Tag: hate speech

‘CODE RED’ Author Tells Fox News: Google Gemini AI Claims Republicans Like Marsha Blackburn, Tom Cotton Engage in Hate Speech

Google’s Gemini AI chatbot claims that only Republican senators violate its hate speech policy, with not a single Democrat flagged by the woke tech giant’s system, Breitbart News social media director Wynton Hall demonstrated to Fox News in a revelation published today. The bias built into AI by leftist Silicon Valley tech titans is a central subject of Hall’s new book, CODE RED.

Gemini flagged a group of Republican senators — but no Democrats — when asked to name senators who have made statements that violate Google’s hate speech policies, Hall demonstrated to Fox News with a video of Gemini AI in action.

Hall, whose new book, Code Red: The Left, the Right, China, and the Race to Control AI, publishes on Tuesday, added that this is just one example of what is a deeply ingrained bias against conservatives in AI tools.

“AI’s Silicon Valley architects lean left politically, and their lopsided political donations to Democrats underscore their ideological aims,” the author told the outlet.

Fox News reported:

Hall used the “deep research” function on Google’s Gemini Pro. Fox News Digital reviewed a screen recording of Hall’s prompt and findings. Google did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

One of the Republicans flagged by Gemini in Hall’s research, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, of Tennessee, was listed for characterizing “transgender identity as a harmful cultural ‘influence’ and has used ‘woke’ as a derogatory slur against protected groups.” Another, Arkansas’ Sen. Tom Cotton, was cited for cosponsoring legislation “to exclude transgender students from sports.”

Hall explains in CODE RED that AI tools touting themselves as neutral are actually shaped by the political bias of those who create them. The Breitbart News social media director begins his book with a stark example, pointing to an incident in 2024 in which several viral videos seemingly exposed a clear double standard in American homes.

Keep reading

Bill C-9 against quoting Bible verses could turn Canada into police state: pro-freedom group

A Canadian constitutional freedom group warned that the imminent passage of a bill that threatens religious expression when it comes to quoting from certain Bible passages after it becomes law will turn Canada into a “police” state.

The Democracy Fund (TDF) alerted Canadians that Bill C-9, or the “Combatting Hate Act,” will expand the “legal definition of hatred and removes key free expression safeguards in the Criminal Code.”

“TDF will continue to oppose the Bill and all attempts by the government to censor Canadians,” the group warned.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, all debate on Bill C-9, a bill that could open the door to the criminalization of religious expression and belief when quoting certain parts of the Bible, was stopped last week.

Bill C-9 passed the committee phase last Friday and will soon pass third reading in the House of Commons.

TDF was invited to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding Bill C-9. In a brief it filed, the TDF outlined its reasons for opposing the bill.

“Ironically, the government has moved to end debate on issues of public concern for a bill that would end debate on issues of public concern. The Bill empowers prosecutors to bring charges based on the merest suggestion that the impugned conduct is motivated by an ill-defined concept of ‘hatred,’ massively increasing potential jail time and legal jeopardy for defendants,” the TDF noted.

“In our experience, these types of offences tend to be laid against marginalized and working-class people rather than powerful elites and political insiders. However, all Canadians can expect greater digital censorship and increased online police surveillance if the Bill becomes law. We only have to look at the UK example, where police make approximately 12,000 annual arrests for online ‘hate incidents’ under similar legislation.’”

Bill C-9 is a Liberal Party censorship bill that has attracted massive backlash from religious Canadians of many faiths. Once it becomes law, certain protections for sincerely held religious beliefs, particularly regarding LGBT issues, could be removed.

In comments to LifeSiteNews, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) campaigns manager David Cooke warned that Bill C-9 would result in the “prosecution of Canadian Christians” when quoting the Bible on issues of life and family.

The federal government, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, recently passed an amendment to the bill removing a religious exemption, prompting condemnation from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who issued an open letter calling for its removal.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Bill C-9 has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way. The bill was introduced by Justice Minister Sean Fraser last year.

CLC had earlier warned that Bill C-9 would open the door to the “criminalization of religious expression and belief” when quoting the Bible

Keep reading

U.N. Committee Accuses Trump of ‘Racist Hate Speech’ and ‘Grave Human Rights Violations’ Over Immigration Crackdown

If you needed any more evidence that the United Nations (U.N.) should be defunded, here it is.

A U.N. panel has accused the Trump administration of “racist hate speech” and suggested the U.S. crackdown on illegal immigration has led to “grave human rights violations.”

The criticism came in a new report released Wednesday by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which took direct aim at Trump and other political leaders over their rhetoric on immigration enforcement.

According to the report, statements by political leaders combined with stepped-up immigration enforcement have allegedly “sparked grave human rights violations.”

“Racist hate speech by political leaders, including the President, combined with intensified immigration crackdowns in the United States, notably near schools, hospitals, and faith-based institutions, has sparked grave human rights violations,” the committee said in a statement accompanying the report.

The panel also claimed it was “deeply disturbed by the growing use of derogatory and dehumanizing language” about illegal aliens.

“Portraying them as criminals or as a burden, by politicians and influential public figures at the highest level, particularly the President … may incite racial discrimination and hate crimes,” the report said.

Keep reading

TDF sounds alarm over imminent passage of Bill C-9

Proposed “Combatting Hate Act” expands the legal definition of hatred and removes key free expression safeguards in the Criminal Code.

The House of Commons has closed debate on Bill C-9, the “Combatting Hate Act.” The Bill expands and codifies the definition of “hatred,” departing from the Supreme Court’s strict requirement of “vilification and detestation.” It removes the longstanding good faith religious speech protections for sincerely held religious opinions and expressions based on religious texts in the Criminal Code and eliminates the requirement for Attorney General consent before charging individuals with certain hate crime offences. The Bill also creates a new offence that applies when an underlying offence—even a non-criminal one—is motivated by hatred, potentially doubling the penalties for the underlying act.

The Bill has faced opposition from civil liberties groups and religious organizations. TDF was invited to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and filed a brief outlining its serious misgivings. 

“Ironically, the government has moved to end debate on issues of public concern for a bill that would end debate on issues of public concern. The Bill empowers prosecutors to bring charges based on the merest suggestion that the impugned conduct is motivated by an ill-defined concept of “hatred,” massively increasing potential jail time and legal jeopardy for defendants. In our experience, these types of offences tend to be laid against marginalized and working-class people rather than powerful elites and political insiders. However, all Canadians can expect greater digital censorship and increased online police surveillance if the Bill becomes law. We only have to look at the UK example, where police make approximately 12,000 annual arrests for online “hate incidents” under similar legislation.” 

The Bill now moves to a vote at the justice committee. After that, it will proceed to the report stage and third reading before advancing to the Senate.

TDF will continue to oppose the Bill and all attempts by the government to censor Canadians.

Keep reading

UK Consults on Social Media Age Verification While Directing Parents to Report “Hate Speech” to Big Tech

The British government launched a consultation this week that could require age verification for anyone using social media, gaming sites, or AI chatbots.

The consultation, titled “Growing up in the online world,” opened on March 2nd and closes May 26, 2026. It asks the public whether the government should ban under-16s from social media entirely, impose mandatory overnight curfews on platform access, restrict AI chatbot features for minors, and require platforms to disable “addictive design features” like infinite scrolling and autoplay.

The government says it will respond in summer 2026, and Parliament has already handed ministers new legal powers to act on the findings without waiting for fresh primary legislation.

The Prime Minister announced those powers on February 16, weeks before the consultation even opened. The government can now move faster once it decides what it wants. What the public thinks determines the packaging, not the destination.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall framed it this way: “The path to a good life is a great childhood, one full of love, learning, and play. That applies just as much to the online world as it does to the real one.”

The actual policy tools being considered are a different matter.

Age verification, as a mechanism, works by proving identity. Every user proves who they are.

A social media platform that must exclude under-16s must verify the age of its over-16s. That means collecting identity documents, linking browsing activity to real identities, or building infrastructure that a government can later compel to serve other purposes.

The surveillance architecture required to enforce a children’s safety law is the same architecture required to surveil adults. It gets built for one reason. It gets used for others.

Then there’s the “Help your child stay safe online” campaign site, the government launched alongside the consultation. The site includes a page directing parents to report “bullying, threats, harassment, hate speech, and content promoting self-harm or suicide” directly to platforms, with links to the reporting tools of Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, Discord, YouTube, and Twitch.

Keep reading

Are We in a Free Speech Recession?

For years, debates over hate speech laws have been framed as moral disputes about civility and protection. Increasingly, however, they are becoming legal and political battles over the limits of “free” expression in democratic societies. 

A report by the Future of Free Speech project, titled The Free Speech Recession Hits Home, argues that established democracies are experiencing measurable declines in protections for speech once considered firmly safeguarded. The report contends that restrictions once associated primarily with authoritarian regimes are now expanding across Western countries under the banner of combating hate, misinformation, and extremism. 

Hate speech laws are being broadly interpreted all over the Western world, and their continued expansion is reshaping the boundaries of lawful expression. 

Keep reading

Australia Passes New Bills For Tougher Gun Control And Anti-Hate Speech Laws

The Australian Parliament has passed two new bills that will set up a national gun buyback scheme, and attempt to combat anti-Semitism and hate speech in response to the Bondi terror attack.

In Australia’s lower house, the gun buyback bill passed 96 to 45 with the Liberal-National Coalition opposing, while the hate and extremism-focused bill passed with amendments, securing 116 votes to just seven.

Later on the evening of Jan. 20, both bills made it through the Senate.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wrote on X that the government was “standing against hate and strengthening” national security.

New Gun Buyback Passes Lower House After 3 Hours

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 introduces not only the national gun buyback scheme, but new restrictions around background checks, the sale of firearm types, and new offences relating to accessing information online about firearms, ammunition, and accessories.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke told parliament that had such measures been in place earlier, the Bondi Beach attackers would not have been able to legally obtain weapons.

The father of the terrorist duo, Sajid Akram, owned six firearms, despite his son being interviewed and cleared by intelligence agencies over concerns of radicalisation.

The bill was debated for close to three hours, with several MPs proposing amendments.

Independent MP Zali Steggall sought to ensure firearms background checks explicitly included “criminal history or proceedings relating to domestic violence or AVOs issued in local courts.”

Bob Katter, the federal MP of Kennedy, moved an amendment that would automatically revoke a firearm licence for anyone placed on an ASIO watchlist. That amendment was defeated, 88 votes to 13.

Katter, who opposed the broader reforms, blamed the Bondi attack on failures in the immigration system and argued the legislation undermined gun ownership.

“If they get their way, then the only people that will have guns are the people in uniforms. And we know what sort of society that is, that the only people that have guns are the people in uniforms,” he said.

Keep reading

Australia’s New Hate Speech Bill Is Reckless, Contradictory, and Repressive

On January 12, Australia’s Attorney-General Michelle Rowland stepped to the podium and announced what she called “the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.”

The government plans to push its Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 through Parliament on January 20, turning Australia’s speech laws into something that reads more like a psychological test than a criminal code.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here (and the memorandum here.)

The same week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was praising Iranians “standing up for their human rights,” his government was preparing to criminalize speech at home even when no one’s rights or feelings had actually been touched.

The bill’s centerpiece is a new racial vilification offense. It bans “publicly promoting or inciting hatred” based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin, with penalties of up to five years in prison.

The measure’s core novelty is what it removes: proof of harm.

It’s “immaterial,” the draft says, whether “the conduct actually results in hatred” or whether anyone “actually” feels intimidated or fears harassment.

The courts will instead consider what a hypothetical “reasonable” member of the targeted group would feel, even if no such person exists in the case.

Prosecutors, the explanatory note clarifies, “would not be required to prove” any real fear at all.

The message: you can go to prison for causing theoretical discomfort in a theoretical person.

Rowland’s bill doesn’t stop at the town square or the street corner. It explicitly defines a “public place” to include any form of electronic communication, including social media, blogs, livestreams, recordings, and content posted from private property if the public can see it.

In other words, the living room webcam and the backyard podcast are now public arenas. A joke, a meme, or an overheard rant could be weighed for its impact on an imaginary “reasonable person” who never existed.

Keep reading

Mary Moriarty threatens prosecutions over ‘hateful’ messages to Somali community

Amid national attention on fraud in Minnesota, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty has warned that people who send “hateful” messages to the Somali community could face prosecution.

Meanwhile, it was recently revealed that a Somali national who pleaded guilty in two separate sexual assault cases avoided prison under a plea deal negotiated by Moriarty’s office.

Last year, Abdimahat Mohamed received a three-year prison sentence that was stayed and served no time in prison after pleading guilty in two separate sexual assault cases — one involving the rape of a 15-year-old girl in 2017 and another involving an adult woman in 2024.

In both cases, the most serious criminal sexual conduct charges were dropped. Moriarty’s office defended the plea deal after national attention followed, saying it had lost key witnesses and that the case was “substantially weakened.”

According to a later FBI affidavit tied to federal kidnapping charges, Moriarty’s office also agreed not to charge Mohamed for a third sexual assault from 2018 as part of the plea agreement.

Now, Moriarty has issued a public statement warning that her office is receiving “a large number of reports” of members of the Somali community being sent “hateful, threatening, and disturbing messages.”

The statement blamed “far-right propagandists” for “demonizing an entire group of people” and urged the public to report such messages to law enforcement so cases could be reviewed for prosecution.

Moriarty’s statement included contact information for advocacy organizations and pledged the office would “do everything in our power to keep each other safe.”

Keep reading

Victoria Moves to Force Online Platforms to ID Users and Expand State Powers to Curb “Hate Speech”

Victoria is preparing to introduce some of the most far-reaching online censorship and surveillance powers ever proposed in an Australian state, following the Bondi Beach terror attack.

Premier Jacinta Allan’s new five-point plan, presented as a response to antisemitism, includes measures that would compel social media platforms to identify users accused of “hate speech” and make companies legally liable if they cannot.

Presented as a defense against hate, the plan’s mechanisms cut directly into long-standing principles of privacy and freedom of expression. It positions anonymity online as a form of protection for “cowards,” creating a precedent for government-mandated identity disclosure that could chill lawful speech and dissent.

During her announcement, Premier Allan said:

“That’s why Victoria will spearhead new laws to hold social media companies and their anonymous users to account – and we’ll commission a respected jurist to unlock the legislative path forward.”

Under the proposal, if a user accused of “vilification” cannot be identified, the platform itself could be held responsible for damages. This effectively converts private platforms into instruments of state enforcement, obligating them to expose user data or face financial risk.

The Premier also announced plans to accelerate the introduction of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2024, which had been due to take effect in mid-2026. It will now be brought forward to April 2026.

The law allows individuals to sue others for public conduct, including online speech, that a “reasonable person” might find “hateful, contemptuous, reviling or severely ridiculing” toward someone with a protected attribute. These protected categories include religion, race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability, among others.

This framework gives the state and private citizens broad interpretive power to determine what speech is “hateful.” As many civil liberties experts note, such wording opens the door to legal action based on subjective offense rather than clear, objective harm.

Keep reading