Tag: police state

EU Commission Sues Five Member States Over Censorship Law Non-Compliance

Five EU member countries are being taken to court by the EU Commission for failure to “effectively” comply with the bloc’s online censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA).

DSA, and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), are EU’s key regulations often criticized for centralizing the bloc’s power in the digital sphere at the expense of free speech, and tech companies’ business interests – but also, it appears, the sovereignty of member countries.

Among the “May infringements package” covering various areas regulated by the EU is the section dedicated to the digital economy. It is here that the Commission announced legal action against Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, and Spain.

These countries have been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union; Bulgaria, meanwhile, has been put on notice and may eventually also find itself in court, unless it empowers a national digital services coordinator (DSC, a role established under DSA) and “lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements (of DSA).”

The EU Commission said that designating and empowering DSCs is an essential step in enforcing the DSA rules and “in ensuring the uniform application” of the regulation across the bloc.

Of the five EU members that are already in court, Poland has not designated or empowered a DSC at all, while the other four have done that – but failed to “entrust them with the necessary powers to carry out their tasks under the DSA.”

All five countries have yet to come up with rules regarding penalties for DSA infringement.

Keep reading

French justice minister calls for abolishing cash

France’s Justice Minister Gerald Darmanin has proposed abolishing cash transactions, arguing that digital payments – including cryptocurrencies – are much easier to trace than physical money and would help authorities combat drug trafficking and other criminal activity.

Restrictions on cash transactions in France and across the EU have already tightened in recent years.

Speaking before a Senate commission on Thursday, Darmanin said that “a large part of daily delinquency and even criminal networks rely on cash,” and declared that “the end of cash would prevent the establishment of drug dealing points.”

Darmanin, who previously oversaw public finances as Minister of Public Action and Accounts, acknowledged that banning physical money wouldn’t eliminate the drug trade, but insisted that “once the money is traceable,” it becomes “more complicated” for both consumers and dealers to escape financial oversight.

Keep reading

Texas Democrats Slam GOP Lieutenant Governor For Championing Hemp Product Ban That Has Now Passed The House

Lawmakers in the Texas House of Representatives have passed a measure to establish a statewide ban on consumable hemp products that contain any detectable amount of THC.

The House approved the bill, SB 3, on third reading vote of 87–54 on Thursday.

Under the latest version of the proposal, championed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who presides over the Senate, adults could face a $500 fine for possessing a hemp product containing any THC—a penalty that would climb to up to 180 days in jail for subsequent offenses.

Earlier this week, Patrick wrote on social media that “we cannot in good conscience leave Austin without banning THC.”

“I’ve been here for 17 years at the Texas Capitol—10 years as your lieutenant governor,” he said in a video Monday evening. “I’ve never been more passionate about anything.”

Democrats have attacked the bill as an assault on personal liberty and gone after Patrick for his zeal around the ban.

“Dan Patrick is coming for your THC,” the party posted on social media. “Why doesn’t he bring this kind of energy to fully funding our public schools and raising teacher pay?”

“In the so-called ‘freedom state’,” it added, “adults should have the right to use cannabinoid products. We allow alcohol and tobacco—why not a gummy or oil to relax and ease pain?”

Keep reading

A Top Antitrust Enforcer Is Open To Prosecuting People Who Disagree With Him

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Mark Meador recently insinuated that his agency may investigate nonprofits and academic institutions that object to antitrust enforcement actions without disclosing their donors for deceptive practices. While Meador may think it’s OK to probe parties for disagreeing with him, the FTC’s consumer protection remit does not sanction prosecuting those who reject the commissioner’s antitrust ideology.

Meador recently reposted a video of him discussing the “academic whitewashing” of antitrust during an event hosted by American Compass and the Conservative Partnership Institute on May 1. (While no full recording of the event exists at press time, an employee of American Compass tells Reason that the clip is from the aforementioned event.)

Meador complains about academics “renting out their Ph.D. [and] their reputation to advocate for the interests of giant corporations.” He rightly acknowledged that people are free to do whatever they want but then said that the FTC brings “enforcement actions against influencers and reviewers who advocate for products without disclosing that they’re being paid for it.”

Meador wondered aloud whether nonprofit employees and academics who advocate “for the interests of certain corporations or mergers in their white papers and their op-eds without ever disclosing that they’re being paid to do so” may also be guilty of deceptive practices. He did not state that the FTC would bring enforcement actions against academics but said it’s “worth investigating.”

While Meador may think “it’s an interesting question” whether he may prosecute his ideological opponents, the Supreme Court has already provided an answer. Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, understands the ruling in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) as holding that, “when it comes to speech that is neither commercial advertising for a product…nor specifically election-related, broader First Amendment precedents would indeed preclude such disclosure requirements.”

Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union and senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, tells Reason that “the Supreme Court has expressly distinguished between commercial and other communications.” Citing Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985), Strossen says “compulsory disclosure regarding non-commercial expression is presumptively unconstitutional.”

Keep reading

Inside the Brussels Showdown Over Europe’s Speech Police

On a mild Brussels morning, inside the halls of the European Parliament, a group of politicians, legal scholars, and policy skeptics gathered to talk about a piece of legislation most Europeans haven’t read, but which may soon be quietly reshaping how they speak, share, and think online.

Yesterday’s event, hosted by MEPs Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, with support from ADF International, focused on the increasingly controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), a law initially sold as a digital shield against misinformation and tech giant abuse, but which critics now say has evolved into something more aggressive.

The conference title “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression” tells you everything you need to know about the mood in the room.

Virginie Joron, a French MEP, opened the event with a direct shot at what she sees as the DSA’s unspoken evolution. “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act,” she said. Her argument: a law intended to protect rights is now being used by institutions to regulate dissent on platforms like Facebook, Telegram, and X.

Many have previously tried to dismiss this as anti-Brussels paranoia. But even the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour has flagged the DSA’s “chilling implications” for open debate in Europe.

The devil, as always, lives in the definitions. Who decides what’s “disinformation”? What counts as “hate speech”? How far can governments go in flagging and removing content that someone, somewhere, considers problematic?

Paul Coleman, the Executive Director of ADF International, doesn’t seem particularly reassured by the current answers. “Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago,” he told the room.

Keep reading

Eco-Fascism – 2026 Ballot Measure Seeks “End Of Farming” In Colorado

The Trump administration, focused on delivering economic growth and food production in the U.S., is attracting the opposition of zealots and degrowth monied interests alike. 

To wit; two radically authoritarian ballot measures – which have the support of initiatives and frameworks of International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) – ask Colorado and Oregon voters to give up the family dog and hand over their private property rights in what some have called “the end of farming and ranching” in the Mile High state.

The first measure, Colorado ballot initiative 2025-2026#82, reads like a dictator’s manifesto – and is essentially a carbon copy of the CCP-backed Convention on Biological Diversity’s wildlands project.

The eight-page “Colorado Wildlife and Biodiversity Protection Act” seeks to create the Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation Commission (WECC). 

Astonishingly, the WECC would consist of nine appointed members, with the petition strictly stipulating that no member can have any financial ties to agriculture, energy, or development. The petition then goes on to (laughably) assert that these supposed “elite” members – without “financial ties” – will be appointed by universities, environmental groups, and policy institutes. Naturally,  this commission will have total control over agriculture, energy, and all future development in Colorado. 

Keep reading

The UK’s Digital ID Era Starts This Summer

A sweeping transformation of the UK’s identity systems is underway, with the government poised to launch a digital identity wallet this summer. Beginning with a digital version of the Veteran card and expanding to include driving licenses later this year, the initiative is designed to eventually consolidate all government-issued credentials into a single, centralized app by 2027.

While pitched as a modernization effort, this dramatic shift toward a digital-first ID system has sparked serious concerns about surveillance, data security, and individual autonomy in an increasingly watchful society.

To enroll in the system, users will be expected to provide personal documentation.

The Gov.uk Wallet, as it is known, represents a fundamental redesign of the relationship between the state and its citizens.

This overhaul comes at a time when nearly 50 million people across the UK could be affected by the new digital infrastructure. While specific instructions on how to apply for or access the wallet have yet to be detailed, the direction is clear: the UK is moving toward a society where physical IDs may soon be relics of the past.

The government frames the change as part of its larger digitization strategy, yet the scale and permanence of eventual biometric data collection call into question the long-term implications for individual freedoms.

The introduction of digital driving licenses has also been tied to broader regulatory reforms, including newly proposed rules for e-scooter purchases. Buyers will need to provide license details as a form of identity verification, reinforcing the idea that access to everyday services will increasingly hinge on digital ID systems. This entrenchment of digital identity into daily life carries substantial consequences: it embeds surveillance mechanisms into transportation, access to benefits, and public services in ways that may be difficult to reverse.

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

Texas House Approves Bill To Ban Consumable Hemp-Derived THC Products

The Texas House late Wednesday gave initial approval to a bill that would ban all products containing tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, likely spelling the end for the state’s short-lived hemp industry.

Under the legislation, which is nearing the governor’s desk for approval, adults would face up to a year in jail for possessing hemp products with any amount of THC—a stricter penalty than what is on the books for possessing up to 2 ounces of marijuana.

The bill’s expected passage portends a minor earthquake for the state’s economy, effectively shuttering a field that, by one estimate, accounts for roughly 50,000 jobs and generates $8 billion in tax revenue annually.

THC products, now a ubiquitous presence at gas stations, convenience stores and thousands of other retailers across Texas, are now poised to be taken off the shelves. The about-face comes six years after the Legislature inadvertently touched off a massive boom in hemp-based products when lawmakers, intending to boost Texas agriculture, authorized the sale of consumable hemp.

Though that 2019 law does not allow products to contain more than trace amounts of delta-9 THC, it did not establish that same threshold for other hemp derivatives. Critics say the hemp industry has exploited that loophole to the tune of more than 8,000 retailers now selling THC-laced edibles, drinks, vapes and flower buds.

The vote ended months of suspense over how the House would handle competing calls to ban or regulate THC, the psychoactive element in marijuana.

This session, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who oversees the Senate, has led the charge to eradicate the industry, which he accuses of preying on susceptible minors by setting up stores near schools and marketing products to children. The Senate passed legislation in March to ban all THC products, and the Republican leader threatened to force an overtime session of the Legislature if the House did not get on board.

“I’ve been here for 17 years at the Texas Capitol—10 years as your lieutenant governor. I’ve never been more passionate about anything,” Patrick said in a video posted on social media Monday evening. “I’m not gonna leave Austin until we get this done.”

Keep reading

European Commission Accused of Orchestrating $735M Speech-Control Campaign

A new report has uncovered an expansive and quietly orchestrated campaign by the European Commission to shape public discourse through nearly €649 ($735M) million in taxpayer-funded projects aimed at regulating online speech.

Titled Manufacturing Misinformation: The EU-Funded Propaganda War Against Free Speech, the document was released by the think tank MCC Brussels and authored by Dr. Norman Lewis, a seasoned analyst of digital communication and regulatory policy.

Behind the EU’s frequent calls to combat “hate speech” and “disinformation” lies what the report describes as a vast ideological infrastructure designed to erode free expression under the guise of safety and civic empowerment.

The Commission, the report states, “has funded hundreds of unaccountable non-governmental organizations and universities to carry out 349 projects related to countering ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation’ to the tune of almost €650 million.”

That staggering figure surpasses what Brussels spends on transnational cancer research by over 30%, a discrepancy the report calls deliberate: “The EU Commission regards stemming the cancer of free speech as more of a priority than the estimated 4.5 million new cancer cases and almost two million cancer deaths in Europe in 2022, for example.”

While EU officials present these programs as public-interest research, the report argues they constitute a form of “soft authoritarianism,” enshrining speech codes and narrowing acceptable opinion through bureaucratic manipulation. “This is a top-down, authoritarian, curated consensus,” it states, “where expression is free only when it speaks the language of compliance established by the Commission.”

Many of these initiatives feature a distinct use of vague and euphemistic terminology, part of what the report calls “NEUspeak;” a deliberate linguistic strategy designed to obscure intent and preempt scrutiny. The project acronyms alone, such as FAST LISA and VIGILANT, are described as a form of branding deceit.

Keep reading