Tag: police state

Australia’s “eSafety” Commissioner Holds 2,600+ Records Tracking Christian Media Outlet

Australia’s online safety regulator is refusing to process a Freedom of Information request that would expose how it has tracked the activity of a prominent Christian media outlet and its leaders, citing excessive workload as the reason for denial.

The office of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has confirmed it is holding more than 2,600 records connected to The Daily Declaration, its founding body The Canberra Declaration, and three of its editorial figures: Warwick Marsh, Samuel Hartwich, and Kurt Mahlburg.

Despite admitting the existence of these records, the agency says reviewing them would take more than 100 hours and would therefore unreasonably impact its operations.

In a formal response dated 29 September, the regulator explained that it had identified thousands of documents referencing the group and its members. “Processing a request of this size would substantially impact eSafety’s operations,” the notice read.

The documents include media monitoring reports automatically generated whenever The Daily Declaration or its editors have posted online about the regulator or been tagged in relevant conversations.

Keep reading

Portland Police Bureau Blames Conservative Journalist for Being Attacked by Antifa, Claims She ‘Instigated’ by Simply Being There

The Portland Police Bureau (PPB) has come under fire for defaming a conservative journalist who was viciously assaulted by Antifa militants, claiming that she “instigated” the assault by simply being there.

Katie Daviscourt, a staff reporter for The Post Millennial, was labeled a “counter-protester” in an internal police report that suggested she and others deliberately antagonized protesters, leading to their own assaults.

Earlier this week, Daviscourt was bashed in the face by a female masked Antifa militant with a flag pole and left with a black eye. Police refused to arrest the assailant after she fled into a nearby “safehouse” for the extremist activists.

The report, authored by PPB Sgt. Andrew Braun, described Daviscourt, along with The Post Millennial contributor Chelly Bouferrache and conservative activist Rhein Amacher, as chronic instigators at the ICE protests. All three of them have been the victims of violent assaults by leftist lunatics.

Braun’s statement claimed:

“These 3 counter-protesters continue to be a chronic source of police and medical calls at ICE. Despite repeated advice from officers to stay away from the ICE crowd, they constantly return and antagonize the protesters until they are assaulted or pepper sprayed. They refuse or are reluctant to walk away from these confrontations, even when police are in the area trying to meet with them. They even engage in the same trespassing behavior on federal and trolley property as the main protesters. Aside from the confrontation between opposing protesters, there was no reported activity around ICE that would have otherwise generated a police response.”

The Post Millennial responded, writing, “Daviscourt has been diligently reporting on the protest and riot activity for months, recording her work both in The Post Millennial and on X for all the world to see while local legacy media stayed away for safety reasons. On Sept. 30, the world saw another report from Daviscourt, but this one ended with a concussion and an eye hemorrhage. She was reporting outside the facility when a woman swung a flagpole at her, bashing her in the face.”

Keep reading

Signal Threatens to Exit Europe Over EU Push for Messaging App Scanning Law

Signal is warning it will walk away from Europe rather than participate in what privacy defenders describe as one of the most dangerous surveillance schemes ever proposed by the EU.

Lawmakers in Brussels are pressing for a law that would compel messaging apps to break their own security by installing scanning systems inside private communications.

Meredith Whittaker, president of Signal, said the company will never compromise on encryption to satisfy government demands.

“Unfortunately, if we were given the choice of either undermining the integrity of our encryption and our data protection guarantees or leaving Europe, we would make the decision to leave the market,” she told the dpa news agency.

The draft legislation is framed as a child protection measure, but would require all major messengers, from WhatsApp to Signal to Telegram, to monitor every message before it is encrypted.

This would eliminate true private communication in Europe and create tools that could be abused for mass surveillance.

Privacy advocates have repeatedly warned that once a backdoor exists, there is no way to restrict who uses it or for what purpose.

Whittaker was clear about the stakes. “It guarantees the privacy of millions upon millions of people around the world, often in life-threatening situations as well.”

She added that Signal refuses to enable chat control because “it’s unfortunate that politicians continue to fall prey to a kind of magical thinking that assumes you can create a backdoor that only the good have access to.”

Any such system, she argued, would make everyone less safe.

The European Parliament already rejected the scanning mandate with a strong cross-party majority, recognizing the threat it poses to basic rights.

But within the Council of Member States, the push for chat control remains alive. Denmark’s presidency could renew momentum for the proposal, even though countries like Germany have so far resisted.

Germany’s position is pivotal. The coalition agreement of its current government promises to defend “the confidentiality of private communications and anonymity online.”

Yet the inclusion of the phrase “in principle” raises alarms, suggesting exceptions could open the door to backdoors in messaging apps.

If Germany wavers, Europe could be on the verge of losing secure communication altogether.

Keep reading

Greens vote to ABOLISH landlords in bizarre assault on millions of Brits at party’s conference… even though one of their own MPs rents out a home

Green Party members have voted to ‘abolish’ landlords at their autumn conference as they took aim at the nearly three million people in Britain who rent out a home.

A motion passed at the Greens’ gathering in Bournemouth on Sunday committed the left-wing party to ‘seek the effective abolition of private landlordism’.

This would be achieved through punitive regulation and taxes on landlords, including the introduction of rent controls and scrapping of Right to Buy.

Those who let out Airbnbs would have to pay business rates under the Greens’ plans, while there would be double taxation for empty properties.

Party members also backed proposals for a ‘land value tax’ levied on owners not tenants, as well as the imposition of National Insurance on private rents.

In addition, the motion demanded the ending of buy to let mortgages as a means of removing finance for landlords.

It comes as the Greens look to build on their growing strength in major cities, with new leader Zack Polanski claiming they are ‘on track’ to supplant Labour in London.

But the motion could prove awkward for Adrian Ramsay, one of the Greens’ four MPs, who is landlord of a property on Norfolk.

According to his parliamentary register of interests, Mr Ramsay rents out a home he co-owns, which provides rental income of more than £10,000 a year.

The MP for Waveney Valley has previously defended being a landlord, posting on social media in August: ‘I co-own a property with my ex-wife, which we used to live in. 

‘I don’t make a profit from it as I have kept the rent below market rate. I don’t intend to be a landlord long-term.’

The motion passed by Green members on Sunday stated: ‘The private rental sector has failed, it is a vehicle for wealth extraction, funnelling money from renters to the landlord class.

‘This motion makes it clear Green Party policy is to seek the effective abolition of private landlordism and our support for building council housing.’

It added: ‘The Green Party believes the existence of private landlords adds no positive value to the economy or society, that the relationship between landlord and tenant is inherently and intrinsically extractive and exploitative.’

Carla Denyer, Green MP for Bristol Central, said: ‘While the motion to confidence had an eye-catching name, it does not actually ‘abolish’ landlords.

‘It does however address the housing crisis, empowers tenants and improves their wellbeing.

‘It contains a range of policies which, over time, would reduce the proportion of the housing market that is privately rented, and increase the proportion of socially rented homes.’

Mr Polanski, who was elected Green leader last month, has been dubbed an ‘eco-populist’ and is aiming to replace Labour on the Left of British politics.

He told The Guardian this weekend:  ‘I think it’s already happening. It’s happening at defection level.

‘Just last month in Barking and Dagenham, we welcome three new councillors to the party. It’s also happening right across England and Wales.

‘At local council elections, there was a stunning victory recently in Brighton, where the Labour vote completely collapsed and the Green vote rocketed.

‘Reform are still a worry, yes, and the fact that they’re polling even reasonably in London is a real threat, I think, to anyone who’s a progressive voice.

‘But absolutely, the plan has always been to replace Labour at the electoral level, starting at the local level, and I think we’re on track to do that.’

Keep reading

New Ohio Senate Bill Would Ban Sale Of Intoxicating Hemp Products To People Under 21

Ohio state Sen. Bill DeMora (D) recently introduced a bill that would ban the sale of intoxicating hemp products to people under 21. Unlike some others that have been introduced, this bill would focus solely on hemp and not on changing voter-passed marijuana law.

Ohio Senate Bill 266 would also ban the sale of intoxicating hemp products that have not been tested under the same rules as marijuana and would prevent selling intoxicating hemp products that are “considered attractive to children,” according to the bill’s language.

This bill would prohibit selling an intoxicating hemp product “that bears the likeness or contains the characteristics of a realistic or fictional human, animal, or fruit, including artistic, caricature, or cartoon renderings,” according to the bill’s language.

“I put this bill in to get rid of the stuff that everybody agrees is bad,” Columbus Democratic state Sen. DeMora said. “Everybody agrees [intoxicating hemp products are] targeted to children to look like Skittles and Oreo cookies and that it’s unregulated… We need to act because this stuff is poisoning kids [and] making kids sick.”

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) has previously asked lawmakers to regulate or ban delta-8 THC products.

“It’s a huge problem,” DeWine said talking to reporters on Monday. “There’s really no regulation at all. We need regulation. We need the legislature to take action on this. We’re also looking, frankly, at some things that I might be able to do without legislative action.”

DeMora thinks marijuana and hemp products should be dealt with separately.

“Hopefully this bill will, if nothing else, we can all agree on one thing—to get the bad stuff out of the hands of kids and stop the marketing toward kids,” he said.

The 2018 Farm Bill says hemp can be grown legally if it contains less than 0.3 percent THC.

Ohio is one of about 20 states that does not have any regulations around intoxicating hemp products, according to an Ohio State University Drug Enforcement and Policy Center study from November 2024.

This is one of a handful of bills in the Ohio legislature that are trying to regulate intoxicating hemp products.

Keep reading

North Bay man sentenced to jail for Holocaust denial, hate speech

In a historic legal decision, a North Bay man has been sentenced to nine months in jail after being found guilty of promoting hatred and denying the Holocaust through dozens of disturbing social media posts and videos promoting hate and violence against the Jewish community.

It marks the first-ever conviction in a Canadian court for Holocaust denial, according to Crown prosecutors.

The conviction was a result of a seven-month-long investigation into a hate crime by the North Bay Police Service’s Criminal Investigation Section.

Kenneth Paulin, 51, was sentenced to nine months in jail and two years of probation on Sept. 18 for the wilful promotion of hate against Jewish people and the wilful promotion of antisemitism by condoning, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust, according to a release from the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies (FSWC).

The organization shares lessons of the Holocaust, and advocates for human rights and battling antisemitism and hate.

Paulin was arrested and charged on Friday, June 20, following the investigation into his antisemitic online content.

“His posts vilified the Jewish community, promoted blood libels and conspiracy theories, incited hate and violence against Jews, and repeatedly mocked and denied the Holocaust,” says the release.

Paulin’s posts included claims that Jews are “demons,” “the greatest mass murderers in human history,” “to blame for every American who falls,” and responsible for “almost 100%” of the world’s problems.

He also expressed support for a “Worldwide ‘Jew Hunt'” and declared that “antisemitism is the only thing that can save the world,” among countless other hateful posts and videos.

Most disturbingly, he minimized and denied the Holocaust, including in a video he titled “Their victim card gets permanently denied as the hollow-cost-Hoax is exposed” and by sharing a post that read, “Six million didn’t happen, but it should’ve.”

Keep reading

Congressman targeted by Biden TSA wants law to end ‘weaponization’ against conservatives

Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., said the Biden administration abused federal security agencies to politically target him during his campaign, revealing in a new interview that he was flagged by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) during his 2022 campaign for Arizona Attorney General while involved in an ongoing election-related lawsuit.

Hamadeh told the Just the News Not Noise television program that he was notified by Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul’s office earlier this week that he had been placed on a federal air travel watchlist in late 2022, which he believes was politically motivated. 

Hamadeh: “This wasn’t just a bureaucratic fluke”

Hamadeh said he and two other Republicans were singled out by the “Biden TSA” as part of a broader pattern of surveillance and targeting of conservative figures.“This wasn’t just a bureaucratic fluke,” Hamadeh said. “This was a deliberate abuse of federal power — placing candidates on watchlists, monitoring their travel, treating them like national security threats — all for daring to challenge the administration’s narrative.”

Hamadeh, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, said the timing of the “terrifying” TSA monitoring came weeks after a contested election in which he was actively involved in legal challenges. He added that media and Democratic leaders were describing him at the time as a “threat to democracy.”

The Arizona lawmaker said the situation is evidence of the “weaponization” of federal agencies during the Biden administration, naming other examples such as the alleged FBI surveillance of parents at school board meetings, Catholics attending mass, and individuals opposing pandemic-era mask mandates.

Hamadeh, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, lauded Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for terminating the TSA’s “Quiet Skies” monitoring program, calling it a necessary step in restoring public trust. He credited Sen. Paul for making light of the program and said that Congress would take further action to make sure the same situation never occurs again.

Keep reading

X Urges EU to Reject “Chat Control 2.0” Surveillance Law Threatening End-to-End Encryption

X is urging European governments to reject a major surveillance proposal that the company warns would strip EU citizens of core privacy rights.

In a public statement ahead of a key Council vote scheduled for October 14, the platform called on member states to “vigorously oppose measures to normalize surveillance of its citizens,” condemning the proposed regulation as a direct threat to end-to-end encryption and private communication.

The draft legislation, widely referred to as “Chat Control 2.0,” would require providers of messaging and cloud services to scan users’ content, including messages, photos, and links, for signs of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Central to the proposal is “client-side scanning” (CSS), a method that inspects content directly on a user’s device before it is encrypted.

X stated plainly that it cannot support any policy that would force the creation of “de facto backdoors for government snooping,” even as it reaffirmed its longstanding commitment to fighting child exploitation.

The company has invested heavily in detection and removal systems, but draws a clear line at measures that dismantle secure encryption for everyone.

Privacy experts, researchers, and technologists across Europe have echoed these warnings.

By mandating that scans occur before encryption is applied, the regulation would effectively neutralize end-to-end encryption, opening private conversations to potential access not only by providers but also by governments and malicious third parties.

The implications reach far beyond targeted investigations. Once CSS is implemented, any digital platform subject to the regulation would be forced to scrutinize every message and file sent by its users.

This approach could also override legal protections enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, specifically Articles 7 and 8, which safeguard privacy and the protection of personal data.

A coalition of scientists issued a public letter warning that detection tools of this kind are technically flawed and unreliable at scale.

High error rates could lead to false accusations against innocent users, while actual abuse material could evade detection.

Keep reading

Who Will Protect Us From the Protectors?

In the same week in which President Donald Trump announced that he was federalizing 200 Oregon National Guard soldiers and dispatching them to the streets of Portland, he quietly signed a Presidential National Security Memorandum that purports to federalize policing. The Memorandum, just like the federalization of troops in Oregon, completely disregards constitutional safeguards against such practices.

Here is the backstory.

When James Madison and his colleagues crafted the Constitution and shortly thereafter the Bill of Rights, they intentionally created a limited federal government. They confined the federal government to the 16 discrete powers granted to Congress. Those powers identify areas of governance uniquely federal.

Conspicuously and intentionally absent is public safety. To clarify this, the 10th Amendment articulates the reservation by the states of powers not granted to the feds. This relationship is called federalism.

Constitutional scholars often refer to the powers retained by the states as the police power. The use of the word “police” here doesn’t mean police officers on the streets. It means the inherent and never-delegated-away powers of the states to govern for the health, safety, welfare and morality of all persons in those states.

In his famous Bank Speech, in which Madison argued brilliantly but unsuccessfully for a textualist understanding of the Constitution – he was opposing the creation of the First National Bank of the United States essentially because it was not authorized by the Constitution – he laid out the principles of limited government. He reminded those in Congress who had just sent the proposed Bill of Rights to the states for ratification that they did not constitute a general legislature that can right any wrong or regulate any behavior or intrude upon any relationship. Rather, their powers were limited to federal matters.

Merely because an area of governance is reflected nationally does not make the area federal. Chief among these is the police power.

The wall between state and federal law enforcement was generally recognized until 9/11. Prior to that, the FBI and other federal police agencies, none of which is authorized by the Constitution, generally devoted their efforts to enforcing federal law. After 9/11, the Bush administration – perhaps to divert public attention from its having slept on that fateful day – began a federal/state collaboration to fight “terrorism.”

Just as the war on drugs in the 1970s and ’80s weakened the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment, the war on terror in the 2000s weakened the constitutional fabric of federalism. With a public still shell-shocked over the attacks, and a Congress pliant to the presidency and the intelligence community, Congress enacted the Patriot Act, which permits federal agents to write their own search warrants, and the states fell subject to federal domination over their policing. Slowly, the feds began to intrude and dominate into areas of law enforcement with the false claim that nearly all crimes affected national security.

To garner public support for this, the feds engaged in ostentatious sting operations in which they lured disaffected young Muslim men into traps that were ostensibly criminal but were totally controlled. They then took credit for solving “crimes” that they had created. None of this was constitutional, yet few but the victims of the stings complained. Even the courts went along.

As Benjamin Franklin warned, when people fear for their safety, they will allow the government to curtail their liberty. Of course, this is all illusory, as history teaches that sacrificing liberty for safety enhances neither.

Keep reading

New York Imposes Law Forcing Social Media to Justify Speech Policies to State Authorities

Social media companies operating in New York are now under fresh legal obligations as the state enforces the so-called “Stop Hiding Hate Act,” a new compelled speech law that forces platforms with annual revenues exceeding $100 million to hand over detailed reports on how they handle various forms of speech, including speech that is legally protected under the First Amendment.

The legislation went into effect on October 1 and has already triggered a constitutional showdown in court.

The law, officially Senate Bill S895B, demands biannual disclosures to the state Attorney General’s office.

These reports must outline how platforms define terms such as “hate speech,” “misinformation,” “harassment,” “disinformation,” and “extremism.”

Companies are also required to explain what moderation practices they apply to those categories and to provide specifics about actions taken against users and content.

Platforms that fail to comply face penalties of up to $15,000 per violation, per day. Injunctive action can also be taken against non-compliant entities.

Attorney General Letitia James declared that the law is about transparency and oversight.

“With violence and polarization on the rise, social media companies must ensure that their platforms don’t fuel hateful rhetoric and disinformation,” she said in a public statement, reinforcing her view that private companies should be accountable to the state for how they manage user expression.

“The Stop Hiding Hate Act requires social media companies to share their content moderation policies publicly and with my office to ensure that these companies are more transparent about how they are addressing harmful content on their platforms.”

Governor Kathy Hochul voiced similar sentiments, saying the legislation “builds on our efforts to improve safety online and marks an important step to increase transparency and accountability.”

Keep reading