewing earlier confrontations with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the world’s richest man and creator of America’s newest nascent political party.

The European Union last week made its officially voluntary three-year-old “Code of Practice on Disinformation” legally binding under the Digital Services Act. It’s now a “Code of Conduct” to be used as a “relevant benchmark for determining DSA compliance” for Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Bing, TikTok, YouTube and Google Search.

These “very large” online platforms and online search engines were already signatories of the 2022 code, whose commitments include taking “stronger measures to demonetise disinformation,” increasing fact-checking across the EU and its languages and improved reduction of “current and emerging manipulative behaviour.”

Australia imposed an age-verification law for harmful content that makes the Texas law recently upheld by the Supreme Court look like a type-your-age prompt, applying to not only pornography but also “violent content” and “themes of suicide, self-harm and disordered eating,” in the words of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.

Last week she registered three of nine “codes” submitted by the online industry, covering “search engine services … enterprise hosting services and internet carriage services such as telcos,” and has sought “additional safety commitments” on remaining codes for “app stores, device manufacturers, social media services and messaging” and broader categories.

The same day, Canada suspended a U.S. tech firm tax to avoid trade recriminations from the Trump administration. Justice Minister Sean Fraser told the Canadian Press that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is taking a “fresh” look at predecessor Justin Trudeau’s proposed Online Harms Act, which went down in Trudeau’s political downfall.

Anti-censorship group Reclaim the Net flagged pressure on Carney’s government to revive C-63, which famed Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson claims would criminalize wrongthink. Trudeau-appointed Senator Kristopher Wells pressed Government Representative Marc Gold to commit to further criminalizing “hate” in a “questions period” last month.

Keep reading

Virginia Enacts Law To Ban Nazi Symbols, Protects Sacred Swastika From Misrepresentation

Virginia has officially enacted House Bill 2783, which criminalises the display of Nazi symbols, including Hitler’s Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross), when used with the intent to intimidate. The law, effective from July 1, makes such acts a Class 6 felony. What makes this legislation particularly historic is a culturally sensitive amendment that clearly differentiates Hitler’s Hakenkreuz, a symbol of hate, from the sacred Swastika, an ancient symbol of peace and prosperity revered by nearly two billion Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and other communities worldwide.

The final version of the Bill marks a major victory for minority communities in Virginia, particularly after a strong advocacy effort led by the Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA) and allied groups. “We are pleased to see how Virginia is tackling growing hate while being sensitive to minority groups that revere the Swastika,” said Nikunj Trivedi, President of CoHNA.

He added, “Now the need of the hour is for the media, law enforcement, and educational institutions in Virginia to update their language to reflect this critical nuance and ensure fair treatment for all.”

Evolution of HB2783

Initially, HB2783 had a major cultural oversight—wrongly referring to the Nazi symbol as the Swastika. In reality, Hitler never used the word ‘Swastika’; his symbol was the ‘Hakenkreuz’—German for ‘Hooked Cross.’ The Bill’s early wording incorrectly suggested that the Nazi emblem was “commonly known as the Swastika,” inadvertently linking a sacred symbol to one of history’s darkest ideologies.

Keep reading

California’s Pro-Israel AB 715: A Horrific Affront to Free Speech

While freedom of speech is one of the most prized freedoms celebrated in American society and the West, since the outbreak of the Gaza War, Zionist sympathizers in both major political parties have tried to quash dissent regarding US support for Israeli imperialism. In a new attempt to crush anti-war sentiments and indoctrinate millions of students into becoming pro-Israel sycophants, the California State Assembly has unanimously passed and referred to the State Senate a bill that would threaten freedom of speech in California public schools.

The bill, which seeks to add to already existing anti-discrimination legislation, would ban comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and language which “denies” Israel’s right to exist. After nearly two years of viciously slaughtering Palestinians, it has become clear to the United Nations, Amnesty International, and even once reluctant scholars that Israel is guilty of genocide. Therefore, comparisons between Nazi Germany and the State of Israel do not only seem valid, but necessary for adequately describing the severity of Israeli cruelty in occupied Palestine. Furthermore, the wording of “directly or indirectly denying the right of Israel to exist” is alarmingly unspecific. Many supporters of Israel, including those at the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), have equated denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish supremacist state with denying Israel’s right to exist at all. By declaring legitimate criticism or comparisons of Israel as anti-Semitic without any further debate or inquiry, California politicians seek to combat the growing trend of young Americans questioning the US-Israel relationship.

Fundamentally, this bill is a gift to authoritarianism in line with a host of other similar bills in the United States and throughout the West. Ironically, both the deep-blue California and the deep-red state of Florida are united in their endeavor to suppress criticism of Israel. Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 187, officially adopting the incredibly flawed aforementioned IHRA definition of anti-Semitism into law. In the United Kingdom, government officials have encouraged the police to treat those who wave the Palestinian flag or shout pro-Palestinian chants as racist criminals. Elsewhere, Germany has conducted raids on the homes of activists, and France has ordered a ban on pro-Palestine protests entirely.

Thankfully, numerous organizations and individuals have denounced this bill and encouraged the people of California to place pressure on the Senate and Governor Gavin Newsom to reject this bill. On the left, groups like the Jewish Educators Addressing Actual Antisemitism, CODEPINK, and Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area have condemned the bill. Other Muslim and Arab advocacy groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations California, the Arab Resource and Organizing Center Action, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, have similarly condemned the bill.

Keep reading

Thumbs Up Lands Woman in Hot Water as Germany Cracks Down on Emoji Speech

A German woman is at the center of the latest controversy over the country’s tightening grip on online speech, as prosecutors seek to fine her €1,800 ($2,110) for reacting with emojis to a social media post.

The case highlights how even the most minimal forms of digital expression are now being scrutinized under Germany’s expansive interpretation of criminal law.

The 64-year-old from Lohfelden, Hesse, found herself under investigation after responding with three thumbs-up emojis beneath a post on X.

The original post reported on a 15-year-old Swedish girl who had killed the migrant man who raped her, and included the comment, “Does he now have 77 virgins?”

According to the Kassel public prosecutor’s office, the woman’s emoji reaction amounted to endorsing the killing and expressing satisfaction that it had targeted a migrant.

Months after her October 26 interaction, she received a formal penalty notice, ordering her to pay 60 daily rates of €30 each.

The fine, totaling €1,800, was confirmed by the prosecution when contacted by Apollo News.

The penalty order, parts of which the woman has shared publicly, alleges: “You agreed with this post as a user (…) by clicking ‘thumbs up’ three times. You were aware that in this way you publicly approved of an intentional killing by way of unauthorized vigilantism, and you were particularly pleased that this vigilantism was perpetrated against a migrant.”

Authorities also claim she adopted the “77 virgins” remark to ridicule the dead rapist.

This interpretation of her emoji use, entirely shaped by the prosecutor’s reading of intent, reflects a growing trend of criminalizing expressions of opinion online.

The woman retains the right to appeal, and if she does, the case will proceed to a full trial.

Germany’s crackdown on digital speech has seen several such incidents in recent years.

Keep reading

US Revokes Visas for British Punk-Rap Duo Over Anti-Israel Chant

The State Department revoked the U.S. visas of the British punk-rap band Bob Vylan, following the group’s anti-Israel comments at a world-famous English music festival. 

Lead singer Bobby Vylan led attendees at his June 28 concert at the Glastonbury Festival in chants of “Death, death to the IDF!” referring to the Israel Defense Forces.

The concert came just days after the United States and Israel engaged in an offensive against Iranian nuclear sites, and almost two years after Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, prompting Israeli military actions in Gaza aimed at eliminating the Palestinian terrorist group and freeing the hostages taken by it. The ongoing Israel–Hamas conflict also triggered protests by pro-Palestinian activists against Israel’s military responses.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau announced in a June 30 X post that “The [State Department] has revoked the U.S. visas for the members of the Bob Vylan band in light of their hateful tirade at Glastonbury, including leading the crowd in death chants. Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country.”

The band was scheduled later this year to make appearances in cities across the nation, including Washington, Utah, Colorado, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and other states.

During the weekend show, Vylan chanted against the IDF while performing in front of 200,000 people at the festival, held in Somerset, England, which is one of the world’s largest music events.

Keep reading

Silenced for Defending Colleagues: The Police Free Speech Fight Heating Up in the UK

Richard Cooke, the former chair of the UK’s West Midlands Police Federation, is preparing a legal challenge after being removed from office over comments he made defending his police force. Backed by the Free Speech Union, Cooke argues that his removal was an attack on his right to represent the views of officers.

The dispute began when Cooke responded on X to a Channel 4 News report that described racism and misogyny as widespread within West Midlands Police.

Cooke wrote: “I don’t recognize these attitudes. They do not represent us – we are an anti-racist organization.” In a separate post, he said: “Nonsense – and so was the report but these reporters rarely bother checking their sources.”

Following these posts, the Police Federation of England and Wales suspended Cooke.

The Federation barred him from seeking re-election for three years. According to the Federation, his comments risked alienating members who had experienced discrimination.

A spokesperson said: “Richard Cooke was removed from his role as Chair of the West Midlands Federation branch following an extensive process, which included an appeal. He was investigated following complaints from members about comments on social media which were judged by a panel of his peers to have been in breach of the Federation’s standards.”

The complaints came from two officers who appeared in the Channel 4 show. Cooke’s appeal was rejected after a hearing that he was not permitted to attend. His exclusion from the ballot led to a change in the Federation’s leadership.

Cooke had been elected chair three times since 2018. He describes his removal as a political decision intended to silence him.

Keep reading

After Calling for “Death to the IDF” at Glastonbury, US Fall Tour by “Violent” British Punk Band Bob Vylan Being Looked at By DOJ Anti-Semitic Task Force Led by Leo Terrell

The Justice Department’s Anti-Semitic Task Force, led by Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Leo Terrell, is looking at a planned fall U.S. tour by the terrorist supporting, anti-Semitic and self described “violent” British punk band Bob Vylan after violence promoting, anti-Semitic remarks were made by the group at the Glastonbury Festival.

Terrell posted about the investigation on Sunday, saying he would be contacting the State Department and tagging President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio:

Statement from Leo Terrell on Antisemitic Chants by Bob Vylan:

Leo Terrell, Chair of the DOJ Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, strongly condemns the antisemitic chants made by Bob Vylan at the Glastonbury Festival. These abhorrent chants, which included calls for the death of members of the Israeli Defense Forces, are abhorrent and have no place in any civil society.

We understand that Mr. Vylan is planning to travel to the United States as part of the Inertia Tour. In response, Mr. Terrell’s Task Force will be reaching out to the U.S. Department of State on Monday to determine what measures are available to address the situation and to prevent the promotion of violent antisemitic rhetoric in the United States.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Greenlights Online Digital ID Checks

With a landmark ruling that could shape online content regulation for years to come, the US Supreme Court has upheld Texas’s digital ID age-verification law for adult websites and platforms, asserting that the measure lawfully balances the state’s interest in protecting minors with the free speech rights of adults.

The 6-3 decision, issued on June 27, 2025, affirms the constitutionality of House Bill 1181, a statute that requires adult websites to verify the age of users before granting access to sexually explicit material.

Laws like House Bill 1181, framed as necessary safeguards for children, are quietly eroding the rights of adults to access lawful content or speak freely online without fear of surveillance or exposure.

Under such laws, anyone seeking to view legal adult material online (and eventually even those who want to access social media platforms because may contain content “harmful” to minors) is forced to provide official identification, often a government-issued digital ID or even biometric data, to prove their age.

Supporters claim this is a small price to pay to shield minors from harmful content. Yet these measures create permanent records linking individuals to their browsing choices, exposing them to unprecedented risks.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

Keep reading