Tag: free speech

Meta’s Oversight Board Condemns Free Speech Reforms, Pushes for Continued Censorship Over “Human Rights” Concerns

Welcomed by opponents of the multi-year Big Tech-government censorship collusion in the US, Meta’s decision to abandon its controversial “fact-checking” program is receiving criticism from others.

Among them is Meta’s Oversight Board, which is also unhappy that the company is allowing more freedom to users of its platforms when it comes to discussing issues like gender identity and immigration.

Announcing the changes earlier this year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the “moderation” system in place until that point had produced “too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

The content was flagged, downranked, or removed, as were users if either censorship algorithms or third-party “fact-checkers” decided it contained “misinformation” or “hate speech” – and the criteria for this was heavily biased in favor of the former administration’s agendas.

But looking back at the policy shift announced on January 7, the Board expressed its concern that Meta went about this “hastily, in a departure from the regular procedure, with no public information shared as to what, if any, prior human rights due diligence the company performed.”

The Board decided to put the emphasis on “human rights” rather than free speech, in particular the handling of topics related to LGB and transgender issues.

Meta’s policy now allows users to make allegations about mental illness or abnormality “when based on gender or sexual orientation.” This is essentially explained as a way to allow the discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality that is already happening in society, in political and religious contexts.

But the Board thinks this may result in human rights violations and wants Meta to investigate whether that is happening, and to “update it” on the findings twice a year.

Just how restrictive the rules around these issues have been is illustrated in the two cases the Board was considering – attempts to ban videos expressing views about the participation of transgender persons in sports and their “access” to bathrooms.

Keep reading

US wants UK to ditch ‘hate speech’ laws to secure trade deal – media

The administration of US President Donald Trump wants the UK government to repeal hate speech laws in order to secure a trade deal between the two nations, the Independent reported on Wednesday, citing claims by sources close to US Vice President J.D. Vance. 

In a recent interview, Vance spoke of his admiration for the UK and expressed optimism about the negotiations.

Washington and London are “working very hard on a trade deal” within the new US tariff regime, he told the British website UnHerd on Tuesday. 

However, the sources reportedly claimed to the Independent that Vance’s optimism on a trade deal “is a way of putting further pressure on the UK over free speech.” 

“If a deal does not go through, it makes Labour look bad,” they reportedly said. 

Keep reading

New Kansas antisemitism definition raises concerns over ability to criticize Israel 

A new Kansas law adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism — a definition that has been criticized for conflating criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism. 

The legislature passed and Gov. Laura Kelly signed the bill that declares antisemitism, as defined by IRHA, is “against the public policy of this state, including, but not limited to, the purposes of public educational institutions and law enforcement agencies in this state.”

David Soffer with the Combat Antisemitism Movement said that a clause in the definition prevents conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism. 

“It does differentiate the fact that criticism of Israel is perfectly OK, as long as it is held to the same standard that you would criticize another country,” Soffer said. “We know that there are criticisms of Israel’s own government amongst its people because it is a democracy, no different than here in the United States.” 

The definition reads that “manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Jack Goldstein with the Jewish Voice for Peace of Kansas City said the clause is vague. 

One example of antisemitism the IHRA provides is “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

“We’ve seen the definition be leveraged to silence voices that are dissenting against Israel for reasons that would be fair to critique other countries,” Goldstein said. “For example, their aggression in the Middle East.” 

Goldstein is referencing the Israel-Hamas war that sparked campus protests last May, which notably led to the detainment of Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil.

President Donald Trump recently adopted the IHRA’s definition in an executive order, which has been used to strip funding from Columbia University over claims that the school failed to address antisemitism.  

Keep reading

Canada: Mark Carney Vows Internet Speech Crackdown if Elected, Citing Online “Pollution” of Misogyny, Conspiracies

It was supposed to be a routine campaign pit stop, the kind of low-stakes political affair where candidates smile like used car salesmen and dish out platitudes thicker than Ontario maple syrup. Instead, Mark Carney found himself dodging verbal bricks in a Hamilton hall, facing hecklers who lobbed Jeffrey Epstein references like Molotovs. No rebuttal, no denial. Just a pivot worthy of an Olympic gymnast, straight to the perils of digital discourse.

“There are many serious issues that we’re dealing with,” he said, ignoring the criticism that had just lobbed his way. “One of them is the sea of misogyny, antisemitism, hatred, and conspiracy theories — this sort of pollution online that washes over our virtual borders from the United States.”

Ah yes, the dreaded digital tide. Forget inflation or the fact that owning a home now requires a GoFundMe. According to Carney, the real catastrophe is memes from Buffalo.

Keep reading

Liberal Canadian PM Mark Carney Runs on Banning Free Speech if Elected Canadian Prime Minister

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney promised to crack down on free speech in his latest campaign stop in Hamilton, Canada.

He’s actually running on banning speech in his country in the final weeks of the election. The 2025 Canadian federal election is scheduled for April 28.

Mark Carney is taking over where Marxist Justin Trudeau left off.

Mark Carney: “There are many serious issues that we’re dealing with. One of them is the sea of misogyny, antisemitism, hatred, and conspiracy theories — this sort of pollution online that washes over our virtual borders from the United States… The more serious thing is when it affects how people behave in our society. When Canadians are threatened going to their community centers or their places of worship or their school or, God forbid, when it affects our children. My government, if elected will be taking action.”

Keep reading

UK Halts “Legal but Harmful” Censorship Rule Amid US Trade Pressure, But Online Safety Act Still Fuels Free Speech and Privacy Fears

Plans to implement sweeping content moderation powers for tech companies have been put on hold by the UK government, as concerns grow that reintroducing speech controls could disrupt sensitive trade discussions with President Donald Trump’s allies.

The British Government had been exploring a return to the abandoned “legal but harmful” proposal, a measure that would have forced online platforms to purge content deemed “harmful” yet not unlawful. But after internal pushback and a wary eye on Washington’s stance, the idea has been quietly dropped.

The original measure, introduced under Conservative leadership in 2022, triggered significant dissent, including from within the party itself. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, then serving as business secretary, dismissed the idea, warning it could mean “legislating for hurt feelings.” The proposal was ultimately replaced with tools that give individuals more choice over the material they encounter online rather than imposing top-down restrictions.

According to reports, the recent move to distance the government from any revival of the censorship clause comes amid Labour’s review of the Online Safety Act, launched after riots last summer linked to false claims about a Southport attacker. While that review sparked fresh debate over “misinformation,” officials have opted not to revisit the “legal but harmful” language, choosing instead to emphasize online protections for children.

Labour appears focused on building upon new safety measures coming into force this summer, including mandatory age checks for adult content. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is working on a package aimed at strengthening youth safeguards, though these proposals stop well short of any return to compelled content takedowns.

“We are really committed to keeping children safe,” a government insider said. “Finally, the Online Safety Act is starting to have an impact, and we will see some enforcement action shortly. Age assurance will also be a massive step forward when it comes in the summer, but we’re actively exploring other ways of protecting children.”

​While the UK government’s removal of the “legal but harmful” provision from the Online Safety Act was intended to address concerns over free speech and censorship, significant issues remain. The Act still imposes broad duties on online platforms to assess and mitigate risks associated with user-generated content.

Keep reading

Trump’s new plan: No free trade without free speech… UK freaks out…

Western nations love to pretend they’re the gold standard of freedom and that all-important precious democracy—but lately, countries like the UK are looking a lot more like the regimes we used to fight against. When anti-abortion activists get arrested for talking or praying near a clinic and comedians get investigated for hurting people’s feels, it might be time to stop pretending you’re the “gold standard” of anything except totalitarianism. This isn’t inclusiveness by any stretch, and it’s not democracy either. This is Marxism in lipstick, dressed up as “tolerance,” all while silencing dissent and criminalizing free speech and free thought.

That’s why President Trump’s new idea is exactly what the West, namely Europe, needs right now. Trump’s new plan is to put economic pressure on these so-called allies and force them to respect real human rights, starting with free speech.

Under Trump’s free trade, countries like the UK wouldn’t get to enjoy the perks of trading with the US while trampling all over people’s basic civil liberties.

No free speech? No free trade deal. Period.

Daily Express:

Sir Keir Starmer’s hopes of agreeing a free trade deal with the US could be at risk over a free speech row. The US state department issued a statement on Sunday saying it was “concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom” in relation to the case of an anti-abortion campaigner.

It said it was “monitoring” the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, who was prosecuted for holding a sign near a Bournemouth abortion clinic reading: “Here to talk if you want.” A verdict in the case is due on Friday.

The woman who is being prosecuted for the alleged breach of a “buffer zone” outside a Bournemouth abortion clinic has said she is “grateful” after the US State Department expressed concern over the case.

Asked about the comments, a source familiar with trade negotiations told The Telegraph there should be “no free trade without free speech”.

Vice President JD Vance has previously raised concerns about free speech in the UK.

But the UK’s Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds insisted free speech has not been part of tariff negotiations with the US.

He also rejected the suggestion a deal with the US to avoid tariffs is done but not signed.

Mr Reynolds said: “Obviously, there are things from different people in the administration that they’ve said in the past about this, but it’s not been part of the trade negotiations that I’ve been part of.”

And apparently, the idea that the UK would have to meet bare minimum standards for free speech for their own citizens was enough to send shockwaves through the Good Morning Britain staff.

Keep reading

Free Speech Is Worth Fighting For

We do not have free speech to talk about the weather. Our Founders, particularly James Madison who drafted the Bill of Rights, understood that our rights are not privileges granted to us by government. No, it was understood at the founding that these basic natural rights outlined by Madison were granted by our Creator and thus no mere mortal could take them away. And first among these is the First Amendment which recognizes that most basic of our natural rights: the right to express ourselves in any way we wish.

Unfortunately the US government has not always been in accord with this sentiment and has many times in our history been at war with our freedom of speech. From the alien and sedition acts at the beginning of our republic to Abraham Lincoln’s war on speech to the jailing of antiwar activists during both World Wars to Kent State, the political class is all for free speech unless it is threatening to the political class.

Recently a new front has been opened in the war on free speech and it is one that Americans must take seriously. On university campuses across the country students – both American and foreign guests – have taken to protesting US support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, where tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed.

The political class in the United States is determined to defend Israel from its critics and has responded to these protests by threatening and blackmailing the universities if they do not crack down on speech the powers-that-be do not like. Both Presidents Biden and Trump have used the power of US government funding to demand a crackdown on speech they don’t like, with President Trump recently pulling 400 million dollars in federal funding for Columbia University if they don’t silence the protesters.

The real scandal is that nearly every US university – both public and “private” – is government funded in the first place. But for politicians to use the power of the purse to deny students the right to express themselves – as long as peaceful – just adds insult to injury.

Keep reading

“Content Agnostic”: EU Official Denies Anti-Free Speech Policies In Bizarre Letter To Congress

After returning recently from speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan has taken up the issue and received a letter from the EU’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The letter is both evasive and deceptive.

In my book, The Indispensable Right, I detail how the DSA has been used to allow for sweeping speech investigations and prosecutions. In direct contradiction to past statements by the EU, Virkkunen denied any effort to regulate speech or enforce the DSA outside of Europe.

What is particularly maddening is the false claim that the EU remains “deeply committed to protecting and promoting free speech.” Many in the free speech community view the EU and the DSA as the greatest threats to free speech in the West.

In his letter, Jordan correctly raised the concern that the DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States by compelling platforms to crack down on what the EU considers “misleading or deceptive” speech.

In her response, Virkkunen bizarrely describes the DSA as “content-agnostic” while insisting that the DSA “applies exclusively within the European Union.”

That is not what EU officials previously said or what the law itself allows. Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.

The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

Some in this country have turned to the EU to force the censorship of their fellow citizens. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. (Clinton spoke at the World Forum and lashed out at the failure to control disinformation).

Keep reading

Federal Agents Arrest Tufts Student as Part of Crackdown on Pro-Palestine Speech

On Tuesday, ICE agents arrested a PhD student at Tufts University, a private university in Massachusetts, an arrest that appears to be part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestine speech.

Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish citizen in the US on an F-1 student visa, was arrested outside of her apartment and is now in federal custody. Her lawyer, Mahsa Khanbabai, said she has not been able to contact her.

“We are unaware of her whereabouts and have not been able to contact her. No charges have been filed against Rumeysa to date that we are aware of. We hope Rumeysa will be released immediately,” Khanbabai said.

Khanbabi said that “based on patterns we are seeing across the country, her exercising her free speech rights appear to have played a role in her detention,” referring to the targeting of foreign students who are critical of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Ozturk has been targeted by the Canary Mission, a pro-Israel group that doxxes students and professors who are critical of Israel. The Canary Mission’s page on Ozturk lists only one example of her “anti-Israel activism,” the co-authoring of an op-ed that called for Tufts University to divest from Israel and “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide.”

Keep reading