Tag: police state

Google and Substack Warn Britain Is Building a Censorship Machine

Major American companies and commentators, including Google and Substack CEO Chris Best, have condemned the United Kingdom’s censorship law, the Online Safety Act (OSA), describing it as a measure that risks censoring lawful speech while failing to make the internet safer for children.

They argue that the law normalizes digital surveillance, restricts open debate, and complicates how global platforms operate in the UK.

Their objections surfaced through The Telegraph, which published essays from Best and from Heritage Foundation researchers John Peluso and Miles Pollard, alongside new reporting on Google’s formal response to an Ofcom consultation.

That consultation, focused on how tech firms should prevent “potentially illegal” material from spreading online, closed in October, with Ofcom releasing the submissions in December.

Google’s filing accused the regulator of promoting rules that would “undermine users’ rights to freedom of expression” by encouraging pre-emptive content suppression.

Ofcom rejected this view, insisting that “nothing in our proposals would require sites and apps to take down legal content.” Yet Google was hardly alone in raising alarms: other American companies and trade groups submitted responses voicing comparable fears about the Act’s scope and implications.

Chris Best wrote that his company initially set out to comply with the new law but quickly discovered it to be far more intrusive than expected. “What I’ve learned is that, in practice, it pushes toward something much darker: a system of mass political censorship unlike anywhere else in the western world,” he said.

Best describes how the OSA effectively forces platforms to classify and filter speech on a constant basis, anticipating what regulators might later deem harmful.

Compliance, he explained, requires “armies of human moderators or AI” to scan journalism, commentary, and even satire for potential risk.

The process, he continued, doesn’t simply remove content but “gates it” behind identity checks or age-verification hurdles that often involve facial scans or ID uploads.

“These measures don’t technically block the content,” Best said, “but they gate it behind steps that prove a hassle at best, and an invasion of privacy at worst.” He warned that this structure discourages readers, reduces visibility for writers, and weakens open cultural exchange.

Best, who emphasized Substack’s commitment to press freedom, said the OSA misdiagnoses the problem of online harm by targeting speech rather than prosecuting actual abuse or criminal behavior.

Keep reading

UK Police Pilot AI System to Track “Suspicious” Driver Journeys

Police forces across Britain are experimenting with artificial intelligence that can automatically monitor and categorize drivers’ movements using the country’s extensive number plate recognition network.

Internal records obtained by Liberty Investigates and The Telegraph reveal that three of England and Wales’s nine regional organized crime units are piloting a Faculty AI-built program designed to learn from vehicle movement data and detect journeys that algorithms label “suspicious.”

For years, the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system has logged more than 100 million vehicle sightings each day, mostly for confirming whether a specific registration has appeared in a certain area.

The new initiative changes that logic entirely. Instead of checking isolated plates, it teaches software to trace entire routes, looking for patterns of behavior that resemble the travel of criminal networks known for “county lines” drug trafficking.

The project, called Operation Ignition, represents a change in scale and ambition.

Unlike traditional alerts that depend on officers manually flagging “vehicles of interest,” the machine learning model learns from past data to generate its own list of potential targets.

Official papers admit that the process could involve “millions of [vehicle registrations],” and that the information gathered may guide future decisions about the ethical and operational use of such technologies.

What began as a Home Office-funded trial in the North West covering Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Cumbria, Lancashire, and North Wales has now expanded into three regional crime units.

Keep reading

Bipartisan Bill Seeks to Repeal Section 230, Endangering Online Free Speech

A proposal in the US Senate titled the Sunset Section 230 Act seeks to dismantle one of the core protections that has shaped the modern internet.

Put forward by Senator Lindsey Graham with bipartisan backing from Senators Dick Durbin, Josh Hawley, Amy Klobuchar, and Richard Blumenthal, the bill would repeal Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, a provision that has, for nearly thirty years, shielded online platforms from liability for the actions of their users.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Under the plan, Section 230 would be fully repealed two years after the bill’s passage.

This short transition period would force websites, social platforms, and hosting services to rethink how they handle public interaction.

The current statute stops courts from holding online platforms legally responsible as the publishers of material shared by their users.

Its protection has been instrumental in allowing everything from local discussion boards to global platforms such as YouTube and Wikipedia to operate without being sued over every user comment or upload.

The legislation’s text removes Section 230 entirely and makes “conforming amendments” across multiple federal laws.

“I am extremely pleased that there is such wide and deep bipartisan support for repealing Section 230, which protects social media companies from being sued by the people whose lives they destroy.

Giant social media platforms are unregulated, immune from lawsuits, and are making billions of dollars in advertising revenue off some of the most unsavory content and criminal activity imaginable,” said Senator Graham.

“It is past time to allow those who have been harmed by these behemoths to have their day in court.”

Keep reading

DHS Says Recording or Following Law Enforcement ‘Sure Sounds Like Obstruction of Justice’

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says recording or following federal law enforcement “sure sounds like obstruction of justice,” despite federal circuit courts repeatedly ruling that such activity is core First Amendment speech.

In response to a question from Reason asking if the department considered following or recording a federal law enforcement officer to be obstruction of justice, the DHS Office of Public Affairs said in an emailed statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson: “That sure sounds like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

It’s one of the most direct public statements yet from DHS articulating a policy that treats following, recording, and revealing the identities of federal immigration officers as illegal activity. There have been months of news reports and viral showing federal immigration officers threatening, brandishing weapons, and violently detaining people for following and recording them in public. 

David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, collected dozens of these instances in a report released earlier this month. Bier concluded that the amount of video evidence, in conjunction memos and public statements from DHS leadership, amounts to “an official, nationwide policy of intimidating and threatening people who attempt to observe and record [DHS] operations.”

Civil libertarians say it’s an unconstitutional policy. Although the Supreme Court has declined to address the issue, seven federal circuit courts have firmly upheld the right to record and monitor the police, as long as one doesn’t physically interfere with them. 

“Observing, following, and recording law enforcement are unambiguously protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution,” Bier tells Reason. “They are not obstruction of justice. The right to record helps guarantee justice by ensuring accountability and an accurate record of events.”

For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded in 2017 that “First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit joined the club in 2022, when it ruled that a Colorado man had presented a clear First Amendment retaliation claim against a police officer who prevented him from filming a traffic stop.

Likewise, courts have frequently ruled that the First Amendment protects the right to warn others of police activity, such as flashing one’s headlights to warn of a speed trap ahead. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that a Connecticut man’s First Amendment rights were violated when police arrested him for holding a sign warning drivers of police activity ahead.

“The right to record publicly visible law enforcement activity is a core First Amendment right,” says Scarlet Kim, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “It creates an independent record of what officers are doing, and it is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of misconduct have involved video recordings. The burning question is why ICE officers feel the need to hide who they are and what they do from the public—masking their faces, lacking visible ID, driving unmarked vehicles, and now attacking those who document their activities.”

The guiding First Amendment principle behind these court decisions was most memorably expressed in the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Houston v. Hill, which struck down a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to oppose or interrupt a police officer: “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state,” Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote.

Keep reading

Shein Can’t Sell Sex Toys Unless It Checks IDs, French Court Says

Shein, a cheap-stuff superstore based in China that is popular worldwide, cannot sell sex toys unless it checks purchaser IDs, a French court has ruled. The case comes after the French government tried to shut down Shein for three months.

International attention on the case has focused on the fact that Shein—through its third-party vendor marketplace—was temporarily selling what’s been described as “childlike sex dolls.” That’s appalling, of course. But understandable disgust and anger about that aspect has overshadowed a bigger story.

According to the BBC, the court ordered age verification measures to be enacted for the sale of all “adult” items, with a potential fine of €10,000 (about $11,700) for each breach.

Sex Toys: Age Verification’s Next Frontier?

“I don’t live in France and I don’t shop at Shein,” you might be thinking. “Why should I care?”

Because, my friends, this is another sign about where online age verification is going.

Politicians and activists—in the U.S. and around the world—initially pushed age verification measures as a requirement for porn websites. Who could be against stopping kids from watching hardcore pornography? they asked anyone who objected (conveniently eluding the facts that these bans are often broad enough to cover all sorts of sexuality-related material, and that they won’t affect just children but will invade the privacy of countless adults trying to access protected speech).

Then we started hearing about the need to implement age verification measures—checking IDs or requiring facial scans and so on—on all social media platforms. Now we’re hearing about age verification for video games, age verification for vibrators, age verification for everything.

Texas lawmakers earlier this year introduced a measure that would have mandated age verification for sex toy sales online. It failed to advance, but at the rate things are going I don’t think that will be the last we hear of it.

Measures like these could mean anyone who wants to purchase sex toys or sexual wellness devices online will have to attach their identity to the purchase—opening them up to surveillance, hackers, and so on.

Keep reading

Citizens In Eastern Ukraine Will Not Be Allowed To Vote, Zelensky Says

President Volodymyr Zelensky has confirmed that Ukraine and Washington are in talks about holding elections, after earlier this month he much belatedly said while under pressure from Trump that he’s ready to allow national elections, so long as they can be done fairly and freely.

Zelensky indicated current discussions also hinge on the US and other partners helping set the conditions so Ukrainians can vote in safety. He previously stated the country could hold a vote within 60 days – but only if there are security guarantees.

Already over the weekend he erected more barriers to holding a vote, stipulating that citizens in Eastern Ukraine would not be able to participate. 

“Any election in Ukraine can not be held in Russia-occupied parts of the country,” Zelensky has been quoted in international press as saying, and he once again added that a proper voting process can take place only if security is ensured.

He has also lately said that Ukraine’s foreign minister had started the initial work on the infrastructure needed for Ukrainians living abroad to participate.

The four oblasts that President Putin has called “our four new regions” and “our citizens forever” include Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions – and were annexed after a popular referendum during the first year of the war.

Putin has blasted Zelensky’s rule as illegitimate given the canceled elections based on enacting a state of martial law, and President Trump has expressed increasing agreement with this perspective.

Still, Zelensky’s new ‘openness’ with holding an election has been coupled with plenty of caveats and likely immense barriers. For example last week he said—

…that a ceasefire with Russia must be in place before elections can be held in Ukraine, “at least for the duration of the election process and voting”. Ukrainian law forbids wartime elections but US President Donald Trump is pressuring Zelensky, whose term ended last year, to hold a vote.

But Trump this month finally put some real pressure on him, it appears. Given Zelensky had put the brakes on the US-proposed pace plan by definitively rejecting the territorial concessions aspects to the document, the US president’s assessment in a recent Politico interview was blunt and highly critical, going so far as to basically call Ukraine not a democracy.

“They haven’t had an election in a long time,” Trump said. “You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.”

Keep reading

The Surveillance State Is Making a Naughty List—and You’re On It

The Surveillance State is making a naughty list, and we’re all on it.

Unlike Santa’s naughty list, however, the consequences of landing on the government’s “naughty list” are far more severe than a stocking full of coal. They can include heightened surveillance, loss of privacy, travel restrictions, financial scrutiny, police encounters, or being flagged as a potential threat—often without notice, explanation, or recourse.

What was once dismissed as a joke—“Santa is watching”—has morphed into a chilling reality. Instead of elves, the watchers are data brokers, intelligence agencies, predictive algorithms, and fusion centers. Instead of a naughty-or-nice list, Americans are sorted into databases, risk profiles, and threat assessments—lists that never disappear.

The shift is subtle but profound.

Innocence is no longer presumed.

Everyone is watched. Everyone is scored. Everyone is a potential suspect.

This is the surveillance state in action.

Today’s surveillance state doesn’t require suspicion, a warrant, or probable cause. It is omnipresent, omniscient, and inescapable.

Your smartphone tracks your location. Your car records your movements. License plate readers log when and where you drive. Retail purchases create detailed consumer profiles. Smart speakers listen to everything you say. Home security cameras observe not just your property, but your neighbors, delivery drivers, and anyone who passes by.

In a dramatic expansion of surveillance reach, the Transportation Security Administration now shares airline passenger lists with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, enabling ICE to identify and arrest travelers at airports based on immigration status.

Keep reading

Kansas Attorney General And Law Enforcement Sued Over Raids On Hemp Businesses

A McPherson County lawsuit filed by a Kansas business owner challenges “unconstitutionally vague” enforcement operations leading to seizure of cash and hemp-derived products at direction of the state’s attorney general and director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.

KBI director Tony Mattivi and Attorney General Kris Kobach said in October law enforcement officers raided CBD and vape shops to serve more than a dozen search warrants on businesses suspected of not complying with state drug law.

In a statement, Mattivi said targeted stores were “nothing but weed dealers” and the state must “enforce our controlled-substance laws when we have these substances causing bad effects on Kansas kids.”

Barry Grissom and Jake Miller, of a law firm based in Kansas City, Missouri, responded Monday by seeking on behalf of Mike Ballinger, owner of the McPherson CBD store Hanging Leaf, a court injunction to stop comparable raids and to compel return of seized property.

“The pleadings speak for themselves,” said Grissom, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Kansas and advocate for legalizing marijuana sales and consumption in Kansas.

Both Mattivi and Kobach, in their official capacity, were named in the filing requesting injunctive relief from “recent enforcement actions involving hemp products legally permitted under Kansas law.”

On October 1, Mattivi and Kobach disclosed their statewide “marijuana enforcement operation” focused on vape shops and CBD dispensaries. This law enforcement effort resulted in execution of at least 15 search warrants across Kansas.

The lawsuit said authorities seized $7,000 in inventory as well as cash from Hanging Leaf. A portion of cash taken into custody at Hanging Leaf was property of an unrelated business operated by the plaintiff, the suit said.

Attorneys for the plaintiff said Kansas law permitted hemp products with no more than 0.3 percent Delta-9 THC or tetrahydrocannabinol. The plaintiff alleged KBI testing with gas chromatography was capable of detecting “only the presence of THC and cannot determine the origin” of the substance. The suit says the KBI testing regimen improperly resulted in seizure of compliant goods.

In addition, the plaintiff asserted unconstitutional vagueness of Kansas law fostered “arbitrary enforcement that chills protected business activities.” The filing requested raids to be forbidden until the state adopted legal protection for products under 0.3 percent hemp derived from Delta-9 THC.

Keep reading

Ohio Governor Signs Bill To Recriminalize Some Marijuana Activity, Vetoing Provision To Allow THC Drinks For A Year

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed a bill into law Friday that bans intoxicating hemp products and makes various changes to the state’s voter-passed marijuana law, including adding crimes such as making it illegal to bring legally purchased marijuana from another state back to Ohio.

DeWine signed Ohio Senate Bill 56, which will take effect in 90 days. He has been urging Ohio lawmakers to do something about intoxicating hemp products for the past nearly two years.

Ohio’s bill complies with recent federal changes by banning intoxicating hemp products from being sold outside of a licensed marijuana dispensary.

In November, Congress voted to ban products that contain 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container earlier this month when they voted to reopen the government.

Those who work in the intoxicating hemp industry are worried this will put thousands of people out of business.

DeWine line-item-vetoed the THC-infused beverage provision in the bill that would have allowed five milligram THC beverages to be manufactured, distributed, and sold in Ohio until December 31, 2026.

“My veto means that they cannot be sold,” DeWine said during a Friday press conference. “The simplest thing, frankly, to do is to stop it right now instead of going until the date in November set by federal law.”

DeWine said he does not think THC beverages are a good idea.

“I think they create extra problems,” DeWine said.

Ohio S.B. 56 had a provision that said if the federal government legalizes THC beverages, Ohio will consider “a more robust regulatory framework of these products,” according to the bill’s language.

“We got to this point because of poorly drafted federal legislation and people taking advantage of it,” Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima, said.

“So speculating about what the federal government may do in the future and what we may do as a result, I think, adds to the same problem that has already been created.”

On the marijuana side, the bill would reduce the THC levels in adult-use marijuana extracts from a maximum of 90 percent down to a maximum of 70 percent, cap THC levels in adult-use flower to 35 percent, and prohibit smoking in most public places.

Part of the probable cause portions were removed from the bill, but some of it still remains.

The bill prohibits possessing marijuana in anything outside of its original packaging and criminalizes bringing legal marijuana from another state back to Ohio. It also requires drivers to store marijuana in the trunk of their car while driving.

Ohio S.B. 56 would give 36 percent of adult-use marijuana sale revenue to municipalities and townships that have recreational marijuana dispensaries.

The bill also maintains the 10 percent tax rate on recreational marijuana and keeps home grow the same at six plants per adult and 12 per residence. It also places a cap on 400 marijuana dispensaries in the state.

Ohioans passed a citizen-initiated law to legalize recreational marijuana in 2023 with 57 percent of the vote. Sales started in August 2024 and exceeded $702.5 million in the first year.

Ohio lawmakers can change the law since it passed as a citizen initiative not a constitutional amendment, something they have been trying to do since late 2023.

Keep reading

Why Should Americans Die For European Tyranny?

After the European Commission levied a several-hundred-million-dollar fine on Elon Musk and his social media platform X earlier this month, journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote a damning post in which he excoriated Europe’s rank censorship and state-sponsored propaganda.  He accused the commission of engaging “in a deception campaign aimed at confusing” Europeans and Americans into thinking that European elites’ “goal” is anything other than “to censor the American people.”

Shellenberger pointed out that Musk’s fine came while European governments are demanding backdoor access to all private text messages (under the pretense of combatting the transmission of child pornography) and creating a so-called “Democracy Shield” of government-funded “fact-checkers” that enables “censorship by proxy.”  He also noted that the European Commission announced the fine to coincide with the rollout of the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy, in which President Trump makes this promise: “We will oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.”

Shellenberger put two and two together to make a provocative observation:

“The EU is now in direct violation of the NATO Treaty,” which “requires member states to have free speech and free and fair elections.  France and Germany are actively and illegally preventing political candidates from running for office for ideological reasons, namely their opposition to mass migration.  And the Romanian high court, with the support of the European Commission, nullified election results under the thin and unproven pretext of Russian interference, after a nationalist and populist presidential candidate won.”

As a parting shot, Shellenberger accused the European political class of betraying its own constitution, a document that purports to protect free speech:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.”  

How can the European Commission pretend to defend its own charter when it seeks to eradicate the free exchange of ideas on X, censor Americans’ speech, spy on citizens’ private text messages, and create an army of government-funded NGOs to justify censorship and push the commission’s propaganda?

Keep reading