Tag: police state

Hochul Dragged on Social Media After Post Targeting Privately Made Firearms

I get that states like New York, and governors like Kathy Hochul aren’t fans of gun ownership in general, but especially when they don’t get to have some kind of control over who gets a gun and who doesn’t. They want to be able to peer into the industry and know everything, which is why anything that removes a gun from that paper trail is a bad thing. For them, 3D printers spell doom, which is why Hochul opted to go after them.

But the truth of the matter is that the internet is a strange place, and if you’re going to live by the tweet, you will also die by the tweet.

Hochul made a post about “ghost guns,” and unsurprisingly, the internet had thoughts.

Here are just a few of the responses Hochul’s post received:

  • “Democrats are the fastest-growing gun safety threat in the country.”
  • “People will just buy the printers in another State.”
  • “Have you considered banning basements and garages to stop the construction of these ghost guns?”
  • “Does she realize guns aren’t generally printed only certain components so good luck with ‘software’ that can determine what is exactly being printed.”
  • “Yay! Another way to control Americans…You. Are. So. Brave.”
  • “Why would NY expend any resources to prevent people from exercising their Second Amendment rights? Meanwhile, you release violent criminals without bond and they repeat their crimes harming more New Yorkers. You should be ashamed.”
  • “Eliminate the Gang Data Base. Handcuff Police. Provide Sanctuary to Illegal Aliens. Track 3d printers.”

And the backlash extends through post after post.

And it should.

See, the truth of the matter is that so-called ghost guns are certainly scary sounding, but the data doesn’t really back up the idea of them being some massive threat. When I wrote about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s jihad against 3D printers, I noted how few of these guns turn up, even with this massive growth in their use, especially when compared to violent crime involving a firearm as a whole.

Keep reading

European Commission Official Touts 17 Investigations as Proof the Digital Services Act “Delivers”

The European Union’s Digital Services Act is a censorship and surveillance law dressed in the language of safety. It gives unelected officials in Brussels the power to decide what hundreds of millions of people are allowed to say online and it is building the infrastructure to verify their identities before they’re permitted to say it.

But at POLITICO’s AI & Tech Week summit in Brussels this month, Renate Nikolay, the European Commission’s Deputy Director-General at DG CONNECT, celebrated the law’s growing enforcement record. Seventeen ongoing investigations and one non-compliance decision, she told the audience, prove the DSA “delivers.”

What the DSA delivers is pressure. Pressure on platforms to censor more speech, faster, with fewer questions asked. Pressure to open their algorithms and internal systems to government inspection without a court order. And, increasingly, pressure on individual users to prove who they are before they’re allowed to participate in public discourse online.

Nikolay presented these enforcement numbers as proof of success. They are proof of something but not what she thinks.

Keep reading

Meta Will Fight Ofcom Over the Math, Just Not the Censorship

Meta filed a judicial review against Ofcom in London’s High Court on Thursday over how the regulator calculates fees and fines under the Online Safety Act, the UK’s online censorship law. The company isn’t challenging the law’s censorship powers, its ability to compel scanning of encrypted messages, or its elastic definition of online “harm.” It is challenging the size of the fine.

The dispute centers on whether Ofcom should base penalties on Meta’s global revenue or just what it earns in the UK and the gap between those two figures is enormous. Meta reported roughly $201 billion in worldwide revenue last year, and the Online Safety Act lets Ofcom fine companies up to 10% of “qualifying worldwide revenue,” which puts Meta’s theoretical penalty ceiling near $20 billion. Calculated on UK-only revenue, that number collapses.

“We and others in the tech industry believe [Ofcom’s] decisions on the methodology to calculate fees and potential fines are disproportionate,” a Meta spokesperson said. “We believe fees and penalties should be based on the services being regulated in the countries they’re being regulated in. This would still allow Ofcom to impose the largest fines in UK corporate history.”

Ofcom pushed back in a statement, saying: “Disappointingly, Meta are objecting to the payment of fees, and any penalties that could be levied on companies in future, that are calculated on this basis.”

Keep reading

Zionists Are Gunning for Your Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to free speech. This right has long differentiated the United States from other Western nations like the United Kingdom and Canada where laws against so-called “hate speech” laws exist and are enforced.

Thankfully, America is different. In our country, even alleged hate speech is protected speech to ensure democratic principles and debate.

In a 1929 dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the Constitution secured “freedom for the thought that we hate.” In 2011, Chief Justice John Roberts said in a ruling that the First Amendment serves “to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

This constitutional protection has been increasingly threatened recently, particularly by pro-Israeli forces that have tried to frame any criticism of that government as “anti-Semitism” and thus hate speech punishable by law. This has included everything from arrests, to squashing campus debate to buying TikTok to an attempt to cover up human rights absuses in Gaza. President Donald Trump has even issued executive orders that use vague definitions of what constitutes “anti-Semitism” that comes with criminal penalties.

Mark Levin is an American-born Zionist radio host who is an outspoken advocate for Israel’s government, regularly calling anyone who criticizes the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and conflict in Gaza “Nazis.”

Toward this agenda, Levin recently appeared to not agree with his own country’s free speech rights. On his latest Sunday Fox News program, unironically called Life, Liberty and Levin, the neoconservative pundit explained why free speech liberties in the U.S. have gone too far.

Seemingly worried that certain speech is protected in the United States, Levin said in the wake of the Secret Service taking down a shooter at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Friday, “First time things like this have happened, but it really is problematic because so much of it is protected.”

“And you hear people say, don’t you believe in the First Amendment?” Levin said. “They don’t even know what the First Amendment believes.”

Keep reading

Canada House of Commons Tracks Online Posts About MPs

The House of Commons in Canada is keeping a database of what Canadians say about their elected representatives online and officials are sorting those comments by category, including the tone and identity-based content of social media posts about MPs.

That admission came from Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Mellon at a parliamentary committee, where he described the operation as a “very robust records management system.”

According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the system catalogues incidents involving MPs and allows staff to sort and analyze posts, including those deemed “misogynistic” or otherwise “abusive.”

Mellon told MPs the database tracks “every single incident” and can break complaints down by category, including gender-based harassment.

What the records contain, why they are kept, and who has access to them, none of that was explained. Mellon offered few details. A spokesperson for the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms said files may include both criminal and non-criminal complaints, but declined to disclose specifics, citing security reasons.

So the Commons is logging non-criminal speech about politicians. Citizens posting opinions about their representatives are being filed away in a government system, sorted by category, and held for purposes the government will not describe. The line between a threat and a sharp comment is being drawn by people who answer to the institution being commented on.

The testimony came as MPs pushed for the system to track speech in more granular ways.

Keep reading

Paris public prosecutor opens judicial investigation into Elon Musk and X

Paris’ public prosecutor has opened a judicial investigation into Elon Musk’s X social media platform, a new step in a probe over alleged abuse of algorithms and fraudulent data, the prosecutor’s office said on May 7.

The latest legal development puts investigating judges in charge of the probe and follows tech billionaire Mr Musk’s failure to appear at an April 20 summons for questioning.

The public prosecutor is requesting that judges place X.AI Holdings Corp, X Corp and xAI, as well as Mr Musk and former X chief executive officer Linda Yaccarino, under formal investigation.

This would be achieved by summoning them for that purpose, or, if they failed to appear, judges could issue a warrant which would be equivalent to putting them under formal investigation, the statement said.

Reuters could not immediately reach representatives for Mr Musk or X.

Mr Kami Haeri, a lawyer for X, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The investigation, which has been expanded in past months to include suspected complicity in the distribution of child pornography and the creation of sexual deepfakes by Grok, has added to strains in relations between the US and Europe over Big Tech and free speech.

Keep reading

More Bad News From Virginia That Gives Another Major Blow Against The 2nd Amendment And Against Pardoned J6er.

The U.S. Fourth Circuit has Upheld Hatchet Speed’s Ridiculous Conviction for Possessing Three Firearm Silencers (which were actually Solvent Drip Containers).

The case originated with a search over January 6, so Speed should be pardoned anyway! But Speed’s case has been forgotten.

Hatchet Speed of Virginia holds several records among J6ers. He is the only J6er who was subjected to THREE (3) trials and the only remaining J6er whose J6 pardon has never been applied to his clearly related case outside Washington, D.C.

Now the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers federal courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) has issued a disgraceful ruling against Speed, the Second Amendment, and common sense. The 4th Circuit has upheld Speed’s “silencer” conviction and ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to silencer possession.

Speed’s case has profound impacts on the status of the Second Amendment and firearm regulation nationwide.

Prior to Speed’s case, Americans have been able to purchase gun-cleaning solvent containers which can be threaded onto the barrels of firearms to catch and filter gun-cleaning fluids. Several manufacturers make variations that resemble firearm silencers in appearance. A purchaser could, with enough tools and ingenuity, drill and convert such containers into firearm silencers. The BATFE under the Biden Administration issued an “open letter” proclaiming a new interpretation that many solvent traps qualify as “firearm silencers” in November 2023. This means that every similar device must be registered, or its possessor faces up to five years in federal prison.

Despite Hatchet Speed’s case, these solvent traps are still sold over the counter at gun stores and online. Untold thousands of them are certainly in people’s drawers and on people’s shelves today. Little do the owners know that they can now be imprisoned for up to five years under the Fourth Circuit’s new ruling.

Keep reading

Pastor Found Guilty of Violating U.K. Speech Laws for Preaching John 3:16 Sermon Near Hospital

The United Kingdom, which has been cracking down on speech for years, dealt free speech another blow on Thursday when a district judge found Clive Johnston, a retired Northern Irish pastor, guilty of preaching John 3:16 in public.

The 78-year-old was convicted of two charges under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zone) Act (Northern Ireland) for holding an open-air service near Causeway Hospital in Coleraine in 2024. This law makes it a crime to do anything that could be seen as “influencing” or “preventing or impeding” people seeking abortion services within 100 meters of a clinic. Eight of these “buffer zones” have been created in Northern Ireland.

However, Johnston did not mention abortion in his sermon. It was also a Sunday, which meant the sexual health clinic was not open for scheduled abortion appointments. Body camera footage shows Johnston speaking about his journey toward faith, playing the ukulele, and preaching John 3:16 (“for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son”) before being interrupted by a police officer. The officer tells Johnston that “this is a safe access zone,” and he must stop preaching or he “may be removed and liable to prosecution.”

Keep reading

The FCC Wants Your ID Before You Get a Phone Number

The era of the anonymous phone number could be ending. On April 30, the Federal Communications Commission unanimously approved a proposal requiring telecom providers to verify customers’ identities before activating service.

Government-issued ID, physical address, legal name, and existing phone numbers would all be included. The stated goal is stopping robocalls. The result would be an identity-verification regime covering one of the last semi-anonymous communication tools available to ordinary Americans.

The proposal applies to nearly every voice provider in the country, from traditional carriers and mobile operators to VoIP services. The FCC is seeking public comment on specifics, but the direction is clear.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr framed it around negligent carriers. “As we have continued to investigate the problem of illegal robocalls over the last year, it has become clear that some originating providers are not doing enough to vet their customers, allowing bad actors to infiltrate our U.S. phone networks,” he said. Some providers, he added, “do the bare minimum (or worse) and have become complicit in illegal robocalling schemes.”

That language targets telecom companies and the surveillance targets everyone else.

The framework borrows from banking’s anti-money-laundering rules. The FCC is also asking whether carriers should retain identity documentation for at least four years after a customer leaves and whether they should check customers against law enforcement watchlists. Penalties would shift to a per-call basis, meaning fines of $1,000 to $15,000 for every illegal call a poorly verified customer places.

The real privacy stakes sit in the proposal’s section on prepaid service. Right now, you can pay cash for a prepaid phone and SIM card without showing identification. Journalists use prepaid phones to protect sources, domestic violence survivors use them to avoid being traced, and whistleblowers, activists, or anyone with a reason to separate phone activity from legal identity relies on this.

Keep reading

Age Verification Psyop? Kids Bypass Government Tech With FAKE MOUSTACHES

The UK government’s much-hyped age verification system for social media has been reduced to a joke overnight – and the punchline is being delivered by schoolkids armed with makeup pencils and fake facial hair.

A damning new report from Internet Matters reveals that more than a third of UK children have already figured out how to dodge the latest “safeguards” imposed under the draconian Online Safety Act.

Methods include entering fake birthdays, borrowing logins, and – most hilariously – drawing on fake moustaches to fool facial age estimation tech. One parent admitted catching her son using an eyebrow pencil; the system promptly verified him.

This comes as ministers double down on plans to restrict or outright ban social media access for under-16s. Just days ago, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and junior minister Olivia Bailey confirmed the government will impose “some form of age or functionality restrictions” regardless of whether a full ban is enacted.

A national consultation on the policy closes later this month, with pilots already running in hundreds of homes testing bans, time limits, and digital curfews.

But the farce unfolding in real time shows exactly why these measures were always doomed to fail – or, more cynically, why they were designed to fail.

Keep reading