Tag: police state

ICE Says 51 People Died in Custody Under Trump. Experts Say That’s an Undercount.

amuka Artmeladze, a 43-year-old Georgian national, was found dead on June 4, 2026, in federal immigration custody. Though his name did not appear in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE’s) online death records by the time this article was published, Artmeladze was reported as the 50th person to die in ICE custody since President Donald Trump returned to office. One of two recent deaths at a notorious immigration prison in Louisiana, Artmeladze’s death is one of the latest signs that the president’s mass deportation campaign has predictably created a human rights crisis inside a sprawling system of immigration jails and camps.

At least 51 people have died while in ICE custody since Trump began his second term, federal records show. At least 19 deaths occurred between January 1 and June 4, 2026, an average of about one death every eight days over the first six months of this year.

Additionally, at least two disabled people died this year from exposure shortly after being released by immigration officials in freezing winter weather, including a 31-year-old Haitian woman who died after being left at a Pittsburgh bus stop for 30 hours in early March. While medical examiners determined both deaths to be homicides, ICE does not include them in its official tally, and experts say the 51 deaths reported since January 2025 could be an undercount.

For months, protesters, federal inspectors, and Democrats in Congress have sounded the alarm about the dangerous conditions of confinement faced by more than 68,000 adults and children swept up in Trump’s crackdown. While ICE claims to provide proper care for detainees, oversight data shows a clear pattern of abuse, medical neglect, and preventable deaths inside its jails and camps. Critics say the unprecedented number of deaths is the predictable result of Trump administration policy, including fighting in court to incarcerate immigrants for as long as possible while aggressively expanding privately run jails and prison camps.

“Using the windfall in funding from Congressional Republicans, they are inflicting as much pain as possible no matter the cost,” said Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of the immigrant rights group America’s Voice, in a statement on June 22.

Keep reading

The KIDS Act: A Bipartisan Mass Surveillance Megabill

Just weeks after Americans criticized the United Kingdom for imposing intrusive and heavy-handed social media rules, Congress is now advancing legislation that raises strikingly similar concerns about government overreach, privacy erosion, and the expansion of online surveillance.

A bipartisan agreement on children’s online safety legislation unveiled by House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders would impose new obligations on social media platforms, while creating powerful incentives for companies to end online anonymity.

The proposal is part of the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act), an omnibus package that bundles together multiple bills, including the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), the SCREEN Act, the SAFE BOTs Act, COPPA 2.0, the SPY Kids Act, and more, as well as data broker provisions and research and education initiatives.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie and ranking Democrat Frank Pallone announced Monday that they had reached agreement on the legislation, which would require social media companies to provide additional safeguards and parental tools for minors. The lawmakers said it would “hold Big Tech accountable.”

“We worked across the aisle for many months and have now found common ground on policies to significantly improve the digital environment for kids,” Guthrie and Pallone said in a joint statement.

As always, under that framing lies a familiar and deeply controversial approach: imposing broad obligations on platforms that hinge on whether companies know a user is a minor, without clearly defining how that knowledge is supposed to be obtained.

Congress has tried for years to set national rules for social media and youth safety. Those efforts have repeatedly stalled, in part because of unresolved tensions between child protection goals and fundamental privacy rights. In the absence of federal action, states have moved ahead with their own laws, often pushing even more aggressive requirements.

One of the main disputes appears to have been resolved in favor of House Republicans. According to a committee spokesperson, the agreement does not include a “duty of care” provision, a requirement backed by many child-safety advocates and several Senate lawmakers.

The bill text states that nothing in it may be construed to “impose a duty of care on a provider of a covered platform.”

Keep reading

China’s “Ethnic Unity” Law: A Framework for Forced Assimilation

China’s Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress was submitted to the National People’s Congress on September 8, 2025, passed by a vote of 2,756 to 3 with three abstentions, signed by Xi Jinping on March 12, 2026, and takes effect July 1, 2026. The 62-article law codifies Xi’s sinicization policies and extends their reach into every sector of Chinese society, and beyond China’s borders.

The law also applies to foreign nationals living in or visiting China, who could now be punished or possibly jailed for advocating freedom for Tibet or independence for Taiwan. The law’s preamble frames China as a civilization with more than 5,000 years of history that has forged “a unified multi-ethnic nation” under the CCP. This is despite the fact that China has 56 recognized ethnic groups and five ethnic autonomous regions: Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, and Ningxia. Several of these regions have movements seeking independence or greater autonomy.

China also includes Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region whose residents have mounted sustained resistance to Beijing’s encroachment on political freedoms. Taiwan, meanwhile, already functions as an independent democratic country despite lacking official international recognition.

Its Chapter II mandates fostering identification with the “great motherland, the Chinese nation, Chinese culture, the Communist Party of China, and socialism with Chinese characteristics” through patriotic education, official historical narratives, and promotion of Chinese cultural symbols. Article 14 directs authorities to “establish and highlight … Chinese cultural symbols” in public facilities, architecture, and tourist sites, including in the naming of places.

The law imposes ideological obligations on a sweeping range of actors, including public employees, mass organizations, enterprises, public-service institutions, industry groups, religious institutions, neighborhood committees, and the military. Under Article 20(2), parents and guardians are required to “educate and guide minors to love the Chinese Communist Party” and are forbidden from teaching minors “concepts detrimental to ethnic unity and progress.”

The provision reinforces existing law. The CCP’s 1982 Document 19 banned religious education among minors, a prohibition the U.S. State Department confirms remains in force: children younger than 18 are prohibited from participating in religious activities and receiving religious education, even in schools run by religious organizations, and the law mandates the teaching of atheism in schools.

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) has documented enforcement of these prohibitions against minority communities specifically, with Uyghur and Tibetan children, among whom religion and ethnic identity are inseparable, subject to the strictest application.

Language policy is a central mechanism that builds on previous restrictive legislation. In December 2025, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee revised the Law on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language, originally adopted in 2000. The revision removed a provision that had allowed minority languages to be used as the medium of instruction in schools, declaring such education “no longer necessary.” The changes took effect on January 1, 2026.

A years-long trend of replacing Mongolian-, Tibetan-, and Uyghur-medium instruction with Mandarin was thereby codified into law. Students in those communities are now permitted to study their mother tongue only as a standalone class, while all other subjects are taught in Chinese.

The March 2026 ethnic unity law reinforced and expanded that framework. It codifies the predominance of Standard Chinese (Putonghua) in public life, sets a goal of preschool-level Mandarin proficiency, and requires Chinese characters to be displayed more prominently than minority scripts wherever both appear.

The CECC found that the law promotes Mandarin-language instruction for ethnic minority children beginning in preschool. It also embeds ideological education prescribing a single “correct” understanding of history, ethnicity, culture, and religion as defined by the CCP.

Keep reading

FCC Wants to Kill Burner Phones By Forcing Telecoms to Get All Customers’ IDs

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wants to make it effectively impossible for people to buy what many call burner phones—a phone not explicitly linked to your identity at the point of purchase—which would impact privacy-conscious people, to domestic abuse survivors, to journalists, and many more. The FCC plans to do this by legally forcing the country’s telecoms to store a wealth of personal information about essentially all phone customers, including a government issued identification number and their physical address, alarming privacy advocates and civil rights activists who compare the measures to those from authoritarian countries where it can be difficult to buy a mobile phone plan without giving up your identity.

The proposed change would drastically shake up how people obtain phone plans in the U.S., and have all sorts of privacy and cybersecurity knock-on effects. The FCC is proposing the data collection partly as a way to combat scammers, with telecoms being required to collect other information on business and foreign customers like the intended use case of their bulk phone plan purchase and their IP address. But the changes would mean telecoms collect data on all new and renewing customers, and the FCC provides a long list of other things that the collected data could help authorities with.

“For decades, civil libertarians have looked overseas at authoritarian countries where the government requires people to register to get a mobile phone to ensure they can be tracked. We never thought that would happen here,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project told 404 Media in an email. “But make no mistake: with this rulemaking, the government is contemplating taking away people’s ability to get a burner phone, which will hurt low-income people, domestic violence victims, and anyone else who cares about their privacy.”

In a synopsis of the proposed changes, the FCC writes, “Specifically, we seek comment on requiring originating providers to, at a minimum, obtain and retain the name, physical address, government issued identification number, and an alternate telephone number of any new and renewing customer before granting access to its services.” The goal of collecting this data, the FCC writes, is to deter some scammers from getting onto a telecom network in the first place, and so “enforcers will be better able to identify the scammers when they do.” The FCC compares the changes to the sort of data collected by banks to prevent money laundering.

One section stresses that the newly collected data would help “law enforcement to more easily identify callers that use the network to perpetuate crimes by ensuring that voice providers have accurate and complete customer information.” It goes on to ask if the data would help identify people buying and selling illicit goods; the investigation of “fraud, espionage, or influence operations that undermine national security”, and “address abuse in text messaging networks.”

“Criminals continue to leverage the anonymity provided by phone calls and texts to defraud Americans and exploit communications networks to further other crimes,” one section reads.

At the moment, the FCC is seeking comments about its proposed changes, with interested or concerned parties—think telecom companies, law enforcement, or privacy advocates—able to weigh in. But the intention of the FCC is clear: the agency wants telecoms to be legally obligated to collect much more personally identifying information on new and returning customers, linking them directly to their phone number and phone usage data. The FCC also asks whether the amount of data collected should change depending on whether a customer is seeking a prepaid or a postpaid service plan.

Multiple privacy and technology experts strongly pushed back against the proposed changes. “This proposal by the FCC will do little to combat scams and robocalls, since most people doing that will have no trouble creating fake documentation or identities,” Cooper Quintin, security researcher and senior public interest technologist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told 404 Media. “Given this administration’s crackdown on free expression, protest, immigrants, and women’s health we have trouble seeing this as a bold attack on freedom of communication. They want to take away our ability to make an anonymous phone call.”

Eric Null, the director of the Privacy & Data Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, told 404 Media in an emailed statement “To address the scourge of illegal robocalls, the FCC has unfortunately proposed to force every wireless subscriber in the nation to sacrifice their privacy and give up significant personal details before receiving or renewing a wireless line. While some carriers already collect such details, there are specific circumstances where a person may need privacy and anonymity when seeking a cell phone, including if that person is a victim of domestic violence, or is a journalist or whistleblower. This proposal represents a loss of privacy across the board, and from an agency whose remit includes protecting privacy. The FCC might let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.”

Cape is a privacy-focused telecom company that limits the amount of data it collects on its customers. John Doyle, the company’s CEO, told 404 Media in an emailed statement “We hate robocalls and support eliminating them, but entrusting telecom carriers to effectively create a nationwide ID registry for every American with a phone is not the solution. Mobile carriers have been breached time and again because the incentives to secure trillions of dollars of legacy architecture aren’t there. Further enriching compromised telecom datasets with government ID, physical addresses, and alternate phone numbers harms our security rather than improving it.”

Given this proposal is in the comments stage, the FCC has many questions it is hoping to receive information on, such as whether “renewing” customers should be only those new to the provider, or those switching plans with their current telecom; or whether they should not allow the use of P.O. boxes or shared office locations as the required “physical address.”

The FCC did not respond to 404 Media’s request for comment. The proposal is open to comments until June 25.

Keep reading

Paramedics Who Fatally Injected Elijah McClain Have Their Convictions Overturned

In yet another example of systemic corruption, the former EMTs responsible for administering a fatal dose of ketamine to Elijah McClain face no real accountability.

Aurora, CO — In August of 2019, 23 year old Elijah McClain was walking home in his neighborhood after just purchasing a bottle of iced tea. He had committed no crime. Despite this, one of his neighbors called the police due to the fact that he was wearing a mask, which he reportedly regularly did due to being anemic. Shortly thereafter, Aurora police arrived on the scene and initiated contact with McClain, claiming that he “matched the description” of a suspect.

Within moments the officers unjustly initiated force against McClain, later attempting to justify their actions by claiming he attempted to reach for one of their guns although this is disputed by body camera evidence. As the scuffle ensued officers took McClain to the ground, placing him in an illegal chokehold maneuver restricting his air flow. As McClain struggled under the strangulation of his assailants, violently vomiting, he attempted multiple times to inform them that he couldn’t breathe, yet still they persisted. Eventually, officers called the Aurora Fire Department to the scene, where upon arrival two paramedics, Jeremy Cooper and Peter Cichuniec, injected McClain with 500mg of ketamine, a strong sedative.

After being choked out and forcibly drugged for committing no crime, McClain went into cardiac arrest twice while on the way to the hospital, leading to his death.

By all accounts Elijah McClain was an upstanding member of his community, a massage therapist and self taught violinist who volunteered at animal shelters playing music for adoptive dogs and cats. He had never even received a speeding ticket in his life. 

In his last few words on this planet, McClain could be heard saying, “I’m an introvert. I’m just different. That’s all. I’m so sorry. I have no gun. I don’t do that stuff. I don’t do any fighting. Why are you attacking me? I don’t even kill flies! I don’t eat meat! But I don’t judge people, I don’t judge people who do eat meat. Forgive me … I’m so sorry.”

In 2021, nearly a year and a half after his murder, an independent investigation commissioned by the city of Aurora found that police had no legal basis to stop McClain, much less choke and drug him to death. Furthermore, the investigation found police deliberately defrauded initial inquiries in an attempt to exonerate the officers.

Now, it has been reported that Cooper and Cichuniec, the two paramedics responsible for giving McClain the lethal injection, have had their convictions overturned.

According to the Atlanta Black Star, the two former paramedics had their homicide convictions overturned last week over a legal technicality.

Keep reading

ALPRs are a tool of the police state to track your every move

Every time you pull out of your driveway, you probably still harbour the illusion that you are a free person going about your business. The reality is far more grim: your vehicle is bleeding data into a massive, unregulated dragnet the moment you pass the neighbourhood entrance. Automated Licence Plate Readers (“ALPRs”) and Flock cameras have infested our communities, quietly transforming the American landscape into an open-air panopticon.

You are no longer just a traveller; you are a heavily tracked data point in a system designed to treat every peaceful citizen as a suspect. The apologists for the police state are always quick to play the devil’s advocate when these surveillance grids face public scrutiny. They will breathlessly point out that ALPRs do sometimes help law enforcement track the plates of a stolen car or a violent suspect.

Police departments and the corporate salesmen hawking this gear parade these isolated victories in front of gullible city councils to justify millions in taxpayer funding. We are constantly told that solving a fraction of property crimes requires us to surrender our basic human dignity and privacy. But this statist narrative entirely ignores the tyrannical caveat that makes the whole operation illegitimate.

For every single actual criminal apprehended, the daily movements of tens of thousands of peaceful, innocent people are meticulously logged, tracked and stored in massive databases. You have committed no crime, yet the State knows exactly when you dropped your kids off at school, which doctor you visited and what political rally you attended. It is a pre-emptive strike by a paranoid ruling class against the very people they claim to serve.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, these automated systems do much more than just read numbers on a bumper. They capture the time, date and precise coordinates of every passing vehicle, storing this highly sensitive location data for months or even years. This allows law enforcement to retroactively hit “rewind” on anyone’s life without ever setting foot inside a courtroom to obtain a warrant.

The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) has thoroughly documented how this dragnet operates, revealing that the overwhelming majority of people swept up in these databases are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Despite this glaring fact, the data is pooled and shared across thousands of jurisdictions, essentially creating a national tracking system operated by private entities.

Taxpayers are literally being extorted to fund the infrastructure of their own surveillance. Nefarious corporate groups, like Flock Safety, are getting extraordinarily wealthy from this unconstitutional model. They sell fear to local politicians and walk away with lucrative contracts, deepening their network of unlawful data collection as we have consistently covered here at The Free Thought Project. The public is forced at gunpoint to foot the bill for a corporate-state partnership that actively violates their inherent rights.

This panopticon is being built piecemeal through thousands of localised contracts quietly approved by city councils, police departments and even private homeowner associations. Flock Safety alone has embedded itself in over 6,000 municipalities, operating a staggering network of more than 80,000 cameras nationwide to indiscriminately log the movements of peaceful people.

The financial windfall generated by this unconstitutional dragnet is nothing short of extortionary. Weaponising the public’s fear of crime, Flock Safety has ballooned into an $8.4 billion empire, siphoning massive amounts of wealth directly from the taxpayers they are constantly monitoring. With local governments shelling out up to $3,500 per camera annually, this corporate-state partnership raked in over $300 million in recurring revenue by early 2025. The public is literally being forced under the threat of state violence to finance their own digital incarceration, enriching corporate entities while fundamental rights are casually discarded.

To grasp the true, dystopian scale of this operation, consider that these private systems are performing over 20 billion scans of vehicles across the country every single month. They have successfully privatised the police state, transforming the basic, unalienable right to travel into an endless and highly profitable data extraction industry. We are witnessing the systematic abolition of privacy in real-time, orchestrated by corporate profiteers and rubber-stamped by local politicians who view citizens as nothing more than trackable data points. No wonder these people want to build hundreds more data centres despite already having more data centres than the next 14 top countries combined.

Keep reading

Iran Sentences Singer Parastoo Ahmadi to 74 Lashings for Performing Without a Hijab

An Iranian singer, along with her production team, has been sentenced to 74 lashings for performing a patriotic song without a hijab in a viral video.

In 2024, Parastoo Ahmadi, age 29, livestreamed a video of her singing the patriotic song Az Khoone Javanane Vatan (From the Blood of the Youth of the Homeland) that went viral, generating millions of views. She and several musicians who performed with her was briefly detained before being released, but according to court documents obtained by The Guardian, she received a harsh and brutal punishment by the regime for not wearing a hijab.

According to court documents, the criminal court of Qom province sentenced the artists to flogging, a two-year ban on leaving the country and a two-year ban on engaging in artistic activities on charges that include offending public decency through the production and publication of “vulgar and immoral content” online.

Although the official judiciary news agency has yet to publish the ruling, rights groups and lawyers who reviewed the documents said the pattern of arrests and legal cases against artists publicly defying the regime reflects a broader effort to deter cultural dissent.

Bahar Ghandehari, the director of advocacy at the US-based Center for Human Rights in Iran, said that the punishment shows the severity of Iran’s human rights abuses.

Keep reading

The Brits Should Declare Their Independence, Too

British tyranny is so repulsive that the British people owe it to themselves to overthrow their government masters.  It has been two-hundred-fifty years since America’s Declaration of Independence recognized the Crown system as a threat to Americans’ lives and liberties.  English-speaking peoples still suffering under the British yoke should follow suit.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a near-total ban on social media for children under sixteen years old.  Ten of the most popular social media platforms are now age-restricted, with the toxic-leftist Bluesky platform a notable exception.  The government claims to be “protecting children” from online harm.  That’s a lie.  If the British government cared about protecting British children, government ministers and police forces would not have covered up Islamic rape gangs targeting children for three-plus decades.  The British government would not censor online reporting of foreigners murdering young Brits.  The British government has systematically chosen to sacrifice the United Kingdom’s children.

This online “safety” measure must be understood, then, as a ruse meant to expand the government’s control over online information.  Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have similar surveillance systems in place — all ostensibly erected to “protect the children” but designed, in reality, to control the speech of citizens.  In these countries, the only way to communicate with other citizens on social media platforms is to prove your age by proving your identity.  Mandatory digital identification systems are disguised as child welfare checks.  The Brits and their Commonwealth vassals have built a surveillance system to monitor citizens’ thoughts, censor unapproved speech, and promote official propaganda.

Tyrant Starmer is pushing this online surveillance infrastructure while citizens in the U.K. are protesting and rioting against the British government’s murderous mass immigration policies — which have invited foreign rapists and killers to overrun the kingdom and slaughter citizens.

Third-world barbarism is exploding across Europe.  Official Eurostat numbers show that sexual violence offenses in the European Union have doubled over the last decade.  Rapes skyrocketed 150%.  Knife crimes and murders are off the charts.  Foreign nationals who have immigrated into Europe are responsible for roughly fifty percent of violent crime.

Just as the unelected European Commission ruling the continent continues to cover up immigrant crimes and censor citizens’ online discussion of these ongoing threats, the British government is more concerned about punishing native Brits for noticing that they are under attack than repelling violent invaders from Britain’s shores.  (If Keir Starmer had been in Winston Churchill’s shoes during the Nazi Blitz, the British government would have surely helped the Germans cover up the bombings while blaming all the destruction on British citizens!)

Starmer’s government spies run a propaganda outfit that controls all public “narratives” regarding immigrant crime against native Brits.  The group of spies write and release misleading statements, presented as coming from the families of victims, that are designed to downplay rapes, murders, and other violent incidents.  While these spies use propaganda and censorship to cover up serious crimes committed by immigrants, they simultaneously engage in information warfare against British citizens by branding legitimate public concerns over safety as “disinformation,” “far-right racism,” “violence,” and “hate speech.”  This spy group in charge of monitoring and shaping the public’s thoughts has flagged “reading Shakespeare, Chaucer or Milton, or books documenting grooming gang scandals as potential indicators of far-Right susceptibility.”  The British spies — a veritable Gestapo fabricating public “truth” — plant media stories, steer online discussions, and deploy operatives to disrupt or direct public protests.

The British government claims the power to block “false information” that is “legal but harmful.”  On its website, the British government defines “extreme right-wing terrorist ideology” to include the belief that “‘Western culture’ is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups.”  British Technology Secretary Liz Kendall claims that it is “illegal” to promote “disorder” on social media.  Meanwhile, Starmer’s government tyrants are instructing journalists how to report immigrant attacks on British citizens.  These are the actions of dictators who do not care about “protecting the children.”

Surveying the daily violent crime by immigrants and the British government’s ongoing cover-ups, former Prime Minister Liz Truss says there is a government campaign to “undermine the family” and the “nation state.”  She says that forced diversity has corrupted the institutions and that government ministers suppress information and attack citizens while protecting barbarians.  She concludes that mass migration and government control over information are being used as weapons to destroy Western civilization.

For years, we Americans have watched the evils of globalism expand both at home and abroad in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of continental Europe.  Branded by its international supporters as some kind of final, utopian stage of human governance, globalism is just another Frankensteinian beast — created from all the worst parts of Marxist-communism, Leninism, Maoism, fascism, Nazism, authoritarianism, oligarchy, corporatism, elitism, and central bank hegemony.  Globalism is totalitarianism.  Its god is government, although it has created special liturgical rituals regarding an imaginary “climate change” apocalypse meant to scare the world’s peasants into accepting the supremacy of government authority and bureaucrats’ (globalism’s “priests”) centralized power over all economic transactions.

Keep reading

Federal Appeals Court Allows Ohio to Enforce Social Media Law Requiring Parental Consent for Minors

A federal appeals court has ruled that Ohio can enforce legislation requiring children under 16 to obtain parental consent before using social media platforms, marking a significant development in state-level efforts to regulate minors’ online activity.

TechSpot reports that the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision overturning a lower court ruling that had previously blocked Ohio’s Social Media Parental Notification Act from taking effect. The law mandates that websites reasonably likely to be accessed by children under 16 must verify users’ ages and secure parental approval before allowing minors to create or use accounts.

The legislation was originally passed in 2023 and took effect in January 2024. However, it faced an immediate legal challenge from NetChoice, a technology industry advocacy group representing major platforms including Meta, TikTok, YouTube, Snap, and X. A federal judge initially found the law unconstitutional and blocked its implementation, but the appeals court has now reversed that decision and sent the case back with instructions to lift the block.

In the majority opinion, Judge Eric Clay acknowledged that the law does impose some burden on speech but argued it is narrowly tailored to address what Ohio identified as a compelling state interest. According to Clay, the legislation aims to protect children from online harms and prevent them from agreeing to platform terms of service without proper supervision.

“At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” Clay wrote. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”

The decision represents a rare victory for state efforts to restrict minors’ access to social media platforms, as similar laws in other jurisdictions have been blocked on free speech grounds. Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson praised the ruling as a win for families, stating it provides parents with necessary tools to monitor and control what their children view online.

Keep reading

A Republic or an Empire?

The Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, embraces two value sets. The first is natural rights, and the second is limited government. After 250 years, neither value has survived, and the opposite of each currently prevails in America.

Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration in three days while staying at a rooming house in Philadelphia. He had been greatly influenced by the British philosopher John Locke. Locke is the godfather of the theory of natural rights, which he extrapolated from the natural law teachings of Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) did not argue that humans have inherent natural rights, but rather that the concept of justice demanded by human nature should be “naturally just” when addressing claims for protection of persons and property, whether those protections were legislated or not. The “whether legislated or not” is the first known articulation of a higher civil law, higher than the government’s own laws.

St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) also did not define explicitly the existence of natural rights, but he did argue that norms of human behavior are knowable from the exercise of reason aided by revelation. He is the seminal thinker to express the view that right and wrong is knowable to all persons, whether legislated or not; and this knowledge — because it is common to all — is itself a higher law. He called this universal knowledge the natural law.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.) did not articulate natural rights, but he did proceed deep into the ideas of Aristotle and Augustine and taught that all human beings possess innate moral claims and innate moral obligations to honor the moral claims of other persons; and these claims and obligations are knowable by the exercise of reason.

John Locke (1632-1704), whose writings Jefferson read at the College of William and Mary, and which James Madison read at Princeton, drew upon all three philosophers to argue that Aquinas’ moral natural law claims are really natural rights, and these, too, just like knowing right from wrong, are inherent in our humanity and are superior to the government.

Keep reading