Supreme Court Greenlights Online Digital ID Checks

With a landmark ruling that could shape online content regulation for years to come, the US Supreme Court has upheld Texas’s digital ID age-verification law for adult websites and platforms, asserting that the measure lawfully balances the state’s interest in protecting minors with the free speech rights of adults.

The 6-3 decision, issued on June 27, 2025, affirms the constitutionality of House Bill 1181, a statute that requires adult websites to verify the age of users before granting access to sexually explicit material.

Laws like House Bill 1181, framed as necessary safeguards for children, are quietly eroding the rights of adults to access lawful content or speak freely online without fear of surveillance or exposure.

Under such laws, anyone seeking to view legal adult material online (and eventually even those who want to access social media platforms because may contain content “harmful” to minors) is forced to provide official identification, often a government-issued digital ID or even biometric data, to prove their age.

Supporters claim this is a small price to pay to shield minors from harmful content. Yet these measures create permanent records linking individuals to their browsing choices, exposing them to unprecedented risks.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

Keep reading

White House Announces Withdrawal Of Trump’s Drug Czar Nominee Who Embraced Medical Marijuana

The White House has notified Congress that President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)—who has publicly backed medical marijuana access—is being withdrawn.

About three months after Trump picked Sara Carter to become the next White House drug czar, the administration told lawmakers on Thursday that she’s no longer up for consideration for the position.

It’s currently unclear whether Carter withdrew from consideration herself or if it was a decision made by the president. Marijuana Moment reached out to the White House for comment, but a representative did not respond by the time of publication.

The notice published in the Congressional Record about the withdrawal of the nomination reads:

“WITHDRAWAL

Executive Message transmitted by the President to the Senate on June 26, 2025 withdrawing from further Senate consideration the following nomination:

SARA CARTER, OF TEXAS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, VICE RAHUL GUPTA, RESIGNED, WHICH WAS SENT TO THE SENATE ON MAY 6, 2025.”

There was some enthusiasm about Carter’s nomination among cannabis reform advocates, as she’s previously called medical marijuana a “fantastic” treatment option for seriously ill patients and said she doesn’t have a “problem” with legalization, even if she might not personally agree with the policy.

Given the role of ONDCP director in setting and carrying out the administrative agenda on drug policy issues, the fact that Carter went on the record enthusiastically endorsing medical cannabis represented a welcome development for advocates amid Senate confirmations of other officials with a mixed bag of marijuana records.

Under longstanding federal statute, the drug czar is prohibited from endorsing the legalization of Schedule I drugs in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), including marijuana. However, Democratic congressional lawmakers in April filed a bill that would remove that restriction.

Keep reading

Sweden plans to remove citizenship from people seen as threat to state

Sweden’s political parties have agreed that dual citizens who commit crimes that threaten national security should lose their citizenship.

A cross-party committee recommended that the change could be applied to anyone who had used bribes or false information to obtain their citizenship; and also if they committed crimes that were a threat to the state or came under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

But it stopped short of proposals by the minority government for gangsters to have their citizenship revoked.

Justice Minister Gunnar Strommer said Sweden was dealing with “violent extremism, state actors acting in a hostile manner towards Sweden, as well as systemic organised crime”.

Under Sweden’s constitution, revoking citizenship is currently not allowed and a vote will take place next year in parliament on changing the laws.

Centre-left opposition parties say that revoking gang criminals’ citizenship would be a step too far, as deciding how to define the law would be difficult. Two opposition parties, the Left and the Greens, said they could not back removing citizenship at all.

However, Sweden’s centre-right governing parties, backed by the more radical anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, want the changes to tackle the dramatic rise in gang crime and the high rate of gun killings.

“The proposals I received today will not give us the possibility to take back Swedish citizenship from gang leaders in criminal networks sitting abroad, directing shootings and bombings and murders on Sweden’s streets,” Strommer told Swedish Radio.

The government points to neighbouring Denmark, where citizenship can already be removed because of an act that is “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state”. The law was recently extended to include some forms of serious gang crime.

Sweden’s minority government has also moved to tighten rules on applying for citizenship.

Migration Minister Johan Forssell said that last year police reported 600 cases of people applying who were considered a threat to national security.

From June 2026, anyone seeking a Swedish passport will generally have to have lived in the country for eight years instead of five at the moment. Tests on Swedish language and society would also be included.

Keep reading

Nebraska Medical Marijuana Regulators Approve Emergency Rules Banning Flower Access For Patients

The Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission on Thursday approved emergency regulations to begin accepting medical cannabis applications as soon as Gov. Jim Pillen (R) gives his final green light.

State law requires him to do so by Tuesday.

The emergency regulations, unveiled for the first time minutes before the 10 a.m. meeting, largely mirror a legislative proposal that lawmakers stalled on last month. The regulations would take effect for up to 90 days, pending Pillen’s approval. The two medical cannabis-related laws that voters approved mandate that applications must start being accepted no later than July 1.

Commissioner Lorelle Mueting of Gretna, an addiction prevention specialist through Heartland Family Service, affirmed that commissioners want public feedback on the emergency regulations through July 15, to inform future, formal regulations.

Public comments may be submitted to lcc.frontdesk@nebraska.gov, the repository for the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, which will forward the messages onto the state’s new Medical Cannabis Commission.

“The input that the public provides on these emergency regulations will help us immediately begin drafting the regular regulations,” Mueting said Thursday.

Keep reading

The Coming Police State

A foreign entity attacks American persons or property and the government warns that its sleeper cells have infiltrated the United States and it is somehow necessary to expand the powers of the government and shrink protections for civil liberties – and this shrinkage will somehow keep us all safe.

The premise of this deeply flawed argument is that less liberty produces more safety. That premise is historically and morally erroneous. Even if we had cops watching us on every street corner or FBI agents virtually in every home, who will keep us safe from them? And who would want to live, who could be private and free, in such an environment?

Here is the backstory.

When James Madison referred to the creation of the American republic as an inversion, he must have been met with quizzical looks and curious laughter. He meant that throughout history, popular governments came about by monarchs and despots – the sovereign – begrudgingly giving up power. This was, to Madison, power giving liberty.

In America, however, Madison argued – following his neighbor and good friend Thomas Jefferson, who maintained that individual persons are sovereign – the government came about by an inversion of the old way. In America, liberty gave power.

Thus, at the end of the American war for independence, which began 250 years ago, there was no central government here. The king’s agents and soldiers had been chased back to England, and many of his judicial and administrative officials retreated into private life or suddenly became patriots.

The 13 states were the only meaningful governments, and all persons – actually, all land-owning adult white males – were recognized as sovereign. I say “recognized” because Jefferson’s theory of the primacy of the individual over the state was his understanding of Natural Law Theory, and the natural law is color- and gender- and wealth- and status-blind. It teaches that all human beings possess equal natural rights from birth, recognized at the age of reason, and exercisable upon earliest adulthood.

Hence, because of perverse racial attitudes about Africans and Native Americans and antediluvian attitudes about women and wealth, Jefferson’s iconic language in the Declaration of Independence that “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” makes no sense unless it is understood to mean that all persons are created equal.

This uniformity of equality, which colonial society here limited to adult, white, landowning males, nevertheless was voluntarily exercised so as to create a limited government. When the Constitution was ratified by voters in the states – in numerous conventions, town meetings and political gatherings – it literally consisted of liberty giving power. This was Madison’s inversion.

But the power that individuals morally gave – legally, the power that the states delegated to the new central government – was not without limits. And those limits were reduced to writing in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Basically, the Constitution established the new federal government, and the Bill of Rights restrained it. In the late 1860s, new amendments were added to the original Constitution that essentially applied the Bill of Rights to states and local governments.

The premise of the Bill of Rights – purely Jeffersonian and Madisonian – is that because our rights come from the Creator, they are inalienable; and hence each of us is sovereign. The Bill of Rights does not create rights; rather it restrains the government from interfering with them.

The key amendments for this discussion are the First (restraining the government from interfering with religion, assembly, speech and writings) the Fourth (guaranteeing the right to be left alone, and prohibiting searches and seizures unless by warrant issued by judges based on probable cause of crime), and the Fifth and 14th, which together guarantee fair trials to all persons whenever the government seeks their lives, liberties or property.

Now back to the coming police state.

Keep reading

B.C. government realizes EV mandates not achievable: leaked slideshow

The Energy Futures Institute released a copy of a government slideshow presentation on Tuesday (June 24) that reveals the B.C. government is considering easing electric vehicle mandates due to slumping sales.

“It’s been obvious for a long time that B.C.’s electric vehicle targets were unattainable,” said Barry Penner, Energy Futures Institute chair and former B.C. Liberal environment minister, in a news release. 

B.C. passed the Zero Emission Vehicles Act in 2019, becoming the first jurisdiction in the world to mandate 100 per cent electric vehicle sales by a specific target date. The target is only for vehicles under a certain weight category. By 2026, 26 per cent of vehicle sales must be for electric models. By 2030, this must be 90 per cent and by 2035, 100 per cent.

Automakers selling cars in B.C. are required to demonstrate they are meeting the targets.

The slideshow, dated June 18 and presented by Nat Gosman, an assistant deputy minister from the Energy and Climate Solutions ministry, acknowledges that electric vehicle sales in B.C. have “levelled off” and reaching the mandated targets at this point will be “challenging.”

According to the presentation, sales were at 15.3 per cent in April after averaging 18.5 per cent in the first three months of 2025 and 22.4 per cent in 2024.

Keep reading

How To Free America From EU Censorship

On January 20, 2025, the first day of his second presidential term, Donald Trump signed an executive order: “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” The bad old days of the “censorship-industrial complex,” allegedly responsible for suppressing online speech under President Joe Biden, were over.

Except they weren’t. The driving force behind online censorship had never been the U.S. government, which meant that freedom of speech could not be restored by the stroke of a president’s pen. Rather, the European Union has wielded its Digital Services Act (DSA) to restrict the speech not just of Europeans but especially of Americans and other English-speakers. The E.U. has not violated the free-speech rights of Americans, since it has no obligations under the U.S. Constitution. But it has vitiated those rights, essentially nullifying the First Amendment in cyberspace.

The DSA is not a “threat” to free speech, as some American commentators put it, implying that possible danger lies in the future. Because the DSA is in force now, all major online platforms and search engines must comply with it to remain on the E.U. market. There is effectively no free speech on the internet nowadays, at least not on the major platforms falling under the DSA’s strictest provisions, but only more or less heavily curated, algorithmically managed speech.

Some supporters of President Trump might find this hard to believe. After all, the president’s most prominent ally and advisor is Elon Musk, whose purchase of Twitter in 2022 was said to be motivated by a desire to restore free speech to the platform. But Musk has always insisted that “freedom of speech is not freedom of reach,” and there’s the rub. Using platform algorithms to restrict reach artificially is a form of censorship, one that is not only compatible with the DSA but even encouraged by the E.U.

The Trump Administration can truly restore free speech to the internet only by confronting the European Union. The administration needs to challenge the DSA, to get it repealed or at least neutered. If the E.U. refuses to back down, then the administration will need to work with Congress to pass a law ensuring that American tech companies cannot comply with the DSA by restricting Americans’ First Amendment rights.

Keep reading

German police launch nationwide crackdown on online ‘hate speech’

Germany’s law enforcement authorities have launched a nationwide crackdown on alleged internet ‘hate speech’, the Federal Criminal Police (BKA) have announced. Two thirds of the cases being investigated are linked to “right-wing” ideologies, the BKA said, with the media reporting they often involve “insults against politicians.”

Some “isolated cases” have been tied to “religious… left-wing and foreign” ideologies, according to police. More than 140 criminal investigations have been opened across all German states.

The list of the most common crimes included incitement of hatred, use of prohibited symbols, and approval of crimes and insults, the police said. According to Germany’s ARD broadcaster, the criminal cases often involve “insults against politicians.” 

The police operation included over 65 searches and “numerous” questionings, the BKA stated. Law enforcement has not reported that any suspects were detained as part of the investigations. The BKA also called on the people to “support” the police and contribute to combating online hate by reporting “hate postings” to either law enforcement or their network providers.

Keep reading

COPPA 2.0: The Age Check Trap That Means Surveillance for Everyone

A new Senate bill designed to strengthen online privacy protections for minors could bring about major changes in how age is verified across the internet, prompting platforms to implement broader surveillance measures in an attempt to comply with ambiguous legal standards.

The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (S.836) (COPPA 2.0), now under review by the Senate Commerce Committee, proposes raising the protected age group from under 13 to under 17. It also introduces a new provision allowing teens aged 13 to 16 to consent to data collection on their own.

The bill has drawn praise from lawmakers across party lines and received backing from several major tech companies.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Supporters frame the bill as a long-overdue update to existing digital privacy laws. But others argue that a subtle change in how platforms are expected to identify underage users may produce outcomes that are more intrusive and far-reaching than anticipated.

Under the current law, platforms must act when they have “actual knowledge” that a user is a child.

The proposed bill replaces that threshold with a broader and less defined expectation: “knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.” This language introduces uncertainty about what constitutes sufficient awareness, making companies more vulnerable to legal challenges if they fail to identify underage users.

Instead of having to respond only when given explicit information about a user’s age, platforms would be required to interpret behavioral cues, usage patterns, or contextual data. This effectively introduces a negligence standard, compelling platforms to act preemptively to avoid accusations of noncompliance.

As a result, many websites may respond by implementing age verification systems for all users, regardless of whether they cater to minors. These systems would likely require more detailed personal information, including government-issued identification or biometric scans, to confirm users’ ages.

Keep reading

Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission Proposal Will ‘Destroy Patient Access,’ Advocates Say

It’s unclear what requirements the state commission to regulate medical cannabis in Nebraska might enact to license such operations by this fall, ahead of a deadline next week for detailing the criteria for applications.

The Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission has until July 1 to write licensing criteria under state law. But as commissioners gear up for their next meeting Thursday, the first with all five commissioners, they have indicated they will consider adopting draft or emergency criteria to accept or deny licensing applications after July 1.

Licensing must begin by October 1, the same time any other requirements for medical cannabis must be enacted, according to a pair of laws that voters overwhelmingly approved in a pair of November ballot measures.

However, with just hours until the next commission meeting, there is no specific indication of what criteria the board will consider.

Also on the agenda is a legal “memorandum of agreement” to help with future rulemaking involving the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Gov. Jim Pillen’s (R) Policy Research Office, the policy lobbying arm of the state’s chief executive.

No draft rules or regulations, including licensing criteria, have yet been made public.

Crista Eggers, executive director of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, which has led medical cannabis ballot measures since 2020, said she’s faced a lack of transparency and been unable to reach the commission or have questions answered in recent weeks, leaving many advocates “extremely frustrated.”

“I didn’t know we could be more frustrated than what we have been previously, but there just seems to be a new layer added every single day,” Eggers said Tuesday.

Keep reading