Tag: police state

British Soccer Star Joey Barton Given Six Months Suspended Prison Sentence For ‘Grossly Offensive’ Posts on X

Former British soccer star Joey Barton has been given a six-month suspended sentence for making “grossly offensive” posts on the X platform.

In the latest escalation in the British state’s war on freedom of expression, 43-year-old Barton was found guilty last month at Liverpool Crown Court of six counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

The conviction related to posts he made targeting the football pundits Lucy Ward and Eni Aluko, as well as the BBC broadcaster Jeremy Vine.

Sentencing Barton on Monday, Judge Andrew Menary KC said that “robust debate, satire, mockery and even crude language may fall within permissible free speech.”

”But when posts deliberately target individuals with vilifying comparisons to serial killers or false insinuations of paedophilia, designed to humiliate and distress, they forfeit their protection.”

Menary went on to describe Barton as “not a man of previous good character” and said he had carried out “a sustained campaign of online abuse that was not mere commentary but targeted, extreme and deliberately harmful.”

While Barton’s comments could definitely be condemned as extremely unkind, most were intended as jokes or crass humor.

During an FA Cup tie in which Ward and Aluko were commentating, Barton described them as the “Fred and Rose West of football commentary,” a reference to the notorious British serial killers.

In another post, he mocked Jeremy Vine as a “bike nonce” and asked if he had visited Jeffrey Epstein’s private island.

Keep reading

11 Signs That Our World Is Rapidly Becoming A Lot More Orwellian

All over the globe, the digital control grid that we are all living in just continues to get even tighter. They are using facial recognition technology to scan our faces, they are using license plate readers to track where we travel, they are systematically monitoring the conversations that we are having on our phones, and they are watching literally everything that we post on social media. At this stage, many of us just assume that nothing that we do or say is ever truly private. We really do live in a “Big Brother society”, and the potential for tyranny is off the charts. In fact, people are already getting arrested for “thought crimes” all over the world. If we do not take a stand now, someday soon we could wake up in a world where there is essentially no freedom left at all.

The exponential growth of AI technology is allowing authorities to watch, track, monitor and control us like never before.  If you are not alarmed by this, you might want to check if you are still alive.  The following are 11 signs that our world is rapidly becoming a lot more Orwellian…

#1 UK authorities are rolling out “a country-wide facial recognition system” that will use AI facial recognition cameras to watch the entire population…

On Thursday, officials in the UK pledged to roll out a country-wide facial recognition system to help police track down criminals. The country’s ministers have launched a 10-week consultation to analyze the regulatory and privacy framework of their AI-powered surveillance panopticon — but one way or another, the all-seeing eye is on its way.

There’s just one tiny wrinkle: the AI facial recognition cameras have a tendency to misidentify non-white people.

New reporting by The Guardian notes that testing of the AI tech conducted by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) found that it‘s “more likely to incorrectly include some demographic groups in its search results” — specifically Black and Asian people.

#2 Of course the control freaks in the UK also monitor everything that gets posted on social media.  One British man recently found this out the hard way when he was arrested for posing with a legally-owned gun in the United States…

A Yorkshire man was arrested over a photo he posted on social media featuring him holding a legally owned gun in the US.

Jon Richelieu-Booth posted a photo of himself in August holding a gun on LinkedIn while he was on a holiday in Florida.

He said he held the firearm lawfully, on private land and with full permission from its owner.

#3 If you do not believe that “thought crime” is real, just consider this next example.  11 police officers recently barged in and arrested a 34-year-old woman that was sitting naked in her own bathtub because she used offensive words while texting another woman on her phone…

The United Kingdom has become an authoritarian nightmare, and the United States must remain vigilant if it does not want to go down the same course.

Elizabeth Kinney, a 34-year-old care assistant, was naked in the bathtub when 11 police officers barged into her home to arrest her.

Her crime was sending insults to another woman via text.

How would you feel if 11 police officers were staring at you while you were naked?

Keep reading

Byrna Files Lawsuit Against CA for Blocking Ammunition Sales of Less-Lethal Weapons

Bryan Ganz is the founder of Byrna, the less-lethal self-defense weapons, which looks like handguns but shoot powerful chemical irritants rather than lethal bullets, designed to immobilize an attacker air intruder. The weapons are legal in all 50 states. But, in California, Ganz told the Globe that the state blocked sales of Byrna’s ammunition and launchers.

Why? We thought a less-lethal weapon (some say it’s non-lethal) would be a wildly popular option, and hailed by California’s Attorney General and law enforcement. The Byrna uses a pepper-gel projectile, like a pepper spray, rather than bullets.

But it’s complicated, the Gun Zone explains, thanks to California’s highly regulated gun control laws. “Because it doesn’t discharge a projectile ‘by means of an explosive,’ as defined by California Penal Code section 16520, it technically falls outside the strict definition of a firearm. However, this doesn’t automatically grant free rein. California law, particularly when dealing with weapons designed for defense, is highly regulated.”

And it’s further complicated by brazen gun control and anti-police politics.

In 2021, California passed Assembly Bill 48 by then-Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, which outlawed “the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive.”

In 2021, with the well-funded George Floyd protests across the country, police  were confronted with violent riots and protesters, and forced to use crowd control measures. Assemblywoman Gonzalez claimed that her bill was in response to the unwarranted force used by law enforcement against protestors, journalists and others in the George Floyd protests. She objected to the injuries caused by rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, foam rounds, and other projectiles, the Globe reported in 2021.

Keep reading

The Encryption Double Life of Canberra

The Australian government is quietly relying on encrypted messaging to conduct sensitive business, even as it hardens its stance against public use of secure communications.

While the public faces increasing surveillance and legal pressure for using end-to-end encryption, senior officials are steering policy conversations into private digital spaces, shielding them from scrutiny under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.

Since midyear, ministerial staff have been advising lobbyists, peak bodies and industry groups to avoid email altogether and submit reform proposals through the encrypted messaging app Signal.

Some of these exchanges have been requested using disappearing messages, ensuring there is no record retained on government systems.

Several sources confirmed to the Saturday Paper that this guidance is now common across a number of policy areas.

In addition to Signal, stakeholders have been encouraged to use phone calls for detailed conversations and limit the content of any written communications.

In at least one case, after a formal meeting, the follow-up came in the form of a verbal summary rather than the usual written recap sent by email.

While the government has maintained formal channels for official submissions, a secondary mode of policymaking is taking shape.

This mode operates out of reach of archiving protocols and public oversight.

One participant in this informal process described it as an effort to protect the early phases of policy development from outside scrutiny, arguing that “fluid thoughts and ideas” should be exempt from public record.

Yet the effect of these practices is to create a shadow layer of government consultation that leaves no trace and falls outside the accountability mechanisms intended to safeguard democratic participation.

Keep reading

The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.

When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”

They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.

The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.

It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.

The first target is Elon Musk’s X, and the list of alleged violations look less like user safety concerns and more like a blueprint for controlling who gets heard, who gets trusted, and who gets to talk back.

The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.

None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.

Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.

The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.

The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.

However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.

The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.

Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.

Keep reading

Minnesota Legalized Marijuana, But Thousands Of People Are Still Being Prosecuted For Carrying Cannabis In Their Cars

When Minnesota lawmakers legalized recreational marijuana in 2023, Democrats hailed it as the state’s most sweeping shift in drug policy in half a century and long-overdue relief for tens of thousands whose records were marred by low-level marijuana offenses.

What had been a felony—having two ounces of cannabis flower in a car, enough for about 100 joints—became legal overnight when the law took effect on August 1.

But legalization hasn’t ended marijuana prosecutions. Minnesota prosecutors have brought more than 3,500 charges and won more than 1,200 misdemeanor convictions against people with cannabis in their cars since legalization, according to a Minnesota Reformer analysis. Additionally, prosecutors have filed nearly 500 charges against people for consuming cannabis in vehicles, either as passengers or drivers.

That’s due to an important but unadvertised caveat: all cannabis products—including flower, vape pens, wax and edibles—must be in the trunk (or trunk area in the case of SUVs) unless they’re sealed in their original, labeled packaging from a dispensary.

The police stops and prosecutions have defense lawyers concerned about the threat of racial profiling and warrantless vehicle searches.

“Now there’s this whole entry point to all of these cars—officers are going to take it every time they get,” Amanda Brodhag, a Hennepin County public defender, said.

Law enforcement leaders and prosecutors say there’s an obvious public safety rationale for the law: driving under the influence of cannabis or any intoxicating substance is dangerous and they shouldn’t be easily accessible to the driver.

The packaging law has caught many consumers and even cannabis attorneys unawares.

“I’m surprised,” said Elliot Ginsburg, an attorney who helps marijuana growers, manufacturers and retailers comply with the new regulatory regime. “I suspect a lot of people don’t know that.”

The law prohibiting improperly packaged marijuana in vehicles isn’t mentioned on the state’s “need to know” page about adult-use cannabis, nor is it referenced anywhere in the chapter of laws governing recreational cannabis, including the lengthy section detailing limits on cannabis possession and the many things people may not do with it, like use it in a vehicle.

The rules are found in the lengthy chapter of traffic laws, next to the nearly identical section on open alcohol containers.

Violating the cannabis open package law is a misdemeanor, carrying a maximum penalty of $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail, although many people end up paying a few hundred dollars or less, according to the Reformer’s review of convictions.

Keep reading

Ohio Lawmakers Pass Bill To Roll Back Voter-Approved Marijuana Law And Impose Hemp Restrictions, Sending It To Governor

The Ohio Senate has voted to concur with a House-amended bill to scale back the state’s voter-approved marijuana law and ban the sale of hemp products that fall outside of a recently revised federal definition for the crop unless they’re sold at licensed cannabis dispensaries.

The measure from Sen. Stephen Huffman (R) was substantively revised in the House last month, but the originating chamber voted 22-7 on Tuesday to accept those changes and send the legislation to Gov. Mike DeWine’s (R) desk.

The legislation now pending the governor’s signature would recriminalize certain marijuana activity that was legalized under a ballot initiative that passed in 2023  as well as remove anti-discrimination protections for cannabis consumers that were enacted under that law.

After the House revised the initial Senate-passed legislation, removing certain controversial provisions, the Senate quickly rejected those changes in October. That led to the appointment of a bicameral conference committee to resolve outstanding differences between the chambers. That panel then approved a negotiated form of the bill, which passed the House last month and has now cleared the Senate.

To advocates’ disappointment, the final version of the measure now heading to the governor’s desk would eliminate language in current statute providing anti-discrimination protections for people who lawfully use cannabis. That includes protections meant to prevent adverse actions in the context of child custody rights, the ability to qualify for organ transplants and professional licensing.

It would also recriminalize possessing marijuana from any source that isn’t a state-licensed dispensary in Ohio or from a legal homegrow. As such, people could be charged with a crime for carrying cannabis they bought at a legal retailer in neighboring Michigan.

Additionally, it would ban smoking cannabis at outdoor public locations such as bar patios—and it would allow landlords to prohibit vaping marijuana at rented homes. Violating that latter policy, even if it involves vaping in a person’s own backyard at a rental home, would constitute a misdemeanor offense.

The legislation would also replace what had been a proposed regulatory framework for intoxicating hemp that the House had approved with a broad prohibition on sales outside marijuana dispensaries following a recent federal move to recriminalize such products.

“In short, this bill leaves the crux of Issue 2 and marijuana access intact, while providing for several important public safety concerns and also regulations that protect Ohio children,” Huffman argued on the Senate floor ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

Sen. Bill DeMora (D), however, said the legislation undermines the will of voters.

Keep reading

“The Days Of Censoring Americans Online Are Over”: Senior US Diplomats Slam EU’s “Attack” On American Tech Platform X

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and several other senior U.S. officials have criticized the internet policies of the European Union (EU), likening them to censorship, after the governing bloc last week levied Elon Musk’s social media platform X with a $140 million fine for breaching its online content rules.

On Dec. 5, EU tech regulators fined X 120 million euros (about $140 million) following a two-year investigation under the Digital Services Act, concluding that the social platform had breached multiple transparency obligations, including the “deceptive design of its ‘blue checkmark,’ the lack of transparency of its advertising repository, and the failure to provide access to public data for researchers.”

The EU accused X of converting its verified badges into a paid feature without sufficient identity checks, arguing that this deceived users into believing the accounts were authentic and exposed them to fraud, manipulation, and impersonation.

This meant the platform had failed to meet the Digital Services Act’s accessibility and detail standards, leaving out key information that prevented efforts to track coordinated disinformation, illicit activities, and election interference, according to the EU.

Even before the EU’s fine was announced, U.S. Vice President JD Vance suggested it amounted to punishing X for “not engaging in censorship.”

Keep reading

Documents EXPOSE Carney government’s quiet push for digital ID

Newly obtained documents reveal the Carney government is studying a national digital passport that could function as a domestic ID. Internal documents show immigration officials quietly examining enforcement options for a nationwide ID system — despite MPs rejecting the idea for years.

Marc Patrone discusses the implications with engineering executive and Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada director Veso Sobot, who warns the move signals another step toward expanded government oversight at a time when Canadians are already worried about censorship and state intrusion.

They also discuss the latest on Canada–U.S. trade talks, after President Trump signalled he may be open to restarting negotiations following brief conversations with Prime Minister Mark Carney and Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum. Sobot breaks down why reciprocity, tariffs, and Canada’s protected industries remain sticking points — and what a renewed deal could mean for jobs and competitiveness.

Plus, the Conservative Party prepares to table a motion pressing the Liberals to support a new pipeline to the Pacific Coast. Meanwhile, former Liberal environment minister Steven Guilbeault claims Alberta’s push for another pipeline is fuelling Quebec separatism, adding new political pressure around the federal–provincial energy accord.

Keep reading

When They Say “Democracy”, They Don’t Mean Democracy

“Imagine if the US and EU were still aligned on the censorship-by-proxy strategy. Few people realize how close we were to global totalitarianism.“

– Michael Shellenberger

Western Civ is choking itself to death with lawfare in the name of “democracy.” If you think just a little bit past the sale, you will realize that few will say what they mean by “democracy,” including the most ardent “democracy” cultists. What it supposedly means is legal outcomes that the political left wants, not what the law, or the truth, or justice requires.

On the surface, the left pretends to want outcomes that favor their roster of designated victim groups: women, dark-skinned people, and sexual outliers, the familiar cast of characters with its tiresome scripts.

But that’s not what they really want.

They don’t really care about the “marginalized.”

What they really want is power.

The “marginalized” are just their clients and shock troops. They want to push everybody around, tell them how to live, and what to think, including the marginalized. If society has to get wrecked in the process, that’s okay — that will just make it easier to “build back better” to their advantage, or so their operating algorithm dictates. The left does not think past its own algorithms.

The “democracy” cultists are foremost against freedom of speech, because speech is what distinguishes human beings among the rest of the animal kingdom, and if you allow it, human beings are liable to develop ideas — ideas being the product of language — and especially ideas that make the “democracy” cultists uncomfortable. For instance, the idea that the “democracy” cultists don’t deserve the power they crave because they are dishonest, unscrupulous, and sadistic. Can’t have people thinking that, or saying it out-loud.

Censorship, the outright suppression of expressed thought, is the primary device for enforcing their version of “democracy.” The “democracy” cultists of the USA were especially avid for it the past decade after Mr. Trump came on the scene and offered to oppose the “democracy” cult’s plans to aggregate power. So, under the catspaw president “Joe Biden,” the FBI, CIA, the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, Stanford University’s Internet Observatory, the social media companies, and the White House itself worked sedulously to suppress the free expression of ideas, including the idea that they were all working to suppress free expression.

When Mr. Trump miraculously survived manifold attempts to stuff him in prison via lawfare and then, attempted murder, and managed to get re-elected, he put an end to the censorship shenanigans in government. That, in turn, became inconvenient to the “democracy” cultists in Europe who were, apparently, not busy enough destroying their own countries’ cultures and their economies. They put extra effort into suppressing free expression among their citizen-subjects: serious jail time for mean texts and mere casual statements on the street.

Now they are coming after the international speech platform “X,” liberated by Elon Musk three years ago at a $44-billion price. The European Commission, a body of unelected bureaucrats under the EU, created a so-called Digital Services Act to deal with the threat of free speech. After a two-year-investigation, the commission has leveled a $140-million fine against “X” for a series of specious offenses, such as not meaningfully verifying account authenticity [blue check marks] eroding trust in verified content. Mr. Musk objected, naturally. Veep JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, called it an “attack on American tech.” It’s more than that, of course. It’s an effort to wreck the company, which would eliminate the chief remaining public arena for free speech and genuine news worldwide.

Keep reading