Tag: free speech

UN General Assembly to Adopt Controversial Cybercrime Treaty, Ignoring Privacy and Free Speech Concerns

The United Nations General Assembly will this week adopt the UN Cybercrime Treaty, with the US expected to be among the countries that support the controversial document.

Opponents will then have to hope that various UN member-states would eventually opt not to sign and ratify the treaty, which has variously been described as “flawed” and all the way to being “a threat to free speech and privacy” and a tool for “transnational oppression.”

Among those opponents are human rights and media organizations, as well as tech companies, while doubts have been expressed even by the UN High Commissioner for human rights, among others.

Yet governments and law enforcement agencies are among the Cybercrime Treaty’s supporters since it opens up the possibility of more effective cross-border cooperation and evidence (including personal data) gathering and sharing.

But, the final text that is about to be adopted, in many parts falls short of what are considered international human rights standards, allowing UN members who sign the document to then choose whether to build a number of these standards into their own implementation.

Keep reading

VICTORY: Dr William Bay wins doctors’ right to criticise covid gene-vaccines

Friday marked the biggest victory yet for doctors against political persecution after the Queensland Supreme Court issued a scorching judgement against Australia’s medical regulators on Friday.

Queensland GP William Anicha Bay celebrated outside court after successfully overturning a politically motivated medical ban put on him for protesting against the covid gene-vaccines on safety grounds.

The Court did not enter into any debate about the safety of the controversial products but ruled only on whether the regulators’ decision or conduct was free from error.

The Medical Board of Australia suspended Dr Bay’s registration on August 17, 2022, less than three weeks after he accosted the Australian Medical Association (AMA) National Conference and asked the delegates to stop forcing the jabs on people in response to an infection where “there is only a 0.27 percent fatality rate”.

Dr Bay apologised for interrupting proceedings before saying the covid “vaccines” were killing people.

Keep reading

D.C. Circuit Court Upholds TikTok Ban, Prioritizing ‘National Security’ Over Free Speech

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the federal government can tell a foreign-owned website that it must either sell itself to an American owner or be banned.

TikTok is one of the most popular social media sites on the planet, with more than a billion monthly active users worldwide and 170 million in the United States. Both Democrats and Republicans have long complained that the app—owned by ByteDance, a company based in China—is a potential vector for Chinese propaganda.

Much of the controversy stems from the level of control that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) demands over the private companies operating within its borders. The theory goes that Beijing could force ByteDance to turn over TikTok user data, or manipulate user algorithms to promote content favorable to the Chinese Communist Party.

Given China’s well-earned reputation as a repressive state, those could conceivably happen—though the key word there is conceivably. While many lawmakers have insisted that TikTok is an active national security threat, they have presented no evidence for this, at most claiming to have seen classified information that affirms their warnings.

During his first term, President Donald Trump threatened to ban TikTok outright unless it were purchased and operated by an American company. (Trump has reversed course since leaving office, now promising to “save” the app.) And this year President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. Singling out TikTok and ByteDance by name, the law made it functionally illegal for “a foreign adversary controlled application” to operate within the United States, or for any other entity to provide “internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating” of the app.

The law defined the term “controlled by a foreign adversary” to include not only companies owned wholly by Chinese entities but also one in which a citizen of an adversarial nation “directly or indirectly own[s] at least a 20 percent stake.” In other words, even if the overwhelming majority of a company’s shares were owned by Americans, it could be banned or forced to divest so long as the remaining shares were held by Chinese, Russian, or Iranian citizens.

In order to continue operating within the United States, the only recourse would be to sell TikTok to an American company by January 19, 2025—Joe Biden’s last full day in office.

Keep reading

Rumble Sues California; Says State’s “War Against Political Speech Is Censorship”

Video streaming site Rumble has filed a lawsuit against the state of California in response to legislation forcing social media platforms to censor political speech.

Rumble is being represented by The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which filed suit against AB 2655, aka the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,” in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

The legislation is Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s response to a deepfake satire video of Kamala Harris that was shared on X by Elon Musk among others.

ADF stated in a press release that the law “deputizes” Rumble to restrict its user’s free speech, while another law, AB 2839, “Protecting Democracy Against Election Disinformation and Deepfakes,” uses vague standards to punish individuals posting political content about elections.

“California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates,” said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler.

“Rumble is one of the few online voices stepping up against this trend of censorship while other platforms and sites cave to totalitarian regimes censoring Americans,” Sechler further urged.

He added that “Rumble is standing for free speech even when it is hard. Other online platforms and media companies must see these laws for what they are — a threat to their existence.”

Chris Pavlovski, Chairman and CEO of Rumble, further urged that “The very thought of the government judging the content of political speech, and then deciding whether it should be permitted, censored, or eliminated altogether is about the most chilling thing you could imagine.”

“Rumble
will always celebrate freedom and support creative independence, so we’re delighted to work with ADF to help protect lawful online expression,” Pavlovski asserted.

The Democratic Party is pushing hard to enact laws that force censorship.

Keep reading

Germany Tightens Grip on Online Speech as Vice Chancellor Defends Arrest of Online Critic

Germany’s authorities continue to double down on their crusade against all manner of free speech on the internet: from the right of citizens to criticize them, to satirical content like memes.

Instead of considering apologizing to a pensioner whose home was recently raided by law enforcement for an online post unflattering of his person, German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck is now urging even stricter regulation of social media.

And it’s clear what kind of regulation Habeck – who was referred to as “an idiot” in the post that got 64-year-old Stefan Niehoff in hot water with the prosecution – wants to see more of.

The Green Party politician cited the EU’s controversial, sweeping censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), as a tool that could be used to “regulate” algorithms used by social media.

According to the German press, Habeck told the ARD broadcaster not only that he wouldn’t apologize but went on to try to explain – or, justify – why he filed a criminal complaint against the pensioner in the first place.

Habeck suggested that being called an “idiot” was just the straw that broke the camel’s back; his grievance supposedly originates from a previous “racist” post by Niehoff.

Keep reading

Push to Pass KOSA Spurs Fears Over Privacy and Free Speech

Attorneys general from 32 jurisdictions — including 31 states and the District of Columbia — have signed an open letter urging Congress to pass the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) before the looming conclusion of the current session early next year. This legislation, although primarily aimed at protecting minors from digital harms, introduces significant implications for online privacy and freedom of speech through proposed mechanisms for age verification and potential censorship.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

KOSA itself doesn’t mandate direct implementation of online age verification but tasks the Secretary of Commerce, along with the FTC and FCC, with exploring “options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.” This move toward digital identification could fundamentally alter the landscape of internet privacy, linking social media accounts and other online activities directly to real-world identities.

Keep reading

Germans Being German: “You Can’t Say I Hate Free Speech! I’ll Have You Arrested!” Minister Says

As the left loses power worldwide, they are turning to increasingly authoritarian measures. In Germany, Antifa-allied Interior Minister Nancy Faeser is filing charges against conservative journalist David Bendels – ironically for calling Faeser an enemy of free speech.

In the UK, Tommy Robinson and dozens of patriots are in prison for posting on social media or screening a documentary, in Tommy’s case. Police in Essex showed up at the door of Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson because of a post on social media.

In Australia, the leftist government is seeking to pass a law requiring all Australians to register with ID to be able to post on social media.

In Germany, as the Scholz government collapses and faces pressure from the patriotic AfD party, the German government is going full Stasi and raided a retired Army vet for calling Green econ minister and vice-chancellor Robert Habeck an “idiot” (Gateway reported).

In July, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser tried to shut down right-wing Compact magazine but was defeated in court.

YouTuber Shlomo Finkelstein is currently in prison for videos showing a burning Koran.

Violent attacks on AfD politicians are the norm in Germany and are rarely prosecuted because the leftist government views the Antifa street thugs as their street muscle. AfD politicians are virtually banned from mainstream media and are subjected to vile and defamatory reporting by “investigative” journalists, often with intel support.

Now, Interior Minister Faeser is pressing charges against conservative journalist David Bendels, editor-in-chief of the AfD-aligned DeutschlandKurier, for making fun of her in a meme showing Faeser holding a sign that reads “I hate free speech” (photo above).

Yes, you read that right: The Antifa-aligned Homeland Security minister of Germany wants to prove she doesn’t hate freedom of speech by going after a journalist’s freedom of speech.

As our President says, “They’re not sending their best.”

Elon Musk commented on a video by Gateway contributor Naomi Seibt, saying, “This is crazy.”

Keep reading

G20’s Online Speech Clampdown Calls Set To Ignite Free Speech Fears

G20 leaders convened in Rio de Janeiro have called for enhanced responsibility and transparency from digital platforms to tackle the growing challenges of “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and others on their long list of supposed online “harms.”

The summit’s final declaration highlighted the transformative role of digital platforms in global communication but noted the adverse effects of digital content’s rapid spread. It called for increased accountability from platforms to manage speech, which should raise eyebrows among free speech advocates who’ve heard all this before.

We obtained a copy of the declaration for you here.

During the summit, the leaders highlighted the transformative impact of digital platforms in communication and information dissemination across the globe. However, they also alleged negative ramifications of unchecked digital spaces, where “harmful” content can proliferate at an unprecedented pace and scale.

Keep reading

Ireland’s New Online Censorship Rules Face Showdown With X in Court

X has initiated a High Court challenge against Ireland’s media authority, Coimisiún na Meán, over a newly introduced censorship code that imposes stringent regulations on video-sharing platforms.

The contentious safety code, finalized in October, emerged following the enactment of Ireland’s Online Safety and Media Regulation Act. Rooted in the European Commission’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), the code obliges platforms under Irish jurisdiction to implement measures shielding users—particularly children—from harmful content. Platforms found non-compliant could face severe penalties, including fines of up to €20 million or 10% of annual revenue, whichever is greater.

For platforms like X,  Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and more, the code signals a dramatic shift away from self-regulation and gives Ireland’s regulators more control over online speech.

According to Coimisiún na Meán, the rules are designed to curtail the dissemination of “harmful” material. Criminal content, such as child exploitation or terrorism-related media, also falls within the prohibited categories but was already covered by previous laws.

Keep reading

Free Speech: The Sine Qua Non of Democracy

One of the strangest developments in the recent history of Western democratic states has been the heartfelt call by duly elected officials for government censorship of citizens’ speech. This trend has emerged simultaneously across various nations, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and, oddly enough, the United States of America. No one is surprised that tyrants throughout history, who seize power by force, have retained their positions primarily through silencing dissenters and political opponents. The very foundation of democratic states, however, is what the nineteenth-century British philosopher John Stuart Mill, a great champion of liberty, called “the marketplace of ideas.”

In a public square conducive to open discourse among free people, individuals with diverse interests and opinions hash out ideas and prospective policies in order to determine which ones should prevail. In effect, this competition among ideas reflects the very process used to elect government officials in democratic states. The candidates are permitted to express their views and what they plan to do, and the voters then choose between the available options, however dismal, at the voting booth.

Just as candidates who do not stand to represent and promote the interests of the people are to be defeated through the electoral process itself, in a free marketplace of ideas, bad ideas and flagrant falsehoods will eventually be rejected. This takes longer in some cases than others, above all, when powerful lobbies have significant financial interests at stake, a salient example of which is war and what has become a military-industrial-congressional-media-academic-pharmaceutical-logistics-banking complex. But at some point, eventually, free thinkers come to believe that the policies of their government, which they formerly condoned, are in fact misguided, counter-productive, and even immoral. When many people change their view, concluding that practices such as slavery, or withholding the right to vote from women, have no rational basis whatsoever, then they press their representatives to alter the laws of the land.

Keep reading