Tag: free speech

Free Speech Under Direct Attack in Texas: House Passes RINO Dade Phelan’s Orwellian Bill to CRIMINALIZE Political Memes Without a Government-Approved Disclaimer

The Republican-led Texas House has officially caved to the radical Left’s war on free speech—and shockingly, it’s being spearheaded by none other than the state’s own scandal-plagued former House Speaker Dade Phelan.

On Tuesday, House Bill 366 passed with bipartisan support, making it a potential crime in the state of Texas to share or distribute AI-generated and “altered media”—including political memes—without a government-approved disclaimer on political ads.

According to the bill:

“A person may not, with the intent to influence an election, knowingly cause to be published, distributed, or broadcast political advertising that includes an image, audio recording, or video recording of an officeholder’s or candidate’s appearance, speech, or conduct that did not occur in reality, including an image, audio recording, or video recording that has been altered using generative artificial intelligence technology, unless the political advertising includes a disclosure from the person or another person on whose behalf the political advertising is published, distributed, or broadcast indicating that the image, audio recording, or video recording did not occur in reality.”

Let that sink in: Texas Republicans — yes, Republicans — are now trying to police memes.

The bill makes it a Class A misdemeanor for candidates, officeholders, or political committees to knowingly distribute political ads that use manipulated images, audio, or video—especially if created with generative AI—without an explicit disclosure that the content did not occur in reality. The law applies to any group spending over $100 on such materials and seeks to curb misleading media that could influence elections.

Under the bill, the Texas Ethics Commission will define the specific formatting for these required disclosures. However, media platforms and service providers like internet hosts, broadcasters, and billboard owners are exempt from liability.

If signed into law, the legislation will take effect on September 1, 2025.

Keep reading

Worse Than Trudeau: Canadians Should Expect Disaster With Carney In Charge

Justin Trudeau’s far-left regime in Canada has finally come to an end as the politician exits leadership in disgrace.  His legacy includes authoritarian governance during the pandemic, whereby he threw Christian church goers and pastors in prison for refusing to stop congregations.  He called for mass forced vaccinations, and he locked the bank accounts of protesters speaking out against the covid mandates.  His admin compared people donating to the cause to “terrorists”. 

His socialist economic policies helped to exacerbate Canada’s inflation crisis and his open immigration policies greatly expanded the the flood of third-world foreigners, driving up housing prices, crushing the labor market and straining social services.  By most accounts, the majority of Canadians were ecstatic to see Trudeau exit the stage. 

But what if they still haven’t learned their lesson?  How is that even possible?

According to recent polls for the 2025 election set for April 28th, it is likely that Canadians have very short memories or they’re gluttons for punishment.  Why?  Because Mark Carney and the Liberal Party are projected to make considerable gains.  Carney has rebranded himself as a “centrist” in order to win public favor, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Mark Carney is, in fact, worse than Trudeau on every level.

Keep reading

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