Tag: police state

Canada’s Military Punished Whistleblowers Who Flagged Illegal COVID Speech Monitoring

The Canadian Armed Forces reprimanded soldiers who warned that an order to spy on citizens during COVID-19 could violate intelligence-gathering rules. The soldiers were right. The military punished them anyway.

Internal records and emails obtained by CBC News show that on March 11, 2020, a team called Joint Operational Effects (JOE) was ordered to create anonymous social media accounts and scour the internet for information about Canadians.

Under the direction of Col. Chris Henderson, the team produced dozens of reports between March 19 and June 5, tracking what the federal Conservative, NDP, and Bloc Québécois parties were saying about the pandemic.

The Canadian military was monitoring opposition political parties using anonymous accounts created specifically for surveillance.

At least two JOE team members pushed back. They emailed their chain of command, warning that creating anonymous accounts without authorization, while working from home on personal computers, could breach intelligence directives.

One soldier wrote to Maj. John Zwicewicz on March 12, 2020: “Given the sensitivity around social media and military use I have concerns about this.”

They added: “My concern is that by creating these accounts without following proper procedure would come close to, or cross the line set out in the policy.” Another asked to go into the office because they felt it “represented a serious risk” to do the work at home.

Zwicewicz claimed a legal adviser had approved the activities and ordered the group to “cease barrack room lawyering” and get back to work. The team was formally reprimanded more than a week after raising concerns. A source told CBC News that within months, some members quit or were medically released.

The people who raised alarms about potentially illegal surveillance of Canadian citizens got punished. The people who ordered the surveillance kept their positions.

Keep reading

Tennessee man jailed for Charlie Kirk meme wins $835,000 settlement

Larry Bushart, a 61-year-old retired police officer, was arrested in September after sharing memes on Facebook about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Tennessee officials have now agreed to pay $835,000 to settle the lawsuit filed by Bushart against Perry County, its sheriff, and the investigator who obtained the arrest warrant.

Bushart’s case drew national attention because, while many people across the U.S. reportedly lost jobs over social media posts about Kirk’s death, his was a rare case where online speech led to criminal prosecution. Authorities later dropped the felony charge against him in October.

The post that prompted Bushart’s arrest featured President Donald Trump and the words “We have to get over it,” referencing a remark made in 2024 after a school shooting at Perry High School in Iowa. AP reported that the meme was posted with the caption: “This seems relevant today…”

Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems said last year that most of Bushart’s posts were lawful free speech, but claimed residents were alarmed by the school shooting reference because there is also a Perry County High School in Tennessee. However, Weems also said he knew the meme referred to the Iowa school shooting.

“Investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community,” Weems said in a statement to The Tennessean last year.

Keep reading

Plainfield adopts ban on sale of controversial drug kratom

The village of Plainfield has joined other communities in banning the sale of kratom, which the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has called “a drug of concern.”

Village trustees on Tuesday unanimously approved an ordinance that not only bans the sale or transfer of kratom, but also bans the sale or transfer of any novel synthetic or psychoactive drugs.

Those violating the ordinance could face a $250 fine. There is a statewide ban on the sale of kratom to anyone under the age of 18.

Kratom is an herbal extract from leaves of an evergreen tree called Mitragyna Speciosa, which grows in Southeast Asia. Kratom can be chewed, swallowed, brewed or added to a liquid.

In a memo to Plainfield Mayor John Argoudelis and village trustees, Plainfield Police Chief Robert Miller and Plainfield Village Administrator Joshua Blakemore recommended the board approve the ordinance.

“People who use kratom report that in low doses, kratom acts as a stimulant and in higher doses, it is reported it reduces pain and acts as a sedative,” they say in the memo. “Some people take kratom to ease the symptoms of quitting opioids, but it has its own risk of addiction. Kratom has not been shown to be safe or treat any medical conditions. The FDA has warned people not to use Kratom because of the possible harm it can cause.”

Keep reading

New York Governor Signs Bills To Preserve Mandatory Vaccines

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has signed legislation to preserve vaccine requirements for children.

Hochul, on May 15, signed two bills that decouple New York’s vaccine requirements from the federal government, after the Trump administration rolled back recommendations for hepatitis B and other vaccines.

“When public health comes under attack by an anti-science administration, New York fights back,” Hochul, a Democrat, said in a statement.

She added that the legislation “protects access to lifesaving vaccines for New Yorkers of all ages.”

One bill, Assembly Bill 10711, removes language about vaccines needing to be approved by federal regulators. Instead, it says that children must receive vaccines against measles, hepatitis B, and other diseases “in accordance with regulations issued by the commissioner of health of New York.”

Assembly Bill 10710, the other piece of legislation, requires health insurers to cover vaccines recommended by New York’s health commissioner, even if the shots are not recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

New York has, in the past, only mandated vaccines approved and recommended by federal health agencies.

“Vaccines remain one of the greatest public health tools in history, protecting individuals, families, and entire communities from serious and preventable diseases,” New York Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald said in a statement.

“At a time when misinformation is undermining confidence in science, this legislation reinforces New York State’s commitment to following trusted medical guidance and keeping New Yorkers healthy.”

The Trump administration has narrowed its recommendations for vaccines against several diseases, including COVID-19, hepatitis B, and rotavirus.

The biggest changes came after President Donald Trump issued an order directing officials to review recommendations from other countries and update U.S. recommendations as appropriate in light of the results of the review.

A federal judge in mid-March blocked the updates, concluding that officials did not follow proper procedure when altering the vaccine recommendations.

The Trump administration has appealed.

New York Democratic lawmakers who authored or voted for the bills Hochul signed hailed the development.

“In an era where federal health officials are undermining scientific integrity and sowing skepticism about lifesaving vaccines, New York is making the conscious choice to champion our medical professionals and reaffirm this state’s commitment to the evidence-based practices that have safeguarded communities for generations,” New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said in a statement.

Children’s Health Defense, an organization founded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was among the groups that opposed the legislation.

Michael Kane, director of advocacy for Children’s Health Defense, told The Epoch Times previously that one of the bills would enable the state to require experimental vaccines, as it removed language stating that vaccines needed federal approval.

“It would also allow for foreign entities to determine what vaccines our children must take,” Kane said.

Keep reading

Open Records Laws Reveal ALPRs’ Sprawling Surveillance. Now States Want to Block What the Public Sees.

Reporters, community advocates, EFF, and others have used public records laws to reveal and counteract abuse, misuse, and fraudulent narratives around how law enforcement agencies across the country use and share data collected by automated license plate readers (ALPRs). EFF is alarmed by recent laws in several states that have blocked public access to data collected by ALPRs, including, in some cases, information derived from ALPR data. We do not support pending bills in Arizona and Connecticut that would block the public oversight capabilities that ALPR information offers.

Every state has laws granting members of the public the right to obtain records from state and local governments. These are often called “freedom of information acts” (FOIAs) or “public records acts” (PRAs). They are a powerful check by the people on their government, and EFF frequently advocates for robust public access and uses the laws to scrutinize government surveillance. 

But lawmakers across the country, often in response to public scrutiny of police ALPRs, are introducing or enacting measures aimed at excluding broad swaths of ALPR information from disclosure under these public records laws. This could include whole categories of important information: general information about the extent of law enforcement use; details on ALPR sharing across policing agencies; data on the number of license plate scans conducted, where they happened, and how many “hits” for license plates of interest actually occur; analyses on how many false matches or other errors occur; and images taken of individuals’ own vehicles. 

No thanks. Public records and public scrutiny of ALPR programs have shown that people are harmed by these systems and that retained ALPR data violates people’s privacy. In this moment, lawmakers should not be completely cutting off access to public records that document the abuses perpetuated by ALPRs.

Keep reading

Ottawa says use VPNs but kindly leave a backdoor for us

Public Safety Canada recently posted advice encouraging Canadians to use VPNs online to better protect their privacy.

It was sensible advice when taken out of political context.

I use a VPN and you should too. But it ultimately didn’t play well with the general public and backfired.

That’s because Ottawa is simultaneously telling Canadians to shield themselves online while major VPN and other encryption-based platforms are threatening to pull out of the country, all because of Bill C-22.

This contradiction has become typical of Ottawa. One arm of the federal government reminds citizens to lock their doors, while another is drafting legislation designed to make it easier to kick those doors down. The attitude extends beyond tech and into the real world, where lax bail laws are emboldening criminals.

Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, introduces sweeping powers that would compel digital service providers to retain highly sensitive user data and location history for up to 365 days without any evidence of a crime. More alarming still, it aims to force companies to build technical “backdoors”, so state agencies can easily extract user data.

Signal, NordVPN and Canadian-headquartered Windscribe have already issued an ultimatum threatening to pull out of Canada entirely rather than play a role in spying on Canadians.

Tech companies understand something politicians refuse to acknowledge: there is no such thing as a secure backdoor.

Keep reading

German Intelligence Deems Watermelon Emoji Hate Speech

Germany has reached the point where even a watermelon can now be treated as a political threat. That is how absurd Europe has become. According to reports surrounding the latest antisemitism controversy in Germany, authorities and institutions are increasingly targeting symbols tied to pro-Palestinian activism, including the watermelon symbol that protesters began using after Palestinian flags and imagery started facing restrictions in some settings.

Think about how insane this has become. A watermelon is now being politically analyzed for “hate speech” implications while Europe is collapsing economically, energy prices remain elevated, migration tensions are exploding, and Germany itself is entering one of the worst industrial downturns since World War II. Instead of fixing the economy, Berlin is policing fruit symbolism and online speech.

I have warned that Germany has been moving steadily toward censorship for years. They raid homes over social media posts, prosecute citizens for insults online, and constantly expand speech laws under the excuse of fighting extremism. The problem is governments never stop at genuine extremism. Once censorship machinery exists, everything eventually becomes “dangerous.” Today it is a watermelon emoji. Tomorrow it becomes criticism of migration policy, opposition to war, or questioning government spending.

The Germans of all people should understand where this road leads. Europe has convinced itself that suppressing speech somehow eliminates social anger. It does not. It only drives resentment underground where it becomes more radicalized. History has shown repeatedly that governments trying to regulate political thought always end up creating even greater instability.

The frightening part is the sheer hypocrisy. Europe claims to defend democracy while simultaneously deciding which symbols, opinions, protests, or political expressions are acceptable. A watermelon itself is obviously not hateful. It is a piece of fruit. What governments fear is not the symbol itself. They fear losing control over public opinion as anger grows across Europe over war, migration, inflation, and collapsing living standards.

This is the real crisis developing in Germany. Not merely antisemitism, which absolutely exists and should be condemned, but the broader destruction of open discourse itself. Once governments begin defining ordinary political symbolism as dangerous, free society is already in serious trouble.

Keep reading

Virginia Governor Vetoes Marijuana Sales Legalization Bill After Lawmakers Rejected Her Amendments

Virginia’s governor has vetoed legislation to legalize recreational marijuana sales after lawmakers rejected her proposed amendments to the proposal.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) killed the reform bills on Tuesday, days after signing separate legislation to provide resentencing relief for people with past cannabis convictions.

“I share the General Assembly’s goal of establishing a safe, legal, and well-regulated cannabis retail marketplace in the Commonwealth,” the governor said. “Virginians deserve a system that replaces the illicit cannabis market with one that prioritizes our children’s health and safety, public safety, product integrity, and accountability.”

“As Virginia pursues a legal retail market, it is critical that we incorporate lessons learned by other states and ensure that our regulatory framework is fully prepared to provide strong oversight from day one,” she said. “That includes clear enforcement authority and sufficient resources for compliance, testing, and inspections, and robust tools to crack down on bad actors who continue to profit from the illicit market.”

“I greatly appreciate the patrons’ time crafting this important piece of legislation as well as our continued dialogue and collaboration to strengthen this framework ahead of the next legislative session. I remain committed to working with members of the General Assembly, stakeholders, and law enforcement to get this right.”

Keep reading

TikTok Removes Reform UK Campaign Video Using Online Safety Act “Hate” Censorship Rules

The UK’s Online Safety Act has been in force for less than a year and it is again being used to censor political speech during an election.

TikTok blocked and then deleted a campaign video by Reform UK’s Spokesperson for Home Affairs, Zia Yusuf, after someone reported it under the OSA’s content reporting mechanism.

The video was about immigration policy and takes place during a period of campaigning for a by-election.

TikTok cited its “Hate Speech and Hateful Behavior” rules. The law that gave the complainant the reporting tool and that gives TikTok every financial reason to comply without asking too many questions, is the Online Safety Act.

The OSA was sold to the British public as child protection. The actual legislation requires platforms to police all content against UK law, including broadly defined “hate speech” provisions.

Companies that fail to comply face fines of up to £18 million ($24m) or 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater. For a platform the size of TikTok, that penalty could run into billions. The rational response to that kind of liability is to delete first and never think about it again.

Under the OSA, platforms must provide UK users with tools to report content they believe is illegal under British law.

TikTok confirmed this is what triggered the action against Yusuf’s video. The notification he received stated: “We have detected this policy violation based on a report that the content violated our Community Guidelines.”

Keep reading

X Agrees to Review Illegal “Hate” Within 48 Hours Under UK Online Safety Act

X has agreed to process the vast majority of content flagged as illegal “hate” under the UK’s Online Safety Act within 48 hours, giving Ofcom, Britain’s speech regulator, a significant new enforcement win.

The platform committed to “review and assess UK suspected illegal terrorist and “hate” content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool on average within 24 hours of it being reported, to be calculated as a mean” and to “review and assess at least 85% of UK suspected illegal terrorist and hate content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool within a maximum of 48 hours.”

The deal is a notable reversal for a platform that, less than a year ago, publicly accused Ofcom of taking a “heavy-handed approach” and warned that the Online Safety Act was “seriously infringing” on free expression.

X’s August 2025 statement, titled “What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach,” called out regulators by name and argued that the law amounted to a “conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of ‘online safety.’” That language is gone now. What’s left is a compliance agreement with specific performance targets and a 12-month reporting obligation.

The commitments go beyond speed of review. X also agreed to block access to accounts in the UK if they are reported for “posting UK illegal terrorist content” and deemed to be “operated by or on behalf of a terrorist organisation proscribed in the UK.”

The platform will share quarterly performance data with Ofcom so the regulator can audit compliance. And following complaints from organizations that couldn’t tell whether X had received or acted on their reports, X agreed to “engage with experts regarding reporting systems for illegal hate and terror content.”

Who those experts are tells you something about the direction of travel. Ofcom’s own press release names the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) as one of the organizations it worked with to “gather evidence about suspected illegal terrorist content and illegal hate speech online.”

The CCDH is a pro-censorship campaign group co-founded in 2018 by Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney, who went on to become UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.

McSweeney stepped down from CCDH’s board two days after Starmer became Labour leader. The organization maintains close ties to the current government and has stated that its goal was to “kill Musk’s Twitter,” according to leaked internal documents reported by Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker.

Ahmed himself was sanctioned by the US State Department in December 2025 over concerns that his organization had led “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints.” A federal court blocked his deportation with a temporary restraining order.

This is the organization Ofcom chose to help build the evidence base for pressuring X into compliance. Ahmed, for his part, welcomed the deal. Speaking to POLITICO, he said CCDH will be “watching closely to ensure this results in meaningful action, not just words.”

Keep reading