free speech – Page 14 – Hellbound and Down

How To Free America From EU Censorship

On January 20, 2025, the first day of his second presidential term, Donald Trump signed an executive order: “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” The bad old days of the “censorship-industrial complex,” allegedly responsible for suppressing online speech under President Joe Biden, were over.

Except they weren’t. The driving force behind online censorship had never been the U.S. government, which meant that freedom of speech could not be restored by the stroke of a president’s pen. Rather, the European Union has wielded its Digital Services Act (DSA) to restrict the speech not just of Europeans but especially of Americans and other English-speakers. The E.U. has not violated the free-speech rights of Americans, since it has no obligations under the U.S. Constitution. But it has vitiated those rights, essentially nullifying the First Amendment in cyberspace.

The DSA is not a “threat” to free speech, as some American commentators put it, implying that possible danger lies in the future. Because the DSA is in force now, all major online platforms and search engines must comply with it to remain on the E.U. market. There is effectively no free speech on the internet nowadays, at least not on the major platforms falling under the DSA’s strictest provisions, but only more or less heavily curated, algorithmically managed speech.

Some supporters of President Trump might find this hard to believe. After all, the president’s most prominent ally and advisor is Elon Musk, whose purchase of Twitter in 2022 was said to be motivated by a desire to restore free speech to the platform. But Musk has always insisted that “freedom of speech is not freedom of reach,” and there’s the rub. Using platform algorithms to restrict reach artificially is a form of censorship, one that is not only compatible with the DSA but even encouraged by the E.U.

The Trump Administration can truly restore free speech to the internet only by confronting the European Union. The administration needs to challenge the DSA, to get it repealed or at least neutered. If the E.U. refuses to back down, then the administration will need to work with Congress to pass a law ensuring that American tech companies cannot comply with the DSA by restricting Americans’ First Amendment rights.

Keep reading

Obama Wants Filters Not Freedom

Barack Obama’s recent appearance at The Connecticut Forum once again revealed a troubling truth: the political establishment is becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea of government-managed speech.

In an extended conversation with historian Heather Cox Richardson, the former president signaled that his tolerance for open discourse ends where his ideological preferences begin.

Amid warnings about the spread of “propaganda” and falsehoods online, Obama floated the notion of imposing “government regulatory constraints” on digital platforms.

His rationale? To counter business models that, in his opinion, elevate “the most hateful voices or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous, in the sense of inciting violence.”

But it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see what’s really being proposed: a top-down mechanism to filter speech based on government-approved standards of truth.

This wasn’t framed as a direct assault on the First Amendment, of course. Obama was careful to qualify that such regulations would remain “consistent with the First Amendment.”

But that’s little comfort when the very premise involves the government determining which voices deserve a platform. Once the state takes a role in deciding what is true or acceptable, the line between moderation and censorship evaporates.

Obama’s remarks included a reference to a saying he alleges is attributed to Russian intelligence and later adopted by Steve Bannon: “You just have to flood the zone with so much poop…that at some point people don’t believe anything.”

This, he argued, is the tactic used by bad actors to disorient the public. What he failed to acknowledge is that the antidote to this isn’t more control, but more speech. Free people, given access to a full spectrum of views, are capable of discerning fact from fiction without government supervision.

The real danger isn’t “too much speech.” It’s the increasing desire to place speech under bureaucratic management.

Obama’s suggestion that some speech is too “hateful” or “dangerous” to be left unchecked invites a future where those in power decide what the public is allowed to hear, a vision completely incompatible with a free society.

And we’ve already seen how that plays out.

Keep reading

The Censorship-Industrial Complex Has Now Become Self-Perpetuating

I’ve covered a lot of speech crime indictments here at the plague chronicle.

Before Covid, these things hardly ever happened.

Occasionally you’d find the odd article about a dumb tourist who was cited for throwing a Nazi salute in public or something, but that was it. The whole area just didn’t matter.

The German state acquired a kind of political Long Covid from the pandemic.

Its agents learned from their virus repressions that they could get away with a lot more than they ever thought, and they also learned to view ordinary people as their adversaries.

A third thing happened too, in that lockdowns moved a lot of discourse to the internet, and the German elite discovered for the first time that they and their policies suffer a popularity deficit there. To explain this, our baffled and offended if powerful social media naifs borrowed the malevolent concept of “disinformation” from the Anglosphere. They began whining and crying and beating their breasts and clutching their pearls about disinformation. None of them did this so hard and so insistently as the Greens, because the Greens represent the views of the German political elite, and as an elite they feel entitled to scold, control discourse, and tell other people what to do.

That’s my potted history of how we got to this world, with pensioners being sent to jail for typing the wrong three-word phrase on the internet and YouTubers being fined thousands of Euros because some computer programme hallucinated into their banal complaints about poor internet reception a contextually incoherent Nazism. If you’re unlucky enough, you can get nailed for literally anything, and we only hear about a tiny minority of these cases. For a lot of people, the summary judgements they receive from the court are embarrassing, baffling and not worth the trouble. Those who can will just quietly eat the fine and try to get on with their lives.

In past pieces, I’ve drawn comparisons to the DDR, and I’ve also tried to characterise political repression as something that all states get up to when their ruling classes become threatened. I stand by all of that, but I’ve neglected to explain why our present situation is unique.

Europe and particularly Germany have entered a totally new era when it comes to government interference with personal expression. We’ve never seen anything like this before, it is going to get a lot worse, and nobody anywhere has the slightest interest in dialling this back. The prosecutions are escalating and they will only become more pervasive and ridiculous.

What is happening resembles classic “totalitarian” political tactics only superficially. The DDR employed literal bureaucrats and secret policemen whose job it was to censor speech according to defined standards and to punish or intimidate those who said inconvenient things. An analogy would be the farmer who decides there are too many rabbits eating his cabbages, and so he goes out and shoots them.

Modern Germany just can’t go out and shoot rabbits, and the reason has nothing to do with liberal democratic freedoms. We can’t even build bridges. Over a century ago, the Kingdom of Saxony required only two or three years to build the first Carola Bridge over the Elbe in Dresden. The SS destroyed that monument in 1945 to slow the Soviet advance, but the DDR needed only four years to build a replacement – the one that finally collapsed in September of last year. Today, in the best Germany of all time, we will require at least ten years and almost certainly more to build our third Carola Bridge. That is a very rough scale of how much ability the state has lost in the space of just a few generations.

The sclerotic, hyper-managerialised state that cannot build an uncomplicated 500-metre bridge across a river also finds censorship really, really hard. And so it has signed over this project to a whole world of NGOs, many of which now devote incredible resources to policing the internet all day.

We once had a farmer shooting rabbits, and that was bad enough if you happened to be a rabbit. Now we have an obese, bed-ridden, day-drinking farmer who can no longer fit through his front door. To solve his rabbit problem he has deputised a lot of autonomous agents, like the myxoma virus, to get rid of the hated rabbits instead.

This means he’s no longer in control of the process at all. The censorship happens all on its own, and for reasons of its own too.

It’s just something that a growing number of state-adjacent organisations do now, because there are institutional interests (jobs, funding) behind it.

How this happened is insidious.

Keep reading

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

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

Irish Government Admits No Free Speech Impact Assessment for “Misinformation” Laws

Irish authorities have moved ahead with extensive legislation aimed at tackling “misinformation,” yet they have not examined whether such measures might undermine free expression. The Department responsible for communications, media, and environmental policy has acknowledged that no analysis has been carried out to assess the consequences for free speech.

Responding to a media query from Gript, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications plainly admitted: “The Department has not undertaken any analysis or research on the potential impact of mis/disinformation laws on free speech.”

Despite this lack of evaluation, the government continues to defend its strategy. Speaking outside Government Buildings, Taoiseach (Prime Minster) Micheál Martin insisted the effort to curb online falsehoods is justified, arguing that some speech doesn’t merit protection. “It’s not freedom of speech, really, when it’s just a blatant lie and untruth, which can create a lot of public disquiet, as we have seen,” he said.

Martin downplayed the idea that regulating disinformation represents any serious threat to expressive freedoms, stating: “There are very strong protections in our constitution and in our laws and freedom of speech.” He added, “I wouldn’t overstate the impact on clamping down on blatant lies online as a sort of incursion or an undermining of freedom of speech.”

When pressed on whether the absence of impact studies was irresponsible, Martin referenced a recent RTÉ radio segment about social media claims related to a shooting in Carlow. “There was a researcher on identifying the blatant misinformation on truths and lies surrounding what happened in Carlow,” he said. “So I do think it’s absolutely important that government focuses on this issue.”

Keep reading

J.D. Vance Was Right About Censorship

In February 2025, U.S. Vice President, JD Vance stood before the Munich Security Conference and delivered a stark warning. Europe’s greatest threat was not external aggression, but internal decay — specifically, the erosion of free speech.

At the time, his words were met with scorn from European elites, dismissed as populist provocation — even “misinformation”. Yet, just months later, the cultural tide is turning. The May 2025 edition of the Economist is entirely devoted to exposing Europe’s censorship crisis, with the cover piece subtitled “J.D. Vance was right”. Key members of the UK’s previous Conservative government, responsible for implementing various censorship laws in Britain, have now found a voice to call for free speech. In a few short months, the zeitgeist has shifted: we now see that Vance’s critique was not only timely, but prescient.

Vance highlighted the case of Adam Smith-Connor, a British army veteran convicted for the “crime” of silently praying near an abortion facility in Bournemouth. Smith-Connor stood alone, for 3 minutes, across a road from the facility in a green public space — prayerfully remembering a child he had lost through abortion. He obstructed no one, spoke to no one, yet was prosecuted under a “buffer zone” law designed to prevent harassment, abuse, and “expressions of approval or disapproval” of abortion within the large public area. He was sentenced to a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £9,000 in prosecution costs.

This case is not isolated. Livia Tossici-Bolt, also from Bournemouth, was convicted for offering consensual conversations near an abortion facility. Her “crime”? Holding a sign reading “here to talk, if you want” in the area. Inviting consensual conversation. She was ordered to pay £20,000 in prosecution costs.

Similar cases have arisen in Birmingham and in Scotland, where citizens have been prosecuted just for holding a certain point of view on abortion near a clinic or hospital, and either praying, or simply being willing to talk if someone wants to engage with them.

Vance’s speech, derided by European elites at the time, resonates with a public that is increasingly frustrated with their taxes going towards silencing themselves.

Keep reading

British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment

Political activists occasionally propose a new constitutional convention, which would gather delegates from the states to craft amendments to the nation’s founding document. It’s a long and convoluted process, but the Constitution itself provides the blueprint. Article V allows such a confab if two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures call for one.

These days, conservatives are the driving force for the idea, as they see it as a means to put further limits on the federal government. Sometimes, progressives propose such a thing. Their goals are to enshrine various social programs and social-justice concepts. Yet anyone who has watched the moronic sausage-making in Congress and state legislatures should be wary of opening Pandora’s Box.

I’d be happy enough if both political tribes tried to uphold the Constitution as it is currently drafted. It’s a brilliant document that limits the power of the government to infringe on our rights. Without the first 10—the Bill of Rights—this would be a markedly different nation.

For a sense of where we might be without it, I’d recommend looking at Great Britain and its approach to the speech concepts detailed on our First Amendment. Our nation was spawned from the British, so we share a culture and history. Yet, without a specific constitutional dictate, that nation has taken a disturbing approach that rightly offends American sensibilities.

As Tablet magazine reported, “74-year-old Scottish grandmother Rose Docherty was arrested on video by four police officers for silently holding a sign in proximity to a Glasgow abortion clinic reading ‘Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.'” Thousands of Brits are detained, questioned, and prosecuted, it notes, for online posts of the type that wouldn’t raise an eyebrow here. The chilling effect is profound.

This isn’t as awful as what happens in authoritarian countries such as Russia, where the government’s critics have a habit of accidentally falling out of windows. But that’s thin gruel. Britain and the European Union are supposed to be free countries. Their speech codes are intended to battle disinformation/misinformation, but empowering the government to be the arbiter of such vague concepts only destroys everyone’s freedoms.

Keep reading

	Key Trump agency unl… on Key Trump agency unleashes pro…
	Pope Leo XIV Picks a… on Pope Leo XIV Picks a Top Roths…
	Bigus Macus on Why Is The Trump DOJ Still Enf…
	High Taxes Are Turni… on High Taxes Are Turning Seattle…
	Schumer Admits Illeg… on HERE IT IS: Schumer Slips, Adm…