Tag: police state

UK Regulator Ofcom Uses Online Censorship Law To Fine American Platform 4chan

The operator behind the American imageboard 4chan has been hit with a £20,000 ($26,650) fine by the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom, which, under the controversial censorship law, the Online Safety Act, has begun targeting online platforms.

The penalty comes after 4chan declined to provide details on how, or whether, it’s complying with the legislation that critics of censorship argue grants the UK government broad authority over digital platforms.

The fine had been anticipated since August. That decision has now been finalized, according to a statement issued by the regulator.

Beyond the lump sum, Ofcom will begin charging an additional £100 ($133) every day starting Tuesday, a compounding penalty that will continue for up to 60 days or until 4chan responds to its demands, whichever comes first.

Ofcom’s Director of Enforcement, Suzanne Cater, claimed the agency is serious about enforcing the new law.

“Today sends a clear message that any service which flagrantly fails to engage with Ofcom and their duties under the Online Safety Act can expect to face robust enforcement action.” She further asserted that some platforms are already adopting new safeguards following pressure from the regulator, while warning that services choosing to limit their availability to UK users rather than implement content filters remain under scrutiny.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall celebrated the action, calling it a model of the law in practice. “The Online Safety Act is not just law, it’s a lifeline. Today we’ve seen it in action, holding platforms to account so we can protect people across the UK.”

She went on to claim: “This fine serves a clear warning to those who fail to remove illegal content or protect children from harmful material. We fully back the regulator in taking action against all platforms that do not protect users from the darkest corners of the internet.”

Preston Byrne, who represents 4chan in the case, has previously condemned the action in unambiguous terms.

Byrne called it “an illegal campaign of harassment” against American tech firms, and added, “4chan has broken no laws in the United States – my client will not pay any penalty.”

Keep reading

DeSantis Admits Marijuana Legalization Is Popular With Florida Voters Even Though He Opposes It

The Republican governor of Florida is conceding that “more people probably agreed” with a marijuana legalization ballot initiative he helped defeat last year than sided with his prohibitionist viewpoint—but he argued that it was the “morally right” choice for him to intervene to prevent the sale of “dangerous stuff” in his state.

At an event hosted by the Pennsylvania Family Institute on Saturday, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) talked about his administration’s uphill work to dissuade voters from approving both the cannabis measure as well as a separate reproductive rights initiative during the November 2024. While both initiatives received majority support from voters, they failed to meet the state’s high 60 percent threshold required to enact constitutional amendments.

In the speech, DeSantis claimed that the marijuana proposal, Amendment 3, wouldn’t just have legalized cannabis but also made it a “constitutional right to possess and smoke it, including in public,” while giving one company in particular “a lot of benefits,” seemingly referring to the Smart and Safe Florida campaign’s largest financier Trulieve.

“Somehow you got people that are going to spend a lot of money to basically make us California through the back door with these initiatives and these amendments,” DeSantis said. “The marijuana people spent $150 million on this. The abortion people spent $130 million. So we had to contend with $280 million of spending on very misleading language—and, let’s just be honest, they were pushing issues in which probably more people agreed with them than agreed with me or agreed with us.”

“Marijuana was somewhat popular,” the governor said in comments first reported by Florida Politics. “I didn’t do it to be popular. I did it because it was the right thing to do. So we were having to deal with navigating all this.”

Despite raising money to finance ads opposing the cannabis measure, DeSantis said governors don’t officially “have a role in these amendments.” He faulted “special interest” parties and the state Supreme Court approval of the initiative language that he described as a “mistake.”

“I mean, most people that get elected in my positions like mine, all their advisors say, ‘stay away from this. There’s nothing for you to gain by getting involved in this. All you’re going to do is alienate supporters,’” he said. “And that may be true, but that also wouldn’t be the right thing to do. It wouldn’t be the morally right thing to do. So I was in a position. I had this platform as governor. I had a megaphone. There were things being proposed that would be harmful for my state.”

“In terms of the marijuana, I mean, you can’t function as a state if you smell marijuana everywhere—if these kids are doing it,” DeSantis said. “And this isn’t the marijuana they had in Woodstock. This is really, really dangerous stuff, so it would have been terrible for Florida.”

Keep reading

NRA Puts Gavin Newsom on Notice: Lawsuit Coming over ‘Glock Ban’

The NRA put California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on notice that a lawsuit is coming over AB 1127, the bill Newsom signed to enact a ban on new sales of Glock handguns.

AB 1127, the “Glock ban” bill, takes effect July 1, 2026.

Breitbart News reported that the “Glock ban” bill accomplishes its prohibition by labeling Glocks a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

Such a definition sets the stage for other language in the bill, which says, “This bill would expand the above definition of ‘machinegun’ to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.”

The NRA pounced on the new ban, with NRA-ILA executive director John Commerford saying, “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”

He continued, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

Commerford concluded, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”

Keep reading

Forfeiture fight delivers victory to savings account owner

Forfeiture schemes abound across America. Government agents have been known to see money in a traveler’s luggage, take it and keep it.

But it could be that the tide is turning, with the latest ruling from the Texas First Court of Appeals that reversed a civil-forfeiture judgment in Harris County.

The decision ordered the state to return to Ameal and Jordan Davis a total of $41,680.

The ruling confirmed, “Harris County’s evidence was legally insufficient to prove the cash was intended to be used to purchase a controlled substance—confirming that private property, including cash, cannot be taken on mere suspicion.”

“Cash is not a crime,” said Arif Panju, managing attorney of the Institute for Justice’s Texas office. “Today the First Court of Appeals entered judgment for Ameal and Jordan and ordered their life savings returned. That’s a decisive win for due process and a sharp rebuke to civil forfeiture based on hunches.”

The fight dates to 2019 when the Davises decided to pursue the dream of owning their own trucking business. They saved money from jobs, tax refunds, and by keeping expenses low—eventually accumulating more than $40,000, enough for Ameal to rise from truck driver to truck owner, the IJ said.

When Ameal was ready to buy his truck, driving from Natchez, Mississippi, toward Houston, he was stopped by police officers in Harris County. They took his cash and released him.

“Although the government’s forfeiture case involved no drugs or drug dealers whatsoever, and Ameal was never charged with any crime, the county nevertheless pursued civil forfeiture. After a six-day trial, a jury found the money was intended to be used to possess a controlled substance at some point in the future; the trial court entered judgment for forfeiture,” the IJ said.

However, the appeals ruling said the state’s evidence failed.

There was no evidence of any “substantial connection” between the money and the alleged and undefined “drug offense.”

“This ruling makes clear that the government can’t take people’s property without evidence of a crime,” said James Knight, attorney at the Institute for Justice. “Ameal and Jordan fought back, and today’s decision restores what was theirs and strengthens protections for everyone who carries cash.”

Keep reading

Militarized Police

With Zoran Mamdani poised to win the New York mayor’s race, the red herring of “defunding the police” is rearing its head again. 

I say “red herring” because almost nobody wants to actually defund policy.  That’s silly.  But Republicans love being able to hit Democrats over the head with it. 

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said in a congressional hearing that, once police departments are “defunded,” Democrats can “call a crackhead” when somebody breaks into their houses.  He made sure to repeat the phrase for a political ad.

The issue is that “Defund the Police,” which is probably inappropriately named, actually calls for transferring resources from the tactical focus of most police departments and transferring it to things like de-escalation training, i.e., training how to handle people who haven’t committed any obvious crime, but who are in the midst of a mental health crisis. 

Remember, it was a decision by the Los Angeles Police Department in 1967 to create the country’s first SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics, previously Special Weapons Attack Team) unit and begin dressing like G.I. Joe heading into combat.  Many of us believe that that wasn’t necessarily a good thing.

Things only got worse from there.  In 1989, as a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress allowed the U.S. Department of Defense to begin transferring surplus military hardware to local police departments. 

The Atlantic Monthly put things in perspective just weeks after the start of the so-called Global War on Terror, when it wrote that this transfer from the Defense Department to local police departments included everything from combat-capable body armor to armored personnel vehicles to attack helicopters.

Serious think tanks like the Brookings Institution also have weighed in on the damage that these hyper-militarized police departments have done in local communities. 

The bottom line, really, is, as one example, “Does Ohio State University really need a tank?”  Incidentally, that’s not a question that I came up with.  It’s a question posed by the school’s student newspaper in an article published when the Ohio State Police Department took delivery of a fully armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle. 

As the article’s author noted, the vehicle was “an incredibly overpowered and over-armored machine of war.”  The university’s police chief agreed that that’s exactly what it was, and added that the university, “is frequently like a war zone, and it requires an equal, if not escalated, response.” 

We’re talking about Ohio State University here, in the center of Columbus, Ohio.  The university’s police chief is either deluded, lying, or an idiot.

Keep reading

New Michigan Marijuana Tax Could Shutter Businesses And Actually Reduce The State’s Cannabis Revenue, Industry Says

As state budget negotiations drew to a close last week, members of the Democratic-led Senate and the Republican-led House were able to reach a deal to bring in additional funding for road repairs through a plan that drew much debate: levying additional taxes on marijuana.

Hundreds of individuals from the cannabis industry came out in opposition to the proposal last week, gathering on the Capitol lawn and lining the halls of the building as lawmakers worked to finalize the state budget.

While the policy won support from both sides of the aisle, its detractors were similarly bipartisan as some lawmakers warned that an additional 24 percent tax on wholesale marijuana could carry a host of issues, from smothering small businesses to expanding the black market, and even opening the state up to a potential constitutional challenge.

Although Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) put her pen to the new tax law on Tuesday, the future of the law has already been challenged, with the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association filing a complaint the same day, arguing the law improperly alters the law initiated by voters when they agreed to legalize marijuana in 2018.

Keep reading

Breaking Free From State Rule

Wars are mass-murder, massive theft, and unrelenting propaganda. In this country they’re lucrative overseas entanglements, as government diverts loot from taxpayers to the war industry. They’re also perpetual, as war embellishes the sanctity of the state as well as providing grounds for increased plunder of its population. Wars are government as Houdini—drawing attention to the bloody far-away while relieving attention on the corrupt close-at-hand. For the victor, the propaganda is inked as truth in the history books. War is the health of the state, Randolph Bourne concluded, but not for the people under it:

In the freest of republics as well as in the most tyrannical of empires, all foreign policy, the diplomatic negotiations which produce or forestall war, are equally the private property of the Executive part of the Government, and are equally exposed to no check whatever from popular bodies, or the people voting as a mass themselves.

Government-controlled monetary policy is cover for counterfeiting, an insidious form of taxation that creates gross economic distortions and inequalities. Presidential elections are extravagant contests between straw men owned by those behind the throne. Formal education is indoctrination into dominant narratives. The US Constitution is a feel-good distraction from the larceny and depravity of the political class.

Blogger J.D. Breen has published a brief history of the 21st century in two parts (here and here). “As last century was launched when the Maine sank in Havana harbor, this one turned when the Twin Towers were toppled. . . . The remnants of the U.S. Constitution went in the shredder.” Shocking, but not surprising, he said, given the destruction wrought by US intervention in Muslim countries over the decades.

But government, as we’ve learned, is never accountable for wrong-doing. If it was, it would imply the state is fallible, a blasphemous idea.

Keep reading

Telegram’s Durov: We’re “Running Out Of Time To Save The Free Internet”

Messaging app Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov warns that a “dark, dystopian world” is approaching, with governments worldwide rolling back privacy protections.

“I’m turning 41, but I don’t feel like celebrating. Our generation is running out of time to save the free internet built for us by our fathers,” said Durov in an X post on Thursday.

“Once-free countries are introducing dystopian measures,” said Durov, referencing the European Union’s Chat Control proposal, digital IDs in the UK and new rules requiring online age checks to access social media in Australia.

“What was once the promise of the free exchange of information is being turned into the ultimate tool of control.”

“Germany is persecuting anyone who dares to criticize officials on the Internet. The UK is imprisoning thousands for their tweets. France is criminally investigating tech leaders who defend freedom and privacy.”  

“A dark, dystopian world is approaching fast — while we’re asleep. Our generation risks going down in history as the last one that had freedoms — and allowed them to be taken away,” Pavel added.

Keep reading

Free Speech Advocates Warn EU’s Digital Services Act Enables Pan-European Censorship and Threatens Political Dissent

A controversial EU regulation is drawing fierce warnings from a global group of free speech advocates who argue it paves the way for widespread censorship in Europe and beyond.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which allows European Union authorities to fine tech companies for hosting content deemed illegal or harmful, has caused concern among 113 public figures who say the law could crush political expression and dissent under an opaque system with vague rules.

In a letter addressed to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the group accused the EU of eroding basic democratic freedoms by turning private platforms into enforcers of state-approved narratives.

The message, led by Alliance Defending Freedom International and sent to Reclaim The Net, warns that the DSA’s structure encourages governments and aligned institutions to police opinions in ways that would be unthinkable under traditional free speech protections.

“Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democratic societies. It is through the exchange of ideas — including controversial ones — that societies evolve, and public officials remain accountable,” the letter states.

The DSA, passed under the pretext of regulating disinformation and online harm, is set to undergo formal review in November.

Its enforcement mechanisms enable both state actors and private organizations to flag material they believe violates EU or national law.

However, the term “illegal content” remains loosely defined, opening the door to subjective enforcement and political targeting.

The signatories highlighted real cases that reflect a growing intolerance for dissenting views in Europe.

One example is Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing her religious views on marriage and sexuality through social media.

According to the letter, the DSA “introduces sweeping mechanisms” that not only allow but encourage cross-border enforcement of restrictive speech laws.

The group emphasized that one EU member state’s most rigid rules could effectively become binding across the entire Union, imposing a lowest-common-denominator standard for expression.

Keep reading

UK Digital ID: The BritCard Bait and Switch

In my previous article I suggested that the UK’s proposed “mandatory” digital ID, called the BritCard, was a bait and switch psyop. I posited that the arguments presented by Keir Starmer’s purported Labour government, to supposedly justify the BritCard rollout, coupled with the timing of the announcement, the apparent inability to understand public opinion, and the lack of necessity for the BritCard, indicated that there was something amiss with the so-called government’s BritCard proposition.

It seems to me that the purpose of the BritCard gambit is to frame the Overton Window for the public debate about digital ID in the UK. People can accept or reject it, imagining the BritCard represents the totality of digital ID infrastructure. If the population rejects the BritCard they may well do so under the misapprehension they have defeated digital ID in the UK.

Subsequent developments have strengthened my view.

Digital ID is a global policy initiative that governments around the world, including the British government, are following, not leading. It is the United Nation’s (UN’s) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9 which promises to “by 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.”

Even before the ink was officially dry on SDG 16.9, the ID2020 group, tasked with meeting the “identity” sustainability target, outlined what achieving SDG 16.9 would mean in practical terms:

[C]reate technology-driven public-private partnerships to achieve the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goal of providing legal identity for everyone on the planet.

ID2020 further clarified the global policy objective:

By 2030, enabling access to digital identity for every person on the planet.

The objective of SDG 16.9 is to force not just approved “legal identity” but digital ID on every human being on earth. To this end, the UN has already created a nascent global digital ID database called ID4D. The ID4D Global Dataset aim to capture the data of “all people aged 0 and above.”

Run by the World Bank Group—a UN specialised agency—ID4D informs us:

The World Bank Group’s Identification for Development (ID4D) Initiative harnesses global and cross-sectoral knowledge, World Bank financing instruments, and partnerships to help countries realize the transformational potential of identification (ID) systems. [. . .] The aim is to enable all people to exercise their rights and access better services and economic opportunities in line with the Sustainable Development Goals.

At first reading this might not seem so bad. Therefore, it is very important to be clear about what it implies.

Keep reading