Tag: moral panics

‘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

GOP Senator Introduces Bill to Make All Porn a Federal Crime, Following Project 2025 Playbook

Last year, the rightwing think-tank the Heritage Foundation launched Project 2025, which laid out much of the policy blueprint for the current Trump administration. One of the project’s espoused goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. Now, a Republican senator with kind words for Trump has introduced a bill that would do just that.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which would effectively criminalize all pornography nationwide by legally redefining what it means to be obscene. For years, “obscenity” has been all but a defunct legal category that narrowly defines speech that remains unprotected by the First Amendment. Lee would explode this legal category, expanding it to encompass virtually all visual representations of sex.

According to the bill text, “a picture, image, graphic image file, film, videotape, or other visual depiction” of any media that “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion” would be considered criminal. In other words, if you have an old VHS tape of some Cinemax-style smut stashed away in your garage, you could, under this law, be considered to be harboring deeply illicit materials. Some critics have suggested that Lee’s definition of obscenity is so ridiculously broad that it could effectively criminalize Game of Thrones. That said, the punishments for merely possessing porn under the proposed law seem unclear at this point, as the legislation seems more focused on punishing the creators and distributors of racy material.

The law would “pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online porn,” The Daily Caller writes.

“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,” said Lee, in a press release about the bill. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Lee’s view of pornography hews closely to that of the Heritage Foundation, which has similarly sought to crush the smut industry. In its Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025 defines pornography as the “omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” and argues that the “people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned” and that “telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

It should be noted that porn has always been a hot-button issue and that critics have long tried to criminalize it. The history of the anti-pornography movement in the U.S. is a long and complicated one, littered with differing ideological justifications and strange bedfellows. In recent years, however, the anti-porn crusade has largely been led by the MAGA right.

Keep reading

New GOP Bill Seeks To Take Sledgehammer To Online Porn Industry

Congressional Republicans will introduce legislation Thursday that would severely crack down on internet pornography and potentially deal a major blow to the online porn industry.

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Republican Illinois Rep. Mary Miller’s Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would create a national definition of obscenity under the Communications Act of 1934 and amend the Supreme Court’s 1973 “Miller Test” for determining what qualifies as obscene, according to background on the bill exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The bill would pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online porn.

“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,” Lee told the DCNF. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Lee and Miller have been leading advocates in Congress to take on internet pornography at the federal level and protect children from exposure to online porn.

The lawmakers’ bill would make obscenity easier to prosecute by altering the three-pronged approach known as the Miller Test from the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. California, according to the background on the bill. The Miller Test determined content to be obscene if it appeals to “prurient interests,” describes sexual conduct “in a patently obscene way” and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

Lee and Miller are seeking to update that definition in part by changing the second prong about portraying sexual conduct “in a patently offensive way … specifically defined by the applicable state law.” Instead, their bill would determine content to be obscene if it depicts or describes “actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate or gratify the sexual desires of a person.”

Lee has justified the legislation in part by arguing that the Supreme Court’s “Miller Test” is no longer applicable in an era where porn is primarily viewed online and easy for children to access.

Keep reading

The Media Playbook for Measles Looks a Lot Like Its COVID Playbook — This Time, Kids Are the Pawns

There are moments in the history of a movement that test its resolve. For the medical freedom movement, this is one of those moments.

We are in the midst of another full-on attack by the pharmaceutical-industrial complex, aided and abetted by a beholden mainstream media united around its allegiance to a $69 billion vaccine industry.

Five years ago, we fought back as our government, Big Media and Big Pharma orchestrated and executed a COVID-19 fear campaign — a campaign built on lies, deception and censorship — and then parlayed the public’s fear into dangerous and deadly medical mandates and hospital protocols that continue to cause profound harm.

The upside to COVID-19 global disaster?

It opened the eyes of millions more people to the dangers of shoddily tested vaccines, regulatory agency hubris and one-size-fits-all “medicine.”

As our movement has grown exponentially, so has our threat to Big Pharma.

In response, we’re seeing the same tactics rolled out again. This time, it’s measles. This time, children are the pawns in pharma’s playbook.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) stood strong and stayed true to our mission during COVID. We’re standing just as strong now. We remain just as committed now to the truth, informed consent and medical freedom as we were during the pandemic.

As pharma ramps up its measles playbook, our No. 1 job is to dismantle the vaccine industry’s lies — broadcast far and wide through the industry’s most reliable and faithful megaphone: mainstream media.

The media would have you believe that measles is a “deadly” disease. But any suggestion that MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccines are safer than measles infection isn’t supported by facts.

In fact, between 2000 and 2024, nine measles-related deaths were reported to the CDC. During the same period, 141 deaths following MMR or MMRV vaccination were reported in the U.S. to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — suggesting the MMR vaccine can be deadlier than measles.

The media echo the same familiar refrain: The MMR vaccine is “overwhelmingly safe.”

In fact, the MMR vaccine is associated with serious health risks. The package insert for Merck’s MMRII says, “M-M-R II vaccine has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility.”

Research also shows the MMR vaccine causes febrile seizures, anaphylaxis, meningitis, encephalitis, thrombocytopenia, arthralgia and vasculitis. In 2004, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that boys vaccinated with their first MMR vaccine on time were 67% more likely to be diagnosed with autism compared to boys who got their first vaccine after their 3rd birthday.

The media insist there’s no viable treatment for measles — hence prevention, with the MMR vaccine, is the sole solution.

In fact, as CHD reported, doctors in West Texas are successfully treating measles with budesonide and vitamin A. Even the World Health Organization recommends vitamin A.

Yet some hospitals and doctors are refusing to treat measles patients with budesonide. Texas health officials rejected pleas by a treating physician to endorse the treatment and get the word out to hospitals about its effectiveness.

Sound familiar?

Keep reading

Canada’s Retail Marijuana Expansion Came With Only Modest Increases To Use, New Study Shows

Ever since recreational cannabis was legalized across Canada in 2018, researchers have been studying what that decision changed for Canadians.

We’ve learned, for example, that some patients immediately left the medical cannabis system, presumably to use recreational products instead. Conversely, legalization appeared to have no effect on Canadian alcohol sales.

We’ve similarly seen how cannabis retailing has evolved since it became legal.

Retailers suffered from product shortages during legalization’s first six months, but steadily expanded soon after. Canada went from having some 210 stores in April 2019 to 3,500 in April 2023. The ensuing competition pushed prices down 28 percent during that period.

Meanwhile, provincial governments have tried various regulatory approaches. Some initially restricted the number of stores to avoid tempting non-users. Québec still has 10 times fewer stores per capita than Ontario does as a result. Other provinces have set minimum prices to discourage people from overindulging. For example, Ontario won’t let wholesale prices drop below $2.28 per gram.

These developments in business and government policy prompted my latest research. I wanted to understand what effect retail expansion had on cannabis use. To do this, I analyzed consumer responses on government surveys collected between 2019 to 2023. I then compared these responses to the recreational cannabis consumer price index and the numbers of licensed stores in each province.

Did Canadians consume cannabis more widely, more frequently and at younger ages as it became more accessible and affordable? The answer was mostly no.

Keep reading