Tag: moral panics

France considers requiring Musk’s X to verify users’ age

The French government is considering designating X as a porn platform — a move that will likely have the platform implementing strict age verification requirements.

Such a designation could effectively ban children from accessing the social media app unless it curtailed adult content. Paris has recently upped its efforts to protect kids online by requiring age verification by porn platforms.

“X has indicated since 2024 that it accepts the distribution of pornographic content. It must therefore be treated as such,” Digital Minister Clara Chappaz’s office told POLITICO.

Her team has been tasked with “examining the designation of X in the decree concerning pornographic sites that must verify the age of their users.”

The confirmation follows an appearance by Chappaz on French TV show “Quotidien” on Thursday evening, where she said X will soon receive “the same pretty papers as YouPorn” instructing X to ban adult content or implement age screening.

Porn platforms serving content in France are required to implement age verification measures with a final deadline of June 7, although some are protesting.

Failure to comply could see sites fined, delisted from search engines or blocked completely.

Keep reading

GOP-Led Congressional Panel Demands Investigation On Biden’s Marijuana Rescheduling Process, Citing ‘Deviations’ And ‘Mental Health Hazards’

A key GOP-led House committee is asking for a review of the cannabis rescheduling recommendation issued under the Biden administration, expressing concerns about “deviations” from a prior review process as well as the “mental health hazards of regular use of high-potency marijuana.”

In a report attached to a large-scale spending bill for the 2026 fiscal year, the House Appropriations Committee included several sections focused on marijuana and hemp—while also encouraging further research into the therapeutic potential of psychedelics. The panel is set to vote on the bill and report language on Wednesday.

For cannabis advocates and stakeholders, however, the report’s marijuana scheduling language is troubling, with members stating that they’re “concerned about deviations from established drug scheduling evaluation standards in the [Food and Drug Administration, or FDA] 2023 marijuana scheduling review.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that cannabis be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). That process has since stalled out amid legal challenges from witnesses in DEA administrative hearing proceedings.

“The Committee directs the HHS Inspector General to complete a report on the 2023 marijuana scheduling review including but not limited to: deviations from the established five-factor currently accepted medical use test, justification for a new, two-factor currently accepted medical use test and whether this will be the standard for all future reviews, use of a limited number of hand-selected comparator substances, and inclusion of research results that are not statistically significant or inconclusive,” the report section says.

The flagged issues largely echo concerns raised by prohibitionist organizations such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM). And the language is consistent with an earlier version of the agriculture spending legislation that advanced though committee but was not ultimately enacted last session.

“The Committee is concerned about reports of the mental health hazards of regular use of high-potency marijuana, particularly among adolescents,” it says. “The Committee encourages the FDA to support research on high-potency marijuana and its effects on the adolescent brain, specifically regarding addiction and mental illness such as schizophrenia or psychosis.”

“Marijuana Rescheduling.—The Committee is concerned about deviations from established drug scheduling evaluation standards in the FDA 2023 marijuana scheduling review. The Committee directs the HHS Inspector General to complete a report on the 2023 marijuana scheduling review including but not limited to: deviations from the established five-factor currently accepted medical use test, justification for a new, two-factor currently accepted medical use test and whether this will be the standard for all future reviews, use of a limited number of hand-selected comparator substances, and inclusion of research results that are not statistically significant or inconclusive. The Committee is concerned about reports of the mental health hazards of regular use of high-potency marijuana, particularly among adolescents. The Committee encourages the FDA to support research on high-potency marijuana and its effects on the adolescent brain, specifically regarding addiction and mental illness such as schizophrenia or psychosis.”

Elsewhere in the report, the panel also talked about their problem with “the proliferation of products marketed in violation of the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)], including products containing derivatives of the cannabis plant,” which is consistent with provisions of the underlying bill that would ban all hemp items containing “quantifiable” amounts of THC.

“The Committee is aware that non-FFDCA-compliant products pose potential health and safety risks to consumers through misleading, unsubstantiated, and false claims that cannabis and cannabis derivatives can treat serious and life-threatening diseases and conditions, including COVID–19 and cancer,” the report says. “Such products may also be contaminated with harmful substances.”

“The Committee recognizes FDA’s use of existing authorities to undertake cannabis-related efforts, including research, requests for data, consumer education, issuance of guidance and policy around cannabis-based drug product development, and enforcement against wrongdoers,” it continues. “The Committee expects FDA to continue and increase these efforts given the proliferation of non-FFDCA-compliant, cannabis-containing products and the risks they pose to public health.”

“Cannabidiol Oil Enforcement.—The Committee is concerned about the proliferation of products marketed in violation of the FFDCA, including products containing derivatives of the cannabis plant. The Committee is aware that non-FFDCA-compliant products pose potential health and safety risks to consumers through misleading, unsubstantiated, and false claims that cannabis and cannabis derivatives can treat serious and life-threatening diseases and conditions, including COVID–19 and cancer. Such products may also be contaminated with harmful substances. The Committee recognizes FDA’s use of existing authorities to undertake cannabis-related efforts, including research, requests for data, consumer education, issuance of guidance and policy around cannabis-based drug product development, and enforcement against wrongdoers. The Committee expects FDA to continue and increase these efforts given the proliferation of non-FFDCA-compliant, cannabis-containing products and the risks they pose to public health. The Committee also expects FDA to take enforcement action against the manufacturers of any cannabis products marketed with unlawful therapeutic claims to preserve the integrity of the drug development and approval processes, which ensures that products, including cannabis-containing products, marketed as drugs have undergone a rigorous scientific evaluation to ensure that they are safe, pure, potent, and effective for the diseases and conditions they claim to treat. It is also imperative that FDA continue to exercise its existing authorities to preserve incentives to invest in robust clinical study of cannabis so its therapeutic value can be better understood.”

The report further states that members expect FDA to “take enforcement action against the manufacturers of any cannabis products marketed with unlawful therapeutic claims to preserve the integrity of the drug development and approval processes, which ensures that products, including cannabis-containing products, marketed as drugs have undergone a rigorous scientific evaluation to ensure that they are safe, pure, potent, and effective for the diseases and conditions they claim to treat.”

“It is also imperative that FDA continue to exercise its existing authorities to preserve incentives to invest in robust clinical study of cannabis so its therapeutic value can be better understood,” the committee said.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies advanced the underlying bill last week, stirring controversy over provisions to prohibit cannabis products containing any “quantifiable” amount of THC or “any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals” as THC.

Keep reading

Southern Baptists target porn, sports betting, same-sex marriage and ‘willful childlessness’

Southern Baptists meeting this week in Dallas will be asked to approve resolutions calling for a legal ban on pornography and a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval of same-sex marriage.

The proposed resolutions call for laws on gender, marriage and family based on what they say is the biblically stated order of divine creation. They also call for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, is also expected to debate controversies within its own house during its annual meeting Tuesday and Wednesday — such as a proposed ban on churches with women pastors. There are also calls to defund the organization’s public policy arm, whose anti-abortion stance hasn’t extended to supporting criminal charges for women having abortions.

In a denomination where support for President Donald Trump is strong, there is little on the advance agenda referencing specific actions by Trump since taking office in January in areas such as tariffs, immigration or the pending budget bill containing cuts in taxes, food aid and Medicaid.

Remnants of the epic showdown in Dallas 40 years ago

Southern Baptists will be meeting on the 40th anniversary of another Dallas annual meeting. An epic showdown took place when a record-shattering 45,000 church representatives clashed in what became a decisive blow in the takeover of the convention — and its seminaries and other agencies — by a more conservative faction that was also aligned with the growing Christian conservative movement in presidential politics.

The 1985 showdown was “the hinge convention in terms of the old and the new in the SBC,” said Albert Mohler, who became a key agent in the denomination’s rightward shift as longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Attendance this week will likely be a fraction of 1985’s, but that meeting’s influence will be evident. Any debates will be among solidly conservative members.

Many of the proposed resolutions — on gambling, pornography, sex, gender and marriage — reflect long-standing positions of the convention, though they are especially pointed in their demands on the wider political world. They are proposed by the official Committee on Resolutions, whose recommendations typically get strong support.

A proposed resolution says legislators have a duty to “pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family” and to oppose laws contradicting “what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.”

To some outside observers, such language is theocratic.

Keep reading

Homeland Security hits back at claims ICE agent at Martha’s Vineyard has ‘white supremacist’ tattoo

The Department of Homeland Security has hit back at claims that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has a “white supremacist” tattoo after footage circulated online during an arrest operation in Martha’s Vineyard.

An ICE officer was spotted on the Massachusetts island last week with what appeared to be a Valknot tattoo, a Nordic symbol of the god Odin.

Charlie Giordano confronted the ICE agents and posted the footage on Instagram, the Martha’s Vineyard Times first reported.

“When reviewing the images I made of ‘ICE Agents’ on Martha’s Vineyard yesterday, I noticed several had the ‘Valknot’ tattooed on their arms,” Giordano posted on Instagram. “It’s a symbol often used by white supremacy groups.”

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin characterized the claim as a “smear” in a post on X Tuesday and said the officer was “a combat veteran.”

“His tattoo is a tribute to fallen warriors —a pretty common tattoo in the military among combat veterans who embrace the Nordic Viking warrior culture,” McLaughlin said.

“Attempting to smear this ICE officer and pretend his tattoo is meant to be a tribute to White Supremacy is false, pathetic, and insulting to veterans.”

Keep reading

‘The View’ Co-Host Sunny Hostin Says Elon Musk’s DOGE Cuts Have Killed 300,000 People — ‘Mostly Children’

The View co-host Sunny Hostin has claimed that Elon Musk’s government cuts have killed over 300,000 people, most of whom are children.

In Wednesday’s episode of the political talk show, Hostin and her fellow panelists reflected on Musk’s legacy after he recently departed the role of leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

“But the damage that he did was just really incredible,” Hostin declared.

“He slashed 250,000 federal employees, more than 8500 contracts, more than 10,000 grants, and his cutbacks on medical research cost the lives of — the foreign aid — cost 300,000 lives, mostly children.”

“That’s the damage that Elon Musk did,” she continued. “So I don’t think anyone should be listening to him about anything.”

It is unclear where Hostin sourced this so-called statistic, although her fellow co-hosts did nothing to push back on it.

“Elon knows the 411 on everything,” fellow co-host Whoopi Goldberg chimed in.

“Yeah, he got all that information,” Hostin agreed.

“So Trump should be afraid of him,” added Joy Behar. “He has the receipts on the election, too.”

Keep reading

DEA Promotes Claim That Marijuana Could Be More Likely To Cause Psychosis Than Meth

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is giving weight to the idea that marijuana could be more likely to cause psychosis than methamphetamine is—promoting a recent article where a psychiatrist indicated that the jury is out on the question.

In an email blast on Wednesday, DEA’s Just Think Twice campaign shared a link to the story from The Lund Report, with a subject line that asks: “Meth or Cannabis…Which Raises Risk of Psychosis More?”

“Studies have linked early and heavy use of cannabis to schizophrenia and psychosis,” DEA said, while prominently featuring a quote from Oregon-based psychiatrist David Rettew, who said there’s “overwhelming evidence that cannabis use, particularly for young people, changes the brain, and this is particularly true for adolescents.”

“But when it comes to psychosis, there’s really strong evidence at this point that cannabis raises the risk of psychotic disorders more than other drugs, even methamphetamines, which is surprising,” Rettew said.

While that was the only reference to meth in the original article, DEA evidently felt the standalone quote warranted more attention, with a subject line that indicated it was a key component of the reporting in the agency’s view.

This comes amid lingering questions about how DEA will navigate a pending marijuana rescheduling proposal that was initiated under the Biden administration. And while the agency has long been known to promote sensational claims about the risks of cannabis use, it appears there’s been a stepped-up push to reinforce that message, particularly for youth.

For example, DEA recently teamed up with an anti-marijuana organization to mark “National Prevention Week,” promoting a campaign that encourages people to share memes with dubious claims about the effects of cannabis—including the theory that it is a “gateway drug” to using other substances.

The memes ran the gamut, citing certain reports and studies that have been contradicted by other research. One meme claimed that cannabis use is associated with a 50 percent decrease in sperm count, which the DEA-promoted meme suggested could contribute to infertility.

In March, DEA separately promoted an “Anti-420 Day” campaign with Johnny’s Ambassadors that recruited students to send short videos warning their peers about marijuana use.

The plan was to “flood” Instagram with the short-form videos that would feature students talking about “why young people should not use THC.”

DEA has developed a reputation for its awkward messaging and educational materials around youth drug use.

Keep reading

Texas Mandates Digital ID To Access App Store Apps

Texas has moved to the forefront of a national campaign to regulate children’s access to digital platforms by mandating that Apple and Google verify the ages of all users on their app stores.

Under a new law signed by Governor Greg Abbott, set to take effect January 1, 2026, those under 18 will be required to obtain parental consent before downloading apps or making in-app purchases. The measure has been pitched as a way to protect minors, but privacy advocates warn it could come at the expense of everyone’s digital freedom.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The requirement places app store operators in the role of gatekeepers, forcing them to gather and store sensitive personal information to determine user ages.

Opponents argue that such age checks do not just affect young users, (explicit adult content apps are already banned from app stores) and they also undermine anonymity online by tying a person’s digital presence to a verified real-world identity. That level of surveillance risks chilling free expression and stifling dissent by making it harder for people to speak or access information without fear of being identified.

Efforts to regulate youth access to apps and online services are gaining traction elsewhere as well. Utah enacted a similar policy earlier this year, and Congress is weighing federal legislation. Texas lawmakers are also advancing a separate bill that would prohibit users under 18 from accessing social media altogether.

While the law does state that app developers should delete the personal data provided by the app store provider, the wider problem is that users will have to trust that an app developer will actually do so. App store providers such as Apple and Google will have to retain sensitive data on its users.

Supporters of the Texas law argue that app stores are uniquely positioned to serve as the central checkpoint for age validation. Meta, Snap, and X have praised the move.

Keep reading

Congressional Bill Aimed At Protecting Kids Online Could Cause Headaches For Marijuana Businesses

A newly filed bill in Congress aimed at protecting children online could create headaches for advertisers trying to promote legal marijuana and other regulated substances.

Titled the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), the bipartisan proposal—from Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) as well as Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—would create a “duty of care” for online platforms such as social media and streaming video services, requiring them to take steps to prevent access to potentially sensitive content by minors.

That includes advertisements for cannabis products and certain other drugs and services.

A factsheet from Blackburn’s office says the duty of care “requires social media companies to prevent and mitigate certain harms that they know their platforms and products are causing to young users.”

The sponsors say the legislation is necessary to protect children from pernicious practices that keep “kids glued to their screens” for hours a day, alleging that “Big Tech is trying every method possible to keep them scrolling, clicking ads, and sharing every detail of their life.”

The 63-page bill “targets the harms that online platforms cause through their own product and business decisions,” the factsheet says, “like how they design their products and applications to keep kids online for as long as possible, train their algorithms to exploit vulnerabilities, and target children with advertising.”

Much of the proposal is aimed at limiting content that fuels behavioral health disorders. Platforms would need to “exercise reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature to prevent and mitigate the following harms to minors,” it says, listing eating and drug use disorders, suicidal ideation, violence and harassment, sexual exploitation, financial harm and others.

As for controlled substances, online platforms would be prohibited from facilitating the “advertising of narcotic drugs, cannabis products, tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol to an individual that the covered platform knows is a minor.”

The provision around drug use lists the “distribution, sale, or use of narcotic drugs, tobacco products, cannabis products, gambling, or alcohol” as risks that platforms would need to actively guard minors against.

Video streaming platforms meanwhile, would be required “to employ measures that safeguard against serving advertising for narcotic drugs, cannabis products, tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol directly to the account or profile of an individual that the service knows is a minor.”

“Big Tech platforms have shown time and time again they will always prioritize their bottom line over the safety of our children, and I’ve heard too many heartbreaking stories to count from parents who have lost a child because these companies have refused to make their platforms safer by default,” Blackburn said in a press release about the legislation.

Keep reading

Sen. Mike Lee’s obscenity bill is a free speech nightmare straight out of Project 2025’s playbook

A new bill in Congress threatens to dictate what Americans can read, watch and say online. On May 8, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah and Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill.,  introduced the “Interstate Obscenity Definition Act” (IODA) — a recycled attempt to ban online pornography nationwide.

While concerns about pornography, including moral and religious ones, are part of any healthy public debate, this bill does something far more dangerous: It empowers the federal government to police speech based on subjective values. When lawmakers try to enforce the beliefs of some Americans at the expense of others’ rights, they cross a constitutional line — and put the First Amendment at risk. 

The legislation aims to rewrite the legal definition of obscenity, an area of law that represents a very narrow exception to First Amendment protections.

The IODA seeks to sidestep the Supreme Court’s long-standing three-part test for obscenity, established in the 1973 case Miller v. California. The material must appeal to a prurient interest, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Lee’s bill would scrap that standard and replace it with a broader, far more subjective definition. It would label content obscene if it simply focuses on nudity, sex or excretion in a way that is intended to arouse and if it lacks “serious value.” 

By discarding the concept of community standards, the IODA removes a key safeguard that allows local norms to shape what counts as obscenity. Without it, the federal government could impose a single national standard that fails to account for regional differences, cultural context or evolving social values.

The bill also deletes the requirement that material be “patently offensive,” a crucial element that keeps the obscenity test anchored in societal consensus. Instead, it replaces it with a subjective inquiry into whether the work was intended to arouse or titillate. But intent is notoriously difficult to prove and easy to allege. That language could easily sweep in a wide range of protected expression, including art, health information and sex education.

Keep reading

Redefining Obscenity: Lawmakers Take Aim at More Online Content

Two Republican lawmakers are advancing a bill that could dramatically expand the federal government’s ability to criminalize certain content online.

Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Mary Miller of Illinois have introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), legislation that aims to overhaul the legal definition of obscenity and give prosecutors wide authority to target more online content.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Supporters of the bill claim it is designed to protect families and children from harmful material, but civil liberties advocates warn that its sweeping language threatens to criminalize large swaths of constitutionally protected expression.

IODA discards key elements of the Supreme Court’s long-standing Miller test, which has served as the nation’s benchmark for identifying obscene content since 1973. Under that framework, courts assess whether material appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a “patently offensive” way by community standards, and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Lee and Miller’s bill replaces that careful balancing test with a rigid federal definition. According to the proposed language, content is considered obscene if “taken as a whole, [it] appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion,” if it “depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person,” and if it “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Promoting the bill, Lee declared, “Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children.” He added, “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Keep reading