Tag: police state

How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech

A Freedom of Information response has confirmed what the UK’s speech regulator would probably have preferred to keep quiet. Ofcom fired off 197 information demands to American tech companies under the Online Safety Act, and not a single one went through the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, the formal diplomatic process that exists for exactly this kind of cross-border legal enforcement. Every one of those 197 notices was sent directly, by email or post, to companies operating entirely on American soil.

The number comes from a FOI request filed by Daniel Lü, who asked Ofcom a series of pointed questions about how it enforces the Online Safety Act against non-UK targets.

Ofcom confirmed that as of February 26, 2026, it had issued 197 Section 100 notices to US businesses. Zero through MLAT. The treaty between the US and UK that governs how one country’s legal process gets enforced in the other’s jurisdiction was treated as optional. Ofcom decided it didn’t apply.

That admission drew an immediate response from Preston Byrne, the American lawyer who represents 4chan and other US companies targeted by Ofcom.

Byrne called the 197 notices a “breathtaking” “attack on the First Amendment” and pointed out the uncomfortable math.

Only two US companies, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, have publicly refused to comply with Ofcom’s demands. If Byrne’s assessment is right, that leaves Ofcom enjoying “a 98% compliance rate with foreign censorship orders that violate the First Amendment.”

A British regulator sent nearly 200 demands to American companies, bypassed every established legal channel, and almost all of them appear to have simply done what they were told. The chilling effect is already here.

Keep reading

Secret Grand Jury Convened to Unmask Anonymous Government Critic on Reddit

Federal prosecutors have ordered Reddit to appear before a grand jury in Washington, D.C., and hand over the personal data of an anonymous user who posted criticism of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The company has until April 14 to comply. Reddit has declined to say whether it plans to fight the order.

The user, identified in court filings as John Doe, is a US citizen in the Pacific Northwest. Doe’s attorneys reviewed the account’s post history and found nothing resembling criminal activity.

The most aggressive posts they could locate: sharing already-public biographical details about Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who killed Renee Good in Minneapolis in January; suggesting “Urine speaks louder than words” as an anti-ICE protest sign (a reference to a song); and writing “TSA sucks and we all know it.”

Keep reading

Ban on step incest porn and ‘barely legal’ content in government climbdown

The government will ban so-called “barely legal” pornography of adults role-playing as children and depictions of some step-incest in a further crackdown on harmful online content.

There will also be a review into how pornography sites verify the age and consent of people featured in their videos, which will look at ways to allow people to withdraw previously given consent, Sky News has learnt.

The new measures mean the UK could have some of the strongest regulations of online pornography in the world, MPs told Sky News.

The government initially did not support the changes, leading to threats of a rebellion from female MPs who had been demanding further safeguards in light of a review into online pornography by the Conservative peer Gabby Bertin.

The review found online pornography was insufficiently regulated compared to offline, leading to an explosion of degrading, misogynistic and violent content.

Baroness Bertin tabled several amendments, which were passed in the House of Lords last month, inflicting defeats on the government.

This included a ban on pornography of adults pretending to be children, a ban on step incest pornography, the requirement for sites to verify age and consent and to allow people featuring in the videos to withdraw consent.

Keep reading

Ireland Is Rising Up and About to Explode – Government Brings in Tanks to Stop Anti-Globalist Protests

The Irish have had enough of open borders, high taxes and the total destruction of Ireland by the globalists running Europe.

Ireland is rising up. Their anger is directed at the ruling class which has made it quite plain the ambition is to replace the Irish as the native population. Ireland is now the canary in the genocide coal mine.

 Something very serious is unfolding in Ireland right now.

Major anti-Government protests have brought the entire Country to a halt for a second successive day, with protesters vowing to ESCALATE if the Government doesn’t meet their demands.

Ireland is about to EXPLODE…

Keep reading

Musk’s xAI Sues Colorado Over AI Law, Saying It Forces Developers to Back State’s Views

An artificial intelligence company founded by Elon Musk filed a lawsuit on April 9 over a Colorado law it claims makes AI developers endorse “Colorado’s views on diversity, equity, and inclusion or face significant compliance costs and civil fines.”

xAI, whose flagship product is the chatbot Grok, named Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser as the defendant. The lawsuit states that the law’s provisions “prohibit developers of AI systems from producing speech that the State of Colorado dislikes, while compelling them to conform their speech to a State-enforced orthodoxy on controversial topics of great public concern.” The lawsuit says the Colorado law violates the First Amendment.

Weiser didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

The lawsuit questions the use of the term “algorithmic discrimination” in the law, calling it vague.

The text of the law defines it this way: “Algorithmic discrimination means any condition in which the use of an artificial intelligence system results in unlawful differential treatment or impact that disfavors an individual or group of individuals on the basis of their actual or perceived age, color, disability, ethnicity, genetic information, limited proficiency in the English language, national origin, race, religion, reproductive health, sex, veteran status, or other classification protected under the laws of this state or federal law.”

The bill, SB24-205, was introduced in April 2024, passed the next month, and will take effect on June 30, 2026.

Keep reading

RI State Rep: Banning AR-15s Not Enough; We Should Use ‘Police Power’ to Ensure Owners Dispose of Them

On Wednesday, Rhode Island state Rep. Teresa Tanzi (D) spoke in support of efforts to repeal a legislative grandfather clause and use “police power” to force AR-15 owners to dispose of their rifles.

Breitbart News noted in March that Democrats in Rhode Island’s state legislature were trying to remove the grandfather clause that was contained in the “assault weapons” ban passed last year. The grandfather clause allowed those who owned newly prohibited firearms to retain possession of them. But now, the Democrats are pushing to remove the grandfathered aspect of the ban and implement a prison sentence for merely possessing an AR-15. The legislation through which they are attempting this is H8073.

Tanzi spoke in favor of H8703 on Wednesday, saying, “Last year, we as a body, banned the sale, manufacture, and transfer, of certain ‘assault weapons’ as defined in that law. That was an important step, but it was only a partial one. We should be honest about that.”

She continued:

Right now our law draws an arbitrary line. We have said that these firearms cannot enter the market place going forward, but we continue to allow them to remain in circulation indefinitely. … If these weapons are too dangerous to be sold in Rhode Island then we really should have addressed possession at the same time. We didn’t, and this bill [H8073] corrects that.”

Tanzi explained that H8073 will force current AR-15 owners “to come into compliance by selling or transferring them lawfully.”

Keep reading

UK Foreign Affairs Committee Calls for Government Agency to Police Online “Disinformation”

The UK’s Foreign Affairs Committee wants the government to build a new censorship agency. The proposed “National Counter Disinformation Centre” would be given the power to identify and act against speech the state considers “disinformation,” placed on a statutory footing, and modeled on bodies like Sweden’s Psychological Defence Agency, which once ran a public campaign warning citizens about the dangers of memes.

The committee’s report, published on March 27 2026, goes further than a single new body.

It calls for new censorship rules in a forthcoming Representation of the People Bill to target AI-generated content and “the creation and dissemination of disinformation.”

It wants amendments to the Online Safety Act that would force platforms to publicly display where user accounts were created and whether the user connected through a VPN. It wants more money for the FCDO’s Hybrid Threats Directorate. And it wants the government to review the National Security Act’s foreign interference offense because, apparently, an existing law that carries up to 14 years in prison isn’t strict enough.

Keep reading

Killing and Indifference

Is personal freedom a reality or a myth? Does the government execute the will of the governed or the will of those who finance its officials? Does the Bill of Rights restrain the government? Are the levers of government power pulled by those the governed have elected or those we don’t see? Do elections change anything?

Can the president kill people whom he suspects might commit a crime? Aren’t even those who would cause great harm entitled to due process? Isn’t everyone entitled to a fair trial in front of a neutral judge and jury before any punishment can be administered?

Aren’t all persons legally innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty? Isn’t this presumption of innocence the linchpin of American jurisprudence? At trial and before punishment, isn’t it the government’s obligation to prove every element of the crimes charged? Isn’t there no such thing in American jurisprudence as a presumption of guilt?

Aren’t punishments prescribed by law? Can the president make up a punishment and direct the military to administer it to folks he thinks are probably guilty of criminal behavior? Can federal officials perform unlawful acts with impunity just because they are ordered to do so by the president? Is “probably guilty” a sufficient legal standard for punishment?

In war, can the combatants morally target civilians and their structures? Is war waged against the people of a given country, or against its government and military assets? What happens when there is killing without consequence?

Which is worse, a president who kills whomever he wishes or a Congress that funds the killing and is indifferent to the moral, constitutional and legal consequences?

Can the president morally bomb civilians “into the Stone Age” in a country where the civilian population has little control over the government? Why kill or ruin large numbers of civilians whose liberation you have urged?

What is the purpose of a Constitution if it is not followed? Why take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and then not do so? Why limit war making to the Congress but then ratify the president’s war making as if the Constitution authorized it? If the U.S. bombs other countries to temper their offensive military appetite, who or what will temper America’s offensive military appetite?

Can Congress fund a war it has declined to declare? Why are undeclared wars now commonplace? What to do about a Congress that escapes its constitutional duties? Which is worse, a president who fights an undeclared war or a Congress that does nothing about it?

What is Congress afraid of? Where in the Constitution is the president empowered to spend billions killing foreign persons in an undeclared war? From what source does the president derive power to destroy a foreign land? Why was there no great American debate about war before the president began his killings?

Can the president order killings because he is in the mood for it or because it is fun? Doesn’t the Constitution establish a system of checks and balances so that one of the three branches of the federal government cannot amass power at the expense of either of the other two? Don’t the Constitution and history lay out the functions and powers of the branches of government, and aren’t they supposed to check each other so as to assure personal freedom?

What good are treaties if they’re not followed? Why are treaties the supreme law of the land along with the Constitution itself and all federal statutes? Why does the government violate treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter that U.S. officials wrote and U.S. presidents signed or acknowledged and the U.S. Senate ratified?

Can the president choose which laws he personally will obey and which he will personally violate? Can the government legally break its own laws? Can the president spend money from the U.S. Treasury that has not been authorized by Congress? Can the president impose a sales tax on all goods entering the U.S. from foreign countries? Can the president pick and choose which statutes to enforce and which to ignore? Why is computer hacking a crime, unless it’s done by federal agents?

Can the president put his own name on American cash? Can he put an image of his face on all your cash? Does Congress still write the laws and appropriate funds, or does the president now do these things on his own?

Is the president required to tell the truth? Is the government required to tell the truth? Why is it that the government can lie to the people but it is a crime to lie to the government? Does the government work for us, or do we work for the government? Does the government know more about us than we do about it?

What happens when the government is untruthful and the people believe it? Isn’t truth the essential bond between the government and the governed in a free society? Doesn’t the government derive its just powers from the consent of the governed? What happens when the government does things to which the governed have never consented?

Keep reading

Democrats Turn to Unconstitutional Exit Taxes After Their Policies Drove the Wealthy Out of Blue States

Democrats believe all our money belongs to them. They believe they have the moral and legal authority to take the money we earn and redistribute it to their preferred constituencies, while ignoring (or even facilitating) massive fraud and enriching themselves in the process. 

With the news of massive fraud scandals in Minnesota and California, it’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a fraud problem, and we’d bet the majority of our deficit could be erased if we eliminated fraud. But Democrats don’t have any interest in doing that. They just keep taxing people more and more to make up for their fiscal mismanagement. 

And when they raise taxes, the people who can afford to move from those blue states to tax-friendlier red states. That leaves the blue states with even more self-inflicted budget woes.

Rather than roll back wealth taxes, Democrats have decided to tax the people even more in the form of an exit tax, and that concept is gaining traction in blue states.

Keep reading