Tag: hate speech

Canada’s AG Claims Anti-“Hate” Law Isn’t About Censorship

Governments around the world have a long history of introducing laws that restrict speech while insisting they are not acts of censorship.

Each new proposal is framed as a measure to promote safety, combat misinformation, or protect vulnerable communities, yet the result is often the same: expanded state authority over what citizens can say or share.

Now Canada’s Attorney General Sean Fraser is attempting to reassure Canadians that the federal government’s new hate speech legislation, Bill C-9, is not a disguised attempt to police online expression.

The proposal, already facing strong opposition from free expression advocates, introduces new “hate-related” offenses and expands police powers over what is labeled “hatred” in the Criminal Code.

Fraser told MPs that the government is not seeking to criminalize internet activity that is currently legal.

“We should recognize there are many acts we may find offensive that do not constitute hate for the purpose of the Criminal Code,” he said during his appearance before the Commons justice committee.

He insisted the bill’s purpose is not censorship, even as he confirmed that its provisions would apply equally to speech on the internet and in public spaces.

The legislation, officially titled An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Combatting Hate Act), also bans the display of Nazi and Hamas symbols that are deemed to promote hatred, makes it an offense to obstruct religious or cultural ceremonies, and rewrites how “hatred” is defined.

The bill frames it as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.”

Free speech advocates have warned that this rewording lowers the legal bar by abandoning the Supreme Court’s requirement that hatred must be “an emotion of an intense and extreme nature.”

Fraser responded that any online statement would only be subject to prosecution if it already met the threshold for hate propaganda under existing law. “The only circumstance where you could imagine some online comment attracting scrutiny under this law would attach to behavior that is criminal today but is punished less severely,” he told the committee.

Keep reading

Newsom Vetoes Digital Censorship Law

California Governor Gavin Newsom managed to get something right. He just vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to sue social-media companies on the subjective and dubious basis of “hate speech.”

Newsom vetoed SB 771 on Monday, the last day he had to act. The legislature sent him the bill on September 22. If Newsom wouldn’t have rejected it, it would have become law anyway.

The governor called the bill “premature” in a short statement attempting to explain his decision. He said:

“I likewise share the author’s concern about the growth of discriminatory threats, violence, and coercive harassment online. I am concerned, however, that this bill is premature. Our first step should be to determine if, and to what extent, existing civil rights laws are sufficient to address violations perpetrated through algorithms.”

The Bill

The bill would have allowed people to sue social-media companies for up to $1 million per violation. If the litigant was a minor, the fine could’ve doubled.

However, critics suspected the proposal’s main goal was to coerce social-media companies into implementing censorious algorithms like the ones they did during the height of the Covid era. It was designed to pre-censor, to create an digital environment where certain views were forbidden.

The proposal included subjective and vague justifications for litigation. As we pointed out in a previous report, it included the feeling of “intimidation” as grounds for suing. In the United Kingdom, officers have justified arresting people for over social-media posts that caused others “anxiety.” It’s not hard to see that’s what SB 771 could’ve opened up.

Opposition and Support

The bill had strong opposition, including from NetChoice, the tech trade group made up of Google, Meta, and Snap. Elon Musk’s X and Parler also opposed it. Among the arguments they made was that SB 771 would have violated First Amendment protections.

Right-leaning pundits also bashed the proposal for its totalitarian potential. Tucker Carlson framed it as an attempt by California’s ruling class to quash online criticism of the policies that have destroyed the most populous and beautiful state in the Union. The proposal designated a protected class that would have censored those who spoke out against illegal immigration, the deviancy of the LGBTQ mob, and critics of Islam or Israel.  

On the other hand, George Soros’ Center for Countering Digital Hate was sold on the bill, the propagandists in the mainstream media did their best to frame it as nothing more than digital companion to already existing civil-rights protection law, and more than a dozen Jewish organizations supported it as well, according to reports.

Newsom’s Motivation

Newsom made a rare and good decision here. But it’s unlikely his intentions were well-motivated. After all, he did just sign a bill to create a reparations-administration agency.  

A common suspicion is that Newsom was hardly concerned about free speech and likely more worried about having to embark on future political campaigns without financial support from the tech gurus who’ve dumped millions into his previous campaigns, including executives from Google and Meta.

Whatever his motivation, the bottom line is that this is good news for Californians and anyone who believes that the digital world should be open to all ideas, not just those approved by the elites. As we pointed out in a previous report on this bill, social media, despite its many faults and foibles, has “democratized” the flow of information and loosened the elites’ long-held grip on the narrative. This is a major reason there have been so many efforts to restrict online speech. If you want to see what the goal for the United States is, just look at various parts of Europe. The European Union is bullying member states to muzzle their citizens and creating laws to target American tech companies that provide the platforms to exchange ideas that threaten the international oligarch class.

Keep reading

Ireland Rejects EU Hate-speech Dictate

The deadline to bow down to the European Union’s “hate speech” dictate has passed, and Ireland remains defiant. Last week, the country’s minister for justice, Jim O’Callaghan, said the government would not “reintroduce hate speech legislation previously rejected by parliament,” even though the EU continues to pressure them to do so.

“I’m fairly satisfied Ireland has transposed the European Council framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia in a manner appropriate and tailored to domestic law,” O’Callaghan said, according to reports.

In June, the EU told Ireland it had a two months left to comply with its censorship dictate or risk being dragged into international court. Ireland is accused of violating laws outlined in the EU’s 2008 EU Framework Decision, which requires member states to criminalize “hate speech” based on race, color, religion, descent, or ethnicity, as well as on Holocaust denial. Supposedly, the law is intended to prevent the incitement of violence.

But, as we recently reported, the idea of “hate speech” is a ploy for brainwashing people into believing that thoughts by themselves can be crimes.

Irish officials believe they already have sufficient laws to address the EU’s concerns without intruding on free speech. The “Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989” punishes those who incite hatred based on characteristics such as race, religion, or nationality. According to the Irish Courts Service, five convictions have been recorded under the act since 2017.

But EU officials say that the legislation is not good enough.

Keep reading

FREEDOM WINS: Irish Government Informs European Union That It Will Not Introduce Globalist ‘Hate Speech’ Laws

‘Free speech’ – no ‘hate speech’.

As Margaret Flavin reported on TGP last June, Ireland is holding the line for freedom against the European Union goons who wish to insert harmful legislation on every nation in the old continent.

The EU Court of Justice has warned Ireland that it has until August to comply with the ‘hate speech’ laws (a.k.a. censure).

Under existing EU rules on combating racism and xenophobia, the European Commission believes Ireland is allegedly uncompliant with laws ‘criminalizing race-based violence and hatred’.

August, of course, has come and gone, so today, on the Daíl (Irish Parliament), in a session scheduled for questions to the Minister of Justice Jim O’Callaghan, the issue was debated.

Breaking!

The Irish government has informed the EU they will not comply with a demand to force hate speech laws on the public.

Hugely significant moment for free speech. pic.twitter.com/hbgN4RrxNH

— MichaeloKeeffe (@Mick_O_Keeffe) October 9, 2025

“MP: ‘Is it your intention to reintroduce the hate speech legislation that was a dramatic failure in the last government and proposed by the previous Minister for Justice?’

Justice Minister: ‘The answer is no. But can I just give you an overview as to why the answer is no? I’m fairly satisfied that Ireland has transposed the European Council framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia in a manner appropriate and tailored to the domestic system of law in Ireland.’

Justice Minister: ‘I want to assure Members of the House that Ireland’s position has been communicated to the European Commission and our position is that the framework decision is fully transposed in Irish legislation in a manner that is appropriate and tailored to Ireland’s domestic system of criminal law and procedure.’

Justice Minister: ‘And is in line of course with Article 40.6 of the Constitution which expressly respects and protects the rights to freedom of expression and people to express their views freely.”

This confirmation comes a few days after the Donald J. Trump administration asking the Irish Government ‘to urge the European Union to allow member states to address hate speech as each sees fit’.

Keep reading

California “Hate Speech” Bill Would Crush Dissent

If enacted and it somehow clears legal challenges, California Senate Bill 771 will be the first online censorship law of its kind in America. It would also likely pave a path for other states run by people with no tolerance for dissent.    

On September 22, the California Legislature sent SB 771 to Governor Gavin Newsom. He has until October 13 to sign it. If he doesn’t veto or sign the proposal, it becomes law anyway.

Mainstream media outlets claim that SB 771 “targets social media platforms for the role they could play in aiding and abetting in hate crimes by pushing content that could lead to a hate crime.”

The bill allows people to sue social-media companies for up to $1 million per violation. If the litigant is a minor, the fine could double.

Tucker Carlson’s analysis of the bill is more accurate than the mainstream media’s. Carlson:

That’s a censorship law.… The state of California, under Gavin Newsom, is about to — we think — censor the opinions of Americans, not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they continue to do what they want to do in secret.

Coerced Censorship

The bill uses broad terms that make it easy to justify censorship. It reads:

California law prohibits all persons and entities, including corporations, from engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.

Merriam Webster defines “intimidated” as “to make timid or fearful.” Synonyms include “bully” and “frighten.” Fear and intimidation are subjective emotions that have significantly increased among America’s younger and more unstable generations. People are swimming in pools of victimhood and mental illness today. We constantly hear about a spike in anxiety. What happens when we create laws that allow litigation on the basis of largely subjective emotions?

But the more likely primary intent here is to coerce social-media companies into pre-censoring. The senior vice president of social-media company Parler, Elise Pierotti, said of the bill:

SB 771 isn’t about protecting civil rights, it’s California’s brazen attempt to export its one-party censorship regime to every corner of the internet. This bill hands Sacramento the power to bully platforms into preemptively scrubbing dissent on everything from border security to parental rights. We’ve seen Big Tech abuse vague “hate speech” rules to throttle conservatives for years, including shutting down our platform in 2021; now, lawmakers want to make it mandatory with teeth-shattering fines. This must be stopped before it buries the First Amendment.

Shoshana Weissmann, director of digital media at the R Street Institute, also suspects this is the drafter’s main agenda. She told the Daily Caller that “rather than risk liability for showing users content one could argue (even if it doesn’t actually) violate a law, platforms will over-moderate and remove posts in order to stay out of court.”

Keep reading

California’s Vague ‘Hate Speech’ Bill Would Force Big Tech To Censor Mainstream Conservative Views

alifornia lawmakers are once again leading the charge — not toward progress, but toward repression. Their latest move, Senate Bill 771 (SB-771), is being packaged as a bold stand against “hate” on social media. In reality, it’s a direct assault on the free expression and constitutionally protected speech of ministries, minority groups, and faith-based organizations.

The bill would force Big Tech to remove content that could be interpreted as “harassment” or “intimidation” based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and more — or face financially devastating lawsuits.

If Gov. Gavin Newsom signs this bill into law as expected, it will become one of the most dangerous speech-restricting laws in the country. Cloaked in the language of civil rights, SB-771 is built to punish dissent from progressive orthodoxy.

The target is anyone who dares to speak publicly about values or perspectives that conflict with the state’s ever-expanding list of protected identities. In practice, this means community groups sharing discussions on traditional family structures, cultural views on gender roles, or advocacy for certain social issues may find themselves silenced — not by law enforcement, but by tech giants eager to avoid legal risk.

The bills says:

California law prohibits all persons and entities, including corporations, from engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.

 3273.73. (a) A social media platform that violates Section 51.7, 51.9, 52, or 52.1 through its algorithms that relay content to users or aids, abets, acts in concert, or conspires in a violation of any of those sections, or is a joint tortfeasor in a violation of any of those sections, shall, in addition to any other remedy, be liable to a prevailing plaintiff for a civil penalty for each violation sufficient to deter future violations but not to exceed the following:

(1) For an intentional, knowing, or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to one million dollars

(2) For a reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to five hundred thousand dollars.


This language may appear just, but its sweeping terms — “intimidation,” “coercion,” even “aiding” — are dangerously vague. In the hands of ideologically motivated actors, they can be weaponized to silence constitutionally protected discourse under the guise of enforcing civil rights.

That’s the chilling brilliance of SB-771: it outsources censorship to the private sector under threat of state-enforced financial ruin. The law doesn’t need to directly ban speech — it just makes the cost of hosting it too high for Big Tech to tolerate. This will especially impact small ministries, minority-led organizations, and faith-based nonprofits with limited legal or technical resources. For them, one flagged post — perhaps a cultural reference taken out of context — could mean being shadow-banned or deplatformed altogether.

Keep reading

Canada To Revive Online Censorship Targeting “Harmful” Content, “Hate” Speech, and Deepfakes

A renewed censorship effort is taking shape in Canada as the federal government pushes ahead with a controversial bill targeting what it labels “harmful online content.”

Framed as a safeguard against exploitation and “hate,” the proposed legislation mirrors the widely criticized Bill C-36, which was abandoned after concerns about its vague language and expansive reach.

Bill C-63 would have established a powerful new Digital Safety Commission tasked with pressuring platforms to restrict user content.

If passed, the law would have compelled tech companies to remove flagged material such as intimate images shared without consent or child abuse content within 24 hours.

It also gives both the poster and complainant a chance to respond, but the final decision would ultimately fall to a state-backed regulator.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault attempted to justify the new push during a House of Commons committee meeting, stating the bill aims to remove “clearly harmful content” and is “designed to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

He added, “Online safety is certainly about protecting kids, but it’s obviously more than that.”

Beyond images and exploitation, the bill includes a broader mandate to police expression.

It calls for tougher Criminal Code penalties around so-called “hate propaganda,” including a life sentence for promoting genocide. It would create a new offense for “hate crimes” and let judges issue “peace bonds” to restrict someone’s freedom based on a prediction of possible future hate-based offenses.

On top of that, the proposal seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, allowing individuals to file complaints over online speech that meets a definition of “detestation or vilification,” as outlined by past Supreme Court decisions.

Keep reading

Free Speech and Its Discontents

The modern concept of the freedom of speech did not dawn until the Warren Court in the 1960s. In two cases, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no such thing as hate speech and the government may not do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.

In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court ruled that all innocuous speech — even that of a KKK leader publicly condemning Blacks and Jews — is protected and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it. The court had already ruled six years earlier in Bantam Books v. Sullivan that public officials’ threats to punish publishers unless they silenced their authors were prohibited by the values underlying the First Amendment.

At the core of both of these cases and their progeny is the First Amendment principle that the government — once this meant only Congress; today it means all government — may not evaluate or act upon the content of speech; it may only neutrally regulate time, place and manner. Thus, the use of a bullhorn on a public street in a residential neighborhood to advance a political cause at 3 a.m. may be prohibited because it unreasonably disturbs sleep, not because the government hates or fears the message.

Keep reading

“Hate Speech” Isn’t Real and Pam Bondi Is an Enemy of Freedom

Following the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, many critics of Kirk posted content on social media in which they said rude things about Kirk—and even about his family members—while expressing delight about Kirk’s death.  Not surprisingly, many of Kirk’s supporters—and many other ordinary people—found these comments offensive and reprehensible. 

Perhaps as part of an effort to exploit the situation to improve her own political fortunes, US Attorney General Pam Bondi then declared that she, a government prosecutor, will “go after” those who engage in what she called “hate speech.” 

“Hate speech,” however, does not exist. At all. That’s a phrase the Left invented to define speech the Left doesn’t like as outside the legal protections of Bill of Rights. Put another way, the concept of “hate speech” was invented to justify state-enforced censorship of speech. That Bondi buys into this nonsense is made clear by Bondi’s pledge to “go after” people who are guilty of this hate-speech “crime” that Bondi apparently imagines in her head.  

These comments, coming from a sitting Attorney General, are extremely problematic, to say the least. The very fact that Bondi unironically uses the term “hate speech” illustrates how deeply immersed she is in the culture of coercion and despotism that permeates the Washington ruling class. Any politician who promotes the concept of “hate speech” should be considered an enemy of our most fundamental natural rights, and his or her political career deserves to be ended permanently. 

There Is No Such Thing as Hate Speech

Bondi’s dangerous comments on so-called hate speech came as part of her Monday appearance on the Katie Miller podcast. When asked by the host if colleges and universities are somehow complicit in Kirk’s murder, Bondi agreed and stated:

on a broader level, the anti-Semitism—what’s been happening at college campuses around this country— it’s disgusting, it’s despicable and we’ve been fighting that, we’ve been fighting these universities left and right and that’s not going to stop.  There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society …. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

Keep reading

AG Pam Bondi Clarifies Her Stance on First Amendment Following Backlash — Says Her Office Won’t Prosecute “Hate Speech”

Attorney General Pam Bondi is scrambling to clarify her comments after a firestorm erupted over her suggestion that the Department of Justice would target so-called “hate speech.”

The controversy follows an outrageous incident at an Office Depot in Michigan, where three teenage boys were denied service after pre-paying for posters meant for a Charlie Kirk memorial vigil.

The smug employees—one identifying as a supervisor, another as a “manager”—flatly refused to print the order, dismissing the vigil posters as “propaganda.”

Office Depot corporate quickly issued an apology, announced an internal review, and confirmed the employee had been terminated.

But rather than directly addressing the broader climate of hate fueling these incidents, Bondi used her Fox interview to focus on discrimination claims against Office Depot:

“Employers, you have an obligation to get rid of people. You need to look at people who are saying horrible things, and they shouldn’t be working with you. Businesses cannot discriminate. If you want to go in and print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that. I have Harmeet Dhillon right now in our civil rights unit looking at that immediately. That Office Depot had done that—we’re looking at it.”

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh wasted no time unloading on Bondi for what he called a “gratuitous and pointless” use of DOJ resources:

“Get rid of her. Today. This is insane. Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone. We won that fight. Now Pam Bondi wants to roll it all back for no reason. This stuff is being handled successfully through free speech and free markets. We need the AG focused on bringing down the left wing terror cells, not prosecuting Office Depot for God’s sake.”

Keep reading