Tag: police state

Civil liberties group opposes Garda access to messages

Plans to force encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal to give Gardaí access to private conversations would “profoundly undermine” digital security, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has said.

In a statement issued this week, the group said cybersecurity experts were unanimous that so-called “backdoors” for law enforcement could not be created without also leaving users vulnerable to hackers and malicious actors.

“It is impossible to create ‘backdoor’ access pathways for law enforcement that can’t also be exploited,” the organisation said.

The ICCL added that encryption protects not only personal conversations but also online banking, shopping and wider digital activity.

“We all rely on encryption to safeguard our sensitive personal data when browsing, communicating or doing business online,” it said.

“Forcing companies to break their own encryption would profoundly undermine our digital security, as well as our fundamental rights to privacy and data protection.”

The council cited the position of the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights in opposing laws that compromise encryption. It also highlighted the recent example of the UK government withdrawing a demand for Apple to install a backdoor into its cloud services, after the company refused.

“Apple stated it had never built – and never would build – backdoor access into any of its encrypted products,” the ICCL noted.

“Instead, Apple disabled its advanced data protection service in the UK and challenged the order in court.”

The group urged Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan to reconsider his planned legislation, describing the proposals as “neither proportionate nor technically sound.”

It called for “transparent consultation with cybersecurity experts, civil society and technologists before proposing any legislation that could irreversibly damage digital privacy and cybersecurity.”

Last month, O’Callaghan told an audience that Gardaí must have powers to intercept modern communications.

“None of us would like to imagine living in a surveillance State,” he said.

Keep reading

Texas Senate Again Votes To Ban THC Hemp Products Despite Governor’s Push For Regulations

As the second special session of the Texas legislature commences, the state Senate has again approved a bill to that would ban hemp THC products.

Despite Gov. Greg Abbott (R) renewing his call for a regulatory model for intoxicating cannabinoids and an age limit of 21 to purchase such products, the Senate on Tuesday passed legislation from Sen. Charles Perry (R) to recriminalize the market in a 22-8 vote on third reading consideration. A day earlier the body had given initial approval to the measure on second reading.

This comes days after the Senate State Affairs Committee unanimously approved the proposal, which followed the full Senate’s passage of an identical bill in the first regular session this year.

“Nothing’s changed, other than the fact that more and more information comes out every week regarding the impact and effects of THC on the brain the body and long term use, and the impacts of that,” Perry said ahead of the initial vote on Monday. “This stuff is not good and it’s harmful for those that use it, specifically on a long-term basis.”

Before Tuesday’s final vote, Perry claimed that “every state that has legalized recreational pot may have less people in prison, but they have more people laying on the street—and definitely, from a business community, less people working because of lost productivity.”

“With that, I hope that the ban goes through…and sends a strong message: We don’t need to be another California, Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico, New York City,” he said.

Democratic House lawmakers staged a walkout during the first special session Abbott convened—denying the chamber a quorum in protest of a proposed redistricting plan for the state’s congressional map. Now as those members have ended their protest and head back to the legislature, hemp legislation is advancing again.

The bill approved by the Senate would continue to outright ban cannabis products with “any amount” of cannabinoids other the CBD and CBG. Even mere possession of a prohibited cannabis item would be punishable as a Class B misdemeanor, carrying up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine.

Keep reading

California AG Bonta ‘running out the clock’ to stop parental rights initiative, appeals court hears

California law required Attorney General Rob Bonta to write a neutral title and summary for a 2024 ballot measure to mandate parental notification when children request to be identified as the opposite sex in school records, limit girls’ sports to females and prohibit puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and genital surgery for gender-confused youth.

Having just sued a school district for the same parental notification policy, the Democratic attorney’s title for the Protect Kids of California Act seemed predictable: “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth.” 

His summary used the same framing, referring to males who identify as girls as “transgender female students,” claiming the parental notification mandate lacks an “exception for student safety” and referring to medicalized gender transitions as “gender-affirming health care.” 

Sixteen months after a trial judge upheld Bonta’s phrasing as “accurately and impartially” conveying the substance of the measure, which under Bonta’s language fell short of the required signatures for the ballot within the 180-day collection window, Protect Kids California’s crusade to give voters a direct say in the matter may founder on a technicality.

Polling suggests voters would approve the measure, with majority support for each of the three prongs, but an appeals panel repeatedly grilled the group’s lawyer at a hearing Monday on why the case wasn’t moot in light of Protect Kids California’s litigation choices.

The three judges essentially made Bonta’s argument for him as Liberty Justice Center counsel Emily Rae tried to redirect them toward Bonta’s “malfeasance,” for what its lawsuit called his “inaccurate, false, and biased” language. The panel, by contrast, asked deputy AG Malcolm Brudigam just a single question during the state’s argument.

Keep reading

BC nurse ordered to pay almost $100k for opposing gender ideology

British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm has been ordered to pay nearly $100,000 for publicly declaring that gender is defined by biology.

In an August 14 press release, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) announced that the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) mandated that Hamm pay $93,639.80 in legal fees and has suspended her license for one month for her statements opposing LGBT ideology.

“In our view, the panel made a number of legal and factual errors that make the decision unsound, and we look forward to arguing these points before the BC Supreme Court,” JCCF lawyer Lisa Bildy declared. “We are now considering whether to appeal the penalty decision as well.”

“This decision effectively penalizes a nurse for expressing mainstream views aligned with science and common sense,” she continued. “The Panel’s ruling imposes a chilling effect on free expression for all regulated professionals.”

In March, a ruling from the BCCNM disciplinary panel found that Hamm committed “unprofessional conduct” by publicly discussing the dangers of the LGBT agenda in three articles and a podcast appearance.

Later that month, Hamm shared on social media that Vancouver Coastal Health fired her from her nursing position without severance after she was found guilty of “unprofessional conduct.”

Hamm found herself targeted by the BCCNM in 2020 when she co-sponsored a billboard reading, “I (heart) JK Rowling.” This sign was a nod to the famous British author’s public comments defending women’s private spaces from being used by gender-confused men.

The BCCNM accused Hamm of making “discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding (so-called) transgender people” while identifying herself as a nurse or nurse educator.

According to the college, Hamm’s statements were “made across various online platforms, including but not limited to podcasts, videos, published writings, and social media” between July 2018 and March 2021.

Keep reading

The Israeli flag just became the only national flag illegal to burn in the United States. Yeah. I’m dead serious.

The Flag America Protects

This week in Washington, D.C., a federal judge made a ruling so shocking, so unprecedented, that it flips the First Amendment on its head. Judge Trevor N. McFadden declared that the Israeli flag — with the Star of David at its center — is not a political symbol at all, but a racial one.

He ruled that tearing it, grabbing it, desecrating it, even in the heat of protest, is not free expression but racial discrimination.

Think about that. In the United States, you can burn the American flag — the Supreme Court has said so for decades. But now, according to this ruling, burning or tearing the Israeli flag could make you guilty of racial hatred. The one national flag protected in American law today isn’t our own. It’s Israel’s.

You can burn the flags of all 50 states. You can torch the American flag all you want. You can burn the flags of the UK or France or Brazil or China.

But not Israel.

Keep reading

UK Government Moves to Investigate 4chan Under Draconian ‘Online Safety Act’ — Platform’s SAVAGE Response Leaves Them Humiliated

The British government is at it again, weaponizing its so-called “Online Safety Act” to crack down on speech it doesn’t like.

This time, the target is none other than the online forum 4chan, the notorious online discussion board where anonymous users post unfiltered commentary that sends elites into fits.

On June 10, 2025, Ofcom, the UK’s Orwellian Office of Communications, opened an official investigation into 4chan.

According to Ofcom, the platform failed to hand over information on demand, did not file the “appropriate illegal content risk assessments,” and didn’t bow to London’s censorship mandates. In other words, 4chan refused to bend the knee.

By August 13, Ofcom escalated matters, issuing a provisional notice of contravention under the Act and threatening fines of £20,000 ($27,100) plus daily penalties until the platform complied.

According to the notice:

Provisional Decision: Information Notice duties

In accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, we have today issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention.

Ofcom is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the provider has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply with two requests for information. We will consider any representations provided in response to this provisional notice before we make a final decision on this matter.

The additional duties under investigation

On 10 June 2025, we opened an investigation into whether the provider of 4chan has failed/is failing to comply with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 to:

  • adequately respond to a statutory information request;
  • complete and keep a record of a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment; and
  • comply with the safety duties about illegal content.

Ofcom’s investigation continues to examine concurrently whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the provider has failed, or is failing, to comply with the other duties under investigation, including duties to protect its users from illegal content. We will provide updates on these matters in due course.

But instead of cowering, 4chan and its legal team fired back with a blistering response that left Ofcom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s censors utterly humiliated.

In a blistering legal statement posted by Byrne & Storm, P.C. and Coleman Law, P.C., 4chan’s lawyers dismantled Ofcom’s fantasy that they had authority over an American company.

The statement went further, warning that U.S. federal authorities had already been briefed and that the Trump Administration should be prepared to step in to defend American companies against foreign censorship mandates.

The statement reads:

According to press reports, the U.K. Office of Communications (“Ofcom”) has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter.

4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.

American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.

If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles.

United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.

The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was reportedly warned by the White House to cease targeting Americans with U.K. censorship codes (according to reporting in the Telegraph on July 30th).

Despite these warnings, Ofcom continues its illegal campaign of harassment against American technology firms. A political solution to this matter is urgently required and that solution must come from the highest levels of American government.

We call on the Trump Administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers available to the United States to protect American companies from extraterritorial censorship mandates.

Our client reserves all rights.

Keep reading

An Unprecedented Crackdown in South Korea: Former President and First Lady Jailed, 5 Million Party Members Targeted

Can you imagine a former president and first lady jailed at the same time — and the personal data of 5 million citizens seized by the regime?

In 2025, this nightmare has become my reality. This is not justice.

It is a planned political purge that should alarm everyone who values freedom, the rule of law, and the U.S.-Korea alliance.

A First in History — and a Dangerous Precedent

On January 19, 2025, former President Yoon Suk-yeol was arrested on vague “evidence tampering” charges.

Prosecutors alleged he tried to conceal certain records, yet presented no clear evidence or case outline.

He was detained for 52 days until March 8, when a court ruled his detention had “seriously violated his right to legal defense” and ordered his release.

But the authorities ignored this ruling. On July 10, Yoon was arrested again on nearly identical charges. The court rejected his appeal and sent him back to prison — raising serious concerns of double jeopardy and judicial abuse.

Then, on August 12, something never before seen in South Korea’s democracy occurred. Former First Lady Kim Keon-hee was immediately jailed on the order of the Seoul Southern District Court.

The warrant was issued without sufficient investigation or evidence — based solely on a claim of “possible evidence destruction.” Legal experts inside and outside Korea agree this decision fails to meet both domestic and international standards of justice.

The simultaneous jailing of a former president and first lady is no coincidence. It is a political move to eliminate all opposition.

Keep reading

I Lost My Freedom, Money, And Guns Based On No Evidence And With No Chance To Defend Myself

Three weeks. That’s how long I was separated from my daughter. No trial. No crime. No violence. Just a single sheet of paper — a Protection from Abuse Order, or PFA — a civil court order meant to prevent harm, often issued on little more than an accusation. It can strip someone of contact with his or her children, home, and firearms — without a criminal charge. That paper took my daughter away from me.

I was only 23.

My daughter was just a few months old. I was still learning how to be a dad — still learning the rhythms of fatherhood. Then she was gone. A sheriff handed me the order at my front door. I knew I was in for an uphill battle.

Over the next three weeks, I scrambled to find an attorney, build a defense, and dig through evidence to prove my innocence. Those weeks didn’t just take away my daughter. They took away my dignity. My voice. And for a time, my will to speak. 

The State of Exception

Legal theorist Carl Schmitt once wrote: “Sovereign is he who decides the exception.” In other words, the true power of the state lies not in making laws, but in deciding when the law no longer applies. The sovereign is the one who can suspend the rules in the name of security, order, or necessity. Philosopher Giorgio Agamben built on this idea, warning that modern states increasingly rule through exceptions — moments when the law suspends itself in the name of preserving order.

Most people think of these exceptions in cinematic terms, such as Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War, the War on Terror and Guantanamo Bay, lockdowns during the Covid-19 pandemic.

But a quieter kind happens in family court every day. No headlines. No outrage. Just a form, a sheriff, and silence.

That’s what a PFA is. It suspends due process, assumes guilt, and punishes before harm occurs. It creates what Agamben called a “zone of indistinction” — where someone is both inside the law and excluded from its protections. The man served a PFA becomes what Agamben called the Homo Sacer: not just punished without trial, but guilty until proven innocent.

This isn’t tyranny in jackboots. It’s softer. Bureaucratic. A form, not a trial. Control, not compassion. It’s preemptive punishment. 

Keep reading

Judge Puts Infowars Up For Sale Again As Leftists Clamor For Alex Jones Takedown

The establishment media has long argued that the Sandy Hook lawsuits against Alex Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, are about “justice” for grieving parents suffering from harassment.  However, the actions of the plaintiffs and others involved in the civil case suggest that their goals are highly political and have little to do with compensating for alleged pain caused by Jones voicing his opinions on the event. 

If the suit was simply about reparations for hardship of the “victims” caused by defamation, then the payout would have been based on an amount Jones could realistically produce.  Instead, judges awarded 15 plaintiffs $1.5 billion in damages; an insane punishment designed to bury Jones forever. 

Because a bankruptcy judge in Connecticut ruled Jones’ behavior was “willful and malicious” in spreading “false information” about the Sandy Hook shooting, his debt to the families cannot be erased through bankruptcy proceedings and Jones could be required to continue to pay on all future income until the the plaintiffs receive the full amount. 

Meaning, the political left wants to make Jones into a pauper or a slave for the rest of his life and a cautionary tale to others in the alternative media. 

Furthermore, officials in charge of the initial auction allegedly rigged the outcome in favor of a sale to leftist propaganda rag, The Onion.  The Onion did not have the cash on hand to service their $7 million bid for the sale, instead they relied on a deal that would have tapped into Jones’ future payments to the plaintiffs, as if Jones’ wallet could be treated as a bank account in control of The Onion (otherwise known as a “contingency bid”).  

The Onion offered $1.75 million in actual cash for Infowars assets. First United American Companies, which runs a website in Jones’ name that sells nutritional supplements bid $3.5 million, but somehow The Onion still won the auction.  Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez blocked the sale and criticized the auction process as flawed.  He said the outcome “left a lot of money on the table” for families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. 

In other words, this suggests that the plaintiffs were willing to sacrifice part of their damages just to see The Onion take control of Infowars and humiliate Jones. But again, the lawsuits weren’t politically motivated at all…

A new decision by Texas Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in a Wednesday hearing orders that Infowars’ parent company, Free Speech Systems, will once again be turned over to a court-appointed receiver, who will be responsible for selling the assets and using the proceeds to pay Jones’ debts to the Sandy Hook families.

Numerous progressive legacy outlets jumped on the story this week, all of them hoping that The Onion will still be able to buy the brand and turn it into a “parody of itself”.  Of course, this would require that they have more cash on hand than any competing buyers.  It also requires a level of comedy talent that doesn’t exist at The Onion, which means readers would be few and the Infowars parody website would likely fade into obscurity.   

Leftists have been salivating over the possible dismantling of Alex Jones’ media empire for years, believing that the selling of his assets will represent a massive “victory” for their side and remove one of their most popular enemies from the culture war chessboard. 

Keep reading

Reed College investigates security chief for giving FBI info on anti-ICE alum

Reed College’s director of community safety is under internal investigation for helping the FBI locate a recent graduate who allegedly threw a rock at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, according to an open letter from its president to the campus community.

The private Portland, Oregon college’s actions have raised questions about student privacy as well as the college’s actions against its safety officer.

Gary Granger is still listed as the community safety director on the college’s website. However, an email that The Fix sent to Granger on Friday was returned with an automated response stating he is “currently out of the office.”

The college’s President Audrey Bilger announced an investigation into Granger’s actions after he gave information to the FBI “apparently without a subpoena or warrant,” according to her July 29 statement.

“Reed has established protocols and values, and we are initiating an investigation into this action and its impact on our standards and our community,” Bilger wrote. “Reed prioritizes the privacy and rights of our students, faculty, staff, alumni, and all members of our community.”

She also wrote she understands concerns voiced by students and alumni about the incident, and “the college is treating this matter with the seriousness it warrants. Reed maintains clear policies and provides regular training to ensure that information is managed responsibly and in alignment with legal requirements and institutional values.”

Keep reading