Tag: police state

Hawaii To Pay Up After Trying to Criminalize Political Memes

Hawaii has agreed to pay $118,237.47 in attorney’s fees and costs to The Babylon Bee and local activist Dawn O’Brien, closing the books on a failed attempt to make some political satire a criminal act.

The state chose not to appeal a January ruling that struck down its so-called deepfake law, Act 191, as facially unconstitutional. It tried to ban speech. It lost. Now, taxpayers are covering the bill.

The settlement comes with an unusual wrinkle. Hawaii can’t actually pay yet. The agreement is contingent on the state legislature appropriating the funds during its next session, which runs from January to May 2027. If the legislature doesn’t approve the money by September 1, 2027, the Bee and O’Brien retain the right to file a formal motion for attorney’s fees, meaning the case would reopen and the final number could climb.

Act 191, signed by Governor Josh Green in July 2024, banned the distribution of “materially deceptive media” during election seasons if it risked “harming the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate” or “changing the voting behavior of voters.”

The only escape for satirists was to slap joke-killing disclaimers on their content, disclaimers that had to appear throughout the entirety of a video and be printed in letters as large as any other text on screen. Violations carried fines, civil lawsuits, and jail time.

The law didn’t require anyone to actually be harmed or deceived. It punished speech based on a speculative “risk” of harm, a standard so vague that the person posting had no reliable way to know whether they were complying. US District Judge Shanlyn Park found that the law “muddies the line between compliance and noncompliance by forcing speakers to base their conduct on their own risk assessment, rather than on clear, objective standards.”

She noted the law created an “inherently subjective assessment for enforcement agencies” that “could conceivably lead to discretionary and targeted enforcement that discriminates based on viewpoint.”

Hawaii argued the law was needed to protect election integrity. Park acknowledged that interest but found the state couldn’t show it had chosen the least restrictive means.

Hawaii’s own expert agreed that digital literacy education would work, objecting only that it “would require a larger investment of resources” compared to a ban. Park cited the Supreme Court: “The First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.”

ADF legal counsel Mathew Hoffmann said: “Hawaii’s war against political memes and satire has come to an end, thankfully. The First Amendment doesn’t allow any state to choose what political speech is acceptable and censor speech in the name of ‘misinformation.’ That censorship is both undemocratic and unnecessary.”

Hawaii follows California, which lost a similar fight against the Bee. Minnesota’s version is still being litigated before the full 8th Circuit.

Keep reading

Texas Woman Arrested for Facebook Post About Town Water Quality

Jennifer Combs had never gotten so much as a speeding ticket. On May 8, police in Trinidad, Texas, arrested her on a state jail felony charge for writing a Facebook post about the town’s water supply.

The post said residents had been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. The city says that claim was false. So they sent cops to her door.

The charge is felony false alarm or report under Texas Penal Code § 42.06, a statute designed for people who call in fake bomb threats or fabricate emergencies. Trinidad’s police chief and local officials decided it also applies to a woman who ran a community Facebook page and relayed what neighbors told her about getting sick.

Combs’ post, published on her “Southern Belle Watch” account, read in part: “We have received reports that some citizens have been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. This is a serious public health concern that deserves immediate attention. If your water looks discolored, contains sediment, has a strong odor, or you have experienced related health issues, please send us a message. We are gathering information and reporting findings to the state.”

That post got her a night in the Navarro County Justice Center. She has since filed a federal lawsuit alleging the arrest was “an act of deliberate political retaliation.”

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The water is brown. The city admits it.

Trinidad, a small city in Henderson County about an hour southeast of Dallas, has a water problem that nobody disputes.

Keep reading

Massachusetts House Passes Social Media Age Verification Digital ID Bill

Massachusetts just voted to force every social media user in the state to prove their age to a tech company. 

The bill passed the House 129-25 on Wednesday, banning children under 14 from social media entirely, requiring parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds, and mandating that platforms build age verification systems to enforce all of it. If it becomes law, the policy takes effect on October 1.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

House Speaker Ron Mariano and Ways and Means Chair Aaron Michlewitz framed the legislation as protection. “This ban would be among the most restrictive in the entire country, helping to protect young people from harmful content and addictive algorithms that have a proven negative impact on their mental health,” they said in a joint statement. 

They also described the broader goal: “The simple reality is that Massachusetts must do more to ensure that our laws keep pace with modern challenges – especially when it comes to protecting our children, and to setting students up for success in the classroom and beyond.”

The bill doesn’t say how companies should verify ages. It leaves that to Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who would have until September 1 to write the implementing regulations. 

That vagueness is deliberate, according to Michlewitz, who said it gives the AG flexibility in a changing industry. 

But the practical reality of age verification is that someone has to prove who they are. 

That means government IDs, facial scans, or behavioral tracking, and those requirements don’t just apply to kids. Every user on the platform has to go through the system, because you can’t filter minors without checking adults, too.

Keep reading

Merkel Urges EU to Keep Regulating Social Media Speech

Angela Merkel used her first major European platform since leaving office to tell the EU exactly what it wanted to hear: keep regulating speech online, and don’t worry too much about getting it wrong.

The former German chancellor, speaking Tuesday at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, urged the bloc to “continue regulating the social media” and artificial intelligence. “To believe that responsibility for spreading information is no longer necessary, that accountability – there should be no accountability for lies, then that would undermine democracy,” she told the chamber.

Lies. Who decides what counts as a lie? In the EU’s model, that question gets answered by the European Commission, by government-appointed regulators, by “trusted flaggers” that platforms are legally required to obey. Not by courts. Not through anything resembling due process.

Merkel knows this system well. Her government built the prototype. Germany’s NetzDG law, passed under her chancellorship in 2017, required platforms to delete “clearly illegal” content within 24 hours or face fines up to €50 million.

The people whose speech got censored under it included a satirical magazine, a political street artist, and an opposition party leader. NetzDG became an export product, copied by governments in Russia, Turkey, and across Southeast Asia, each adapting it to their own definition of “illegal.”

The EU took the concept continent-wide with the Digital Services Act, which requires major platforms to assess and reduce “systemic risks,” a category broad enough to cover “civic discourse,” “electoral processes,” and “public security.”

The Commission writes the rules, decides whether platforms comply, and levies fines of up to 6% of global revenue when they don’t. No independent prosecutor. X is currently challenging the first DSA fine ever imposed, a €120 million penalty from December 2025, arguing the process involved “grave procedural errors” and “systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process.”

More than 50 European NGOs have warned that the DSA’s vague terms could violate the EU Charter’s own free expression protections. The Commission’s response was to declare the law “content-agnostic” and move on.

Merkel acknowledged none of this. She told parliamentarians that “perhaps mistakes will be made, but we learn through mistakes.” That’s cold comfort when the mistakes involve censoring legal speech and silencing political opposition through systems with no judicial oversight and no meaningful appeal.

Her remarks came at the inaugural ceremony for the European Order of Merit, where she was honored alongside 19 other laureates, including Lech Wałęsa, Moldovan President Maia Sandu, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. She framed regulation as essential to democracy. “We’ve had 75 years of European thought,” she said. “Peace, prosperity, and democracy.”

Keep reading

30 people arrested per day ‘for WORD CRIMES’: Journalist BANNED from the UK exposes dystopian agenda

A few years ago, journalist Ezra Levant received the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal for defending freedom of expression after refusing to “bend the knee” and publishing Danish cartoons of Muhammad.

Now, the prime minister of the United Kingdom has banned him from the country.

“To have the prime minister of the United Kingdom ban me, a journalist … I’ve never done anything illegal in my life. I’ve never even had a parking ticket in the U.K. When I go there, it’s to do journalism,” Levant tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck.

“Glenn, your radio and you would be shut down within a week; I’m sorry to say it,” he continues. “Your First Amendment in America is more important than almost anything else, because with that, you can fight for all your other freedoms. Never give up your First Amendment.”

While everyone assumes other Western countries have the same First Amendment rights, Levant explains that they’re different.

“In the United Kingdom, according to the Times of London, a very prestigious newspaper, on any given day, on average, 30 people are arrested for what they post on social media. 30 a day. I’m not a fan of Russia, but even they don’t arrest 30 people a day for word crimes,” Levant says.

And the government doesn’t go after those who are actually harming others.

“They’re targeting people who criticize the government, especially on the issue of mass immigration. And the number-one thing that they’re scared about talking about is the rape gangs of largely Pakistani Muslim men targeting white girls,” Levant explains.

“When people have a march or a rally against these rapes, the government goes into freakout mode because it challenges the entire multiculturalism and immigration structure of the U.K.,” he says.

“So,” he continues, “never give up your free speech, Glenn, because you can see it in real time in the U.K.”

Keep reading

Incoming Chief of UK Speech Regulator Takes Aim at VPNs

Ian Cheshire, the government’s pick to run the UK’s speech regulator, appeared before the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on Wednesday and laid out what amounts to an acceleration plan for online censorship.

He pledged to take on the “big tech bros,” branded VPNs as a “technical problem,” identified YouTube as needing a whole new set of regulatory powers, and hinted that Ofcom will ask the Treasury for more funding.

Before the hearing, Cheshire had “reached out to the Molly Rose Foundation because I wanted to understand its perspective.”

He had “quite deliberately” not met any mainstream tech companies. The Foundation has called Ofcom “slow, defensive and risk-averse” and demanded a new, broader censorship law within the first two years of this Parliament. The companies that might have raised concerns about overreach? Cheshire chose not to hear from them.

On VPNs, he told MPs: “Parliament has chosen to legislate on online safety; therefore, we should be acting on it. That is subject to the joys of VPNs and the other technical problems we have, but there is no reason not to go after the key harms that are there. As soon as they are visible, there is no reason why we cannot to do something about them.”

VPNs are legal privacy tools used by millions of people. Calling them “technical problems” tells you how the incoming chair views individual privacy relative to the state’s power to police speech. To a growing number of bureaucrats, privacy tools aren’t part of rights to be protected. They’re obstacles.

Ofcom already monitors UK VPN usage using an unnamed third-party tool and a group of peers has proposed banning under-18s from using VPNs entirely.

Cheshire told the committee that Ofcom will “need to deal with” the perception that “Ofcom is too timid and not moving fast enough.”

The Online Safety Act already lets Ofcom compel platforms to censor content under vague categories of “harm” that the regulator defines. It can fine companies up to 10 percent of global revenue and hold executives personally liable.

He singled out YouTube as “the biggest single challenge” and suggested Ofcom may need a “different toolkit” to “regulate effectively something like YouTube.”

The OSA’s codes of practice are still being rolled out. Ofcom hasn’t finished writing the existing rules and the incoming chair is already signaling they won’t be enough.

Keep reading

The Technocratic Takeover: Why We Must Resist the Digital Enslavement of Humanity

The Time to Resist is NOW

We are living through the most audacious power grab in human history. The technocratic elite, hiding behind the mask of innovation and efficiency, are systematically dismantling the last vestiges of human autonomy.

They prioritize machines over men, algorithms over souls, and data centers over families. The recent news from Lake Tahoe, where Nevada Power plans to cut off 50,000 residents to feed the insatiable appetite of a data center, is not an anomaly. It is a warning. It reveals the true priority: artificial intelligence over human life.

This is not a bug in the system; it is the feature. The technocrats have designed a world where your right to light your home, cook your food, and keep your children warm is secondary to the processing power demanded by their digital overlords.

The Data Center Heist: Power for Machines, Darkness for People

When a utility company decides that 50,000 households are expendable so that a single data center can run its servers, you are witnessing the naked face of technocratic tyranny. The excuse pushed by the corporate media is that we must ‘beat China’ in the AI race. But as I have previously stated, this is a smokescreen for building the infrastructure of a total surveillance state [1]. These data centers are not about convenient search results or better movie recommendations; they are about power — both electrical and political.

Consider the rapid transformation of states like Ohio into the so-called ‘Silicon Heartland.’ The state’s transformation owes much to public-private partnerships pioneered by elites with deep ties to intelligence agencies and globalist financial networks [2]. The real goal is not to serve humanity but to create a centralized network of control. Every megawatt diverted to an AI server farm is a megawatt stolen from your kitchen, your hospital, and your community. The technocrats believe your comfort and survival are negotiable. I believe they are not.

The Surveillance State and the Simulated World

The mapping of our entire world for AI metaverses is a pretext for total surveillance. As Alexander Mercouris and I have discussed, the drive to create digital twins of everything — including you — is the first step toward making the biological human obsolete [3]. This isn’t just about tracking your purchases or your location; it is about creating a digital copy of your consciousness, ready to be uploaded into a machine that has no need for flesh, blood, or a soul.

For years, we have known that the CIA actively nurtured platforms like Google to fight an ‘information war’ against the public [4]. Now that war has escalated. The goal is to replace messy, unpredictable human beings with predictable, programmable digital assets. Show me a government pushing for a central bank digital currency, and I will show you a government preparing to turn you into a number in their digital ledger. Show me a corporation building a ‘social credit’ system, and I will show you a jailer building a cage without bars. The only way to resist is to recognize that your consciousness is real and cannot be simulated. Your soul was not designed to be uploaded, replicated or simulated.

Mind Control and the Mental Health Crisis: The War on Your Brain

The epidemic of anxiety, depression, and suicide among young people is not an accident. It is the product of a century-old program of mass mind control, updated for the digital age. In a revealing 1958 interview, Aldous Huxley predicted that technology would bypass reason and manipulate behavior through subliminal means [5]. Today, that prediction is fulfilled by the algorithms of social media platforms and the non-stop fear mongering of cable news.

This is MK Ultra for the masses. The constant barrage of fear, division, and isolation is engineered to make us docile, disconnected from reality, and dependent on the very system that is poisoning us. The technocrats do not want you thinking clearly. They want you anxious, scrolling, and compliant. The solution begins with a simple act of rebellion: turn off the television. Put down the smartphone that is tracking your every move. Reclaim your attention from the algorithms that feed on your fear. Your mind is the last battleground, and you must win it back.

Keep reading

South Carolina’s New Social Media Law Puts Every User Under Age Surveillance

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed H.B. 4591 on May 19, turning the Stop Harm from Addictive Social Media Act into a law that will reshape how every resident of the state uses major social media platforms.

The bill passed with almost no opposition, clearing the House 115-0 and the Senate 42-1. It takes effect January 1, 2027, and it brings with it a surveillance apparatus aimed at all users.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The law, sponsored by Rep. Brandon Guffey (R-York), requires covered platforms to repeatedly estimate and verify the age of every South Carolina account holder.

The stated goal is child protection. The way it claims to do that is continuous behavioral analysis of anyone who spends enough time on a platform, combined with escalating confidence thresholds and penalties of ten thousand dollars per violation if platforms get it wrong.

Here’s how the age estimation system works. Once an account holder hits 25 cumulative hours on a platform within six months (the “first trigger date”), the platform has 14 days to estimate whether that person is over 15, with 80% confidence.

At 50 hours (the “second trigger date”), the confidence requirement jumps to 90%. After that, the platform must update its estimate every 100 hours of use, or whenever it runs data analytics on the user for any other reason, whichever comes sooner.

That last clause is easy to miss and it means any time a platform runs its profiling algorithms on you for ad targeting, content recommendations, or anything else, it also has to re-evaluate your estimated age. The law essentially piggybacks mandatory age surveillance onto whatever commercial surveillance platforms already conduct, expanding the scope of both.

Because platforms face significant liability if they can’t meet these confidence thresholds, the law creates powerful incentives to harvest far more sensitive data about users than they do today, including about minors.

A platform that guesses wrong faces $10,000 per violation. A platform that overinvests in behavioral profiling to avoid those fines faces no penalty at all. The incentive structure points in one direction.

The bill claims it “does not create any duty on the part of a covered social media platform to request, collect, or retain any information from or about any account holder” and that age estimates must be “derived based on information collected and retained by the covered social media platform in the ordinary course of operation.”

This is the bill’s central fiction. Platforms that can’t achieve 80% or 90% confidence from existing data will need to collect more data, or face financial ruin from accumulated violations. The law doesn’t mandate new data collection in the same way that holding a knife to your wallet doesn’t mandate you hand over cash.

For users classified as children (under 16), the restrictions are extensive. Accounts require verifiable parental consent, with privacy settings locked to the most restrictive levels by default.

Platforms cannot show children profile-based feeds, profile-based advertising, or any “addictive interface features,” a category that includes infinite scrolling, auto-play video, push notifications, and display of personal metrics like reaction counts.

Keep reading

Big Tech Backs Colorado OS-Level Age Data Bill

Chamber of Progress, a lobbying group bankrolled by Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and OpenAI, is pushing Colorado Governor Jared Polis to sign SB 26-051 into law.

The bill would force operating system providers to harvest users’ dates of birth and pipe that data to app developers through an API every time you download or open an app. If Polis signs it, your phone’s operating system becomes more of an identity checkpoint, not just for children, but for everyone.

The bill landed on the Governor’s desk on May 12 after clearing both chambers of the Colorado legislature, passing the House 40-23 and the Senate 26-9.

We obtained a copy of the latest version of the bill for you here.

Sponsored by Democratic Senator Matt Ball and Representative Amy Paschal, the legislation mirrors California’s AB 1043, signed into law in October 2025. Colorado’s version would start applying to new users on July 1, 2028, with existing users folded in by January 1, 2029.

When you set up a device account, the OS asks for a date of birth. That data gets translated into one of four age brackets (under 13, 13 to 15, 16 to 17, and 18-plus) and stored as an “age signal.”

Developers are required to request that signal at first launch or account creation through a real-time API. Every app you open gets to ask your operating system how old you are.

Chamber of Progress told Colorado lawmakers that the bill “reflects an important effort to protect children online while minimizing risks to privacy and lawful speech.”

That framing collapses under the weight of what the bill constructs. It calls age-bracket data “nonpersonally identifiable,” but an age bracket combined with a device ID, app usage patterns and an IP address makes re-identification trivial. When that signal flows to dozens of apps at launch, the aggregate profile becomes far richer than any single data point suggests.

The bill also makes anonymous device use functionally harder. If account setup requires an age attestation that follows you into every app, you lose the ability to use the software without disclosing something about your identity. That has consequences for journalists, activists, domestic violence survivors, and anyone who treats privacy as a default.

The bill never specifies how age data is verified. Account holders just “indicate” a birth date. It may not have an ID check or a biometric scan, at least for now. But a 12-year-old can type in 1988 and the system accepts it.

As a mechanism for protecting children, this is useless, and everyone involved in writing it knows that. What it does accomplish is something else entirely. It builds the architecture: the API, the data pipeline, the legal obligation for developers to query an age signal at every app launch. Once that plumbing exists, the only question left is what gets poured through it.

Keep reading

Ukrainian police bosses detained in porn probe 

Senior Ukrainian police officials have been detained on suspicion of accepting regular bribes from underground porn studios.

Among the high-ranking law enforcement figures arrested on Wednesday in western Ukraine were the police chief of Ivano-Frankovsk Region and his deputy, as well as deputy police chiefs from the Ternopol and Zhitomir regions, authorities said.

A fifth suspect works in the Interior Ministry’s garage and served as a personal driver for a deputy minister, officials said. Investigators allege that he acted as an intermediary and money courier in the corruption scheme.

The anti-graft operation, carried out by several agencies together with the National Police’s internal investigations division, targeted the production of adult content, an illegal but reportedly thriving industry in Ukraine. The suspects are accused of receiving monthly payments of around $25,000 per studio in exchange for shielding porn producers from law enforcement scrutiny.

Keep reading