Tag: police state

New EU Media “Freedom Law” Allows for Journalist Arrests if Justified by “Public Interest”

The European Union’s “European Media Freedom Act” became binding law across all member states on August 8, but behind its name lies a set of provisions that could restrict the very freedoms it claims to safeguard.

We obtained a copy of the act for you here.

Alongside language about protecting reporters, the regulation authorizes arrests, sanctions, and surveillance of journalists whenever authorities say it serves an “overriding reason in the general interest.”

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, hailed the legislation’s arrival on social media, saying, “A free and independent press is an essential pillar of our democracy. With our European Media Freedom Act, we want to improve their protection. This allows journalists to continue their important work safely and without disruption or intimidation.”

Although the law outlines protections such as prohibiting spyware or coercion to expose sources, those assurances are undercut by built-in loopholes.

Governments can bypass them if their actions are allowed under national or EU law and deemed proportionate to a vaguely defined “general interest.”

That permission extends to intrusive surveillance technologies in cases tied to crimes carrying a maximum prison term of three years or more, a list that ranges from terrorism and human trafficking to offenses labeled as “racism and xenophobia.”

The legislation also orders each country to maintain registers of media owners and addresses. It targets so-called “disinformation,” accusing some media outlets of manipulating the single market to spread falsehoods.

Large online platforms are portrayed as choke points for access to news, blamed for fueling polarization.

Keep reading

Texas DA known for naked stunts faces five years in prison after posting video of herself smoking weed in her garden

Best known for a viral video in which she straddled an oil pumping jack while topless and bottomless, a Texas elected official now faces jail time after smoking a joint on TikTok.

District Attorney Sarah Stogner, 41, could be incarceration after she posted a social media video of herself smoking weed in protest of a state ban on THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. 

The Republican made headlines in 2022 when she posted the viral clip of her riding the oil pump jack at the time she was running to be the state’s railroad commissioner.

Stogner, now the DA of Texas’s 143rd judicial district near Pecos, hopes her latest stunt might shame Texas into legalizing weed – especially if she is arrested and made a martyr for the cause. 

‘I did this to raise attention,’ she told Newsweek. 

‘Its silly that our elected officials want to completely ban THC when that’s not what our constituents want.’

Medical marijuana is legal in Texas, but recreational use of the drug is not. 

And in recent weeks, Lone Star State lawmakers passed a bill banning any products containing any ‘detectable amount of any cannabinoid.’

If signed into law, the bill would outlaw the majority of hemp products, including those that are legal under the federal definition in Texas. 

Keep reading

Trump DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Uphold Ban On Marijuana Users Owning Guns

Amid a series of legal challenges, the Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case on the federal government’s ban on users of marijuana and other illegal drugs from owning firearms and uphold the prohibition, saying it is consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

To that end, the DOJ solicitor general is urging SCOTUS to hear one of five relevant cases to resolve conflicting lower court decisions on gun rights for cannabis consumers.

With the multiple competing legal cases resulting in differing rulings in federal appeals courts across the country, DOJ last week requested that SCOTUS review one in particular that it described as “archetypal” of the issue related to federal code 922(g)(3), which precludes users of unlawful drugs from having guns or ammo.

The case “presents an important Second Amendment issue that affects hundreds of prosecutions every year: whether the government may disarm individuals who habitually use unlawful drugs but are not necessarily under the influence while possessing a firearm,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, an appointee of President Donald Trump, said.

The solicitor general reiterated his position that, despite recent appeals court decisions calling into question the constitutionality of the firearms ban for people who use cannabis—even in compliance with state law—the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

Some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.

But over recent years, various federal district and appeals courts have take differing approaches to the issue. As DOJ argued in its latest filing in the case, “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.”

“The petition for a writ of certiorari [filed by Sauer in June] identified three sides of that conflict: The Seventh Circuit has upheld Section 922(g)(3); the Eighth Circuit has held it violates the Second Amendment unless the government can make a case-by-case showing justifying the drug user’s disarmament; and the Fifth Circuit has held that it generally violates the Second Amendment unless the drug user was intoxicated while possessing the firearm.”

“Since then, the conflict has deepened,” it said, referring to several other cases on the issue that are pending before the high court. And DOJ wants SCOTUS to focus on one case in particular to resolve what it called a “four-way circuit conflict”: U.S. v. Hemani.

One reason DOJ could be focused on the justices taking up Hemani in particular is that the defendant in that case is not only a cannabis user but also a user of cocaine who’s sold drugs in the past, according to court findings, which could make him less sympathetic in the eyes of the court. Defendants in the other cases were merely found in possession of both a firearm and marijuana.

Lawyers for the defendant in Hemani argued in a brief last month that the high court should decline the case.

But in its reply brief submitted to SCOTUS this week, the Justice Department said that “this case is the best vehicle available.”

Keep reading

Conservative Moms Org Labeled ‘Hate Group’ in Police Training

A police training entity in Massachusetts asserted that Moms for Liberty, a nationwide conservative grassroots parental rights coalition, is a “hate group.”

The designation was made by the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee, an entity which trains over 20,000 officers across Massachusetts.

A Friday report from The Daily Wire, which first covered the story, said that Moms for Liberty was listed alongside other “Hate Groups.”

Some of those other groups included Antifa and various Neo-Nazis.

The slides claimed that Moms for Liberty is an “anti-government extremist” entity.

The training materials also said that Moms for Liberty opposes “books that reference race and gender identity.”

The group has indeed mobilized conservative parents nationwide to raise the alarm over heavily sexualized books, as well as those with leftist ideological themes.

The training accused Moms for Liberty of purportedly using “parents’ rights as a vehicle to attack public education and make schools less welcoming for minority and LGBTQ students.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Moms for Liberty an “anti-government extremist,” a reality likewise cited by the training materials.

“Moms for Liberty is here to show up at school board meetings, speak out against curriculum, failing schools, inappropriate books maybe in your public school library,” Tina Descovich, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, reacted to the designation of her group.

“Antifa is burning down whole cities and parts of cities and rioting in the streets,” she said.

“These two are not equivalent.”

Moms for Liberty secured copies of the training documents through a freedom of information request of the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee.

“We have to ask what is going on here in Massachusetts with these trainings to police officers,” Descovich said.

“We are not conducting ourselves in a way that police ever need to be concerned about the way we act,” she continued.

“As a matter of fact, our chapter chair there in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, who is the one that brought all this to my attention, said she has local members of their police force come up to her all the time.”

“Please keep going. We can’t talk about it publicly, but I have kids. I appreciate you guys speaking out. So thank you for your courage and your bravery,” the officers reportedly say.

Keep reading

Canadians In Nova Scotia Now Banned From Using Public Forests

Tyranny is a process of acclimation.  Governments test the public to see what they will quietly tolerate; leaders then turn “temporary” restrictions into permanent laws as people are conditioned to accept the new normal.  Sometimes the public fights back and officials are forced to retreat.  However, the tests never end and the bureaucracy continues to press year after year until it gets what it wants.

Many commentators have noticed that the Canadian government has been expediting this authoritarian process in recent years to the point that the intentions of elitist politicians can no longer be misunderstood.  The mask is fully off and the country is becoming a draconian cesspool.  From censorship laws, to gun bans, to carbon taxes and even legislation that turns Christian worship into “hate speech”, Canada is almost every bit as cooked as their commonwealth cousins in Britain. 

Every few weeks it seems a new and oppressive mandate is enforced.  This month, the province of Nova Scotia has abruptly banned nearly all civilian activity in public forests.  It is illegal for Canadians to walk, hike, drive, camp (outside of official campgrounds) or fish in Nova Scotia’s woods and anyone caught without a heavily regulated permit is subject to extreme fines.  Smaller parks that have woods are also restricted.  The bans will continue until October 15th unless the provincial government decides to extend.

The offices for obtaining work permits have been swamped with requests and questions and citizens have been told to stop calling.  At least one citizen, Canadian veteran Jeff Evely, has challenged the law and has been fined over $28,000 simply for walking into the forest.

Keep reading

‘No rational reason’: Court strikes government restriction on customers who want to visit home-based businesses

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, located in Nashville, has struck down a municipal ordinance that limited the number of customers who could visit a home-based business.

It is invalid because it discriminated based on the type business it was.

According to a report from the Institute for Justice, which fought on behalf of record producer Lij Shaw and hairstylist Pat Raynor, Nashville’s rule allowed the two only six client visits a day at their businesses.

And then the city came up with “invasive and burdensome requirements.”

However, other businesses based in homes, such as short-term rentals, home daycares, historic homes and more, were allowed to have 12 or more clients daily, “free from additional requirements.”

“This kind of arbitrary favoritism has no place under the Tennessee Constitution,” explained Paul Avelar, a lawyer for the IJ. “Lij and Pat have a constitutional right to use their homes to earn an honest living. But Nashville treats their home-based businesses worse than other, privileged, home-based businesses for no real reason.”

The lawsuit stems from the city’s 2017 attacks on the two businesses, in which it shut them down.

Then came COVD, and the city allowed them to have six client visits daily.

Now a unanimous ruling from Judges Frank Clement, Andy Bennett, and Jeffrey Usman agreed with the claims that the city had not offered good reasons for favoring some home business over others.

The ruling said, “Metro has offered no rational reason for the difference in treatment that is relevant to the purpose of the law.”

The case already has been to the state Supreme Court, which rejected a lower court’s dismissal and reinstated it for further opinions at the lower court level.

At first, the lower court claimed the limits were “constitutional because they were rationally related to the city’s interests in preserving the residential nature of neighborhoods.”

The appeals ruling noted that the city changed its code during the time period that the lawsuit was pending. But throughout the proceedings the city exempted short-term rentals, home-based daycares, historic buildings and such.

The case ended up addressing the city’s irrational decision to distinguish between different types of home-related businesses.

“Plaintiffs argued that there was no rational reason that was relevant to the purpose of the law for distinguishing between their businesses and the Exempt Businesses. In support, Plaintiffs produced evidence that their businesses had no more of an impact on the residential character of neighborhoods than the Exempt Businesses,” the ruling said.

The opinion noted the city didn’t even try to dispute that.

Keep reading

Cop ignored dying man in back of hot police car, watched TikToks and sent ‘intimate’ texts instead: lawsuit

An Oregon cop allegedly left a mentally ill man to die in the back of a hot police car while the officer watched TikToks and texted about “snuggles,” according to a lawsuit.

Nathan Bradford Smith, 33, died of heat stroke aggravated by meth use during a July 2024 arrest when Coos Bay police officers allegedly left him in a parked patrol car to watch TikToks and send intimate texts instead of getting him medical help, according to a lawsuit filed by Smith’s family Wednesday.

The lawsuit blasts the city of Coos Bay, and Officers Benjamin Martin, Tristan Smith, and Wesley O’Connor for ignoring signs of obvious medical distress in Smith, accusing them of negligence and “deliberate interference.”

Smith, who had schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, was picked up by cops after multiple police encounters where he was found smoking methamphetamine and later speaking “quickly and incomprehensibly,” according to the lawsuit obtained by The Post.

At roughly 5 p.m. July 7, officers found Smith wearing a heavy coat and rain pants on the ground outside a Motel 6, the lawsuit detailed.

“One of the 911 callers indicated they were concerned for Mr. Smith’s safety,” according to the lawsuit. “Another caller indicated that Mr. Smith was on the ground ‘flailing around,’” the lawsuit said.

Smith was struggling to breathe as he was handcuffed by Martin, Smith and O’Connor while still on the ground, according to a state police officer who reviewed the body camera video of the incident.

He was barely able to get in the police cruiser, and his eyes were closed as he gasped for air, the lawsuit said.

Keep reading

New Mexico Environment Department bans production of synthetic hemp in the state

The New Mexico Environment Department is doing what it can to regulate deceptive hemp products sold in stores by issuing an emergency ruling to ban the manufacturing of synthetic cannabinoids in New Mexico. “They’re putting something in their body without knowing what it is and without understanding what the effects may be. We believe that puts people at a significant health risk,” said John Rhoderick, Deputy Cabinet Secretary of Administration, New Mexico Environment Department.

Synthetic cannabinoids are products chemically altered to give similar effects to THC and are often sold at convenience stores with little regulation. This issue was at the center of a Larry Barker investigation, exposing the problem of cannabis products being identified as hemp, allowing them to be sold anywhere. A bill from last legislative session aimed to make it illegal for synthetic cannabinoids to be made or sold in New Mexico, but that bill failed.

Keep reading

Who Owns the Unknown? When private hands hold technology not of this Earth, who decides what happens next? The UAPDA has an answer.

Imagine this: A private landowner discovers something buried deep beneath the surface of their property. It’s not oil, gold, or a rare fossil, but something entirely foreign. A piece of machinery, perhaps. Advanced. Intact. Entirely unexplainable. It appears to be manufactured, but not by any known earthly process. It does not match the signatures of Russian, Chinese, or even American technology. It is exotic, inexplicable, and possibly not of human origin at all.

What happens next? Does the landowner get to keep it? Auction it to the highest bidder? Lease it to a defense contractor or a foreign state? Does the government step in, invoke national security, and confiscate the technology of unknown origin, without due process or compensation, never to be seen again?

This scenario is no mere thought experiment. The U.S. Senate has now, for the third time, introduced the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act (UAPDA), legislation designed to pierce through 80 years of secrecy, disinformation, and scientific suppression surrounding the subject of UAP, or UFOs. One of its most vital and controversial provisions is its explicit affirmation of the applicability of the right of eminent domain.

Opponents of the UAPDA have zeroed in on this provision. They argue it threatens property rights and creates a dangerous precedent for federal overreach. But these objections collapse under scrutiny. In truth, the eminent domain clause is the linchpin that makes lawful UAP disclosure possible. Without it, we risk continuing a shadow system of secret seizures, constitutional violations, and scientific stagnation.

Let’s be clear: eminent domain is not a novel or unchecked power of our local, state, and federal governments. Instead, it is a deeply rooted legal principle in American constitutional law. What the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment provides is not the denial of that right, but a granting of that right and its regulation through due process, and which goes on to assert one of the required aspects of due process is the taking of property solely for public use with just compensation. The UAPDA need not define “just compensation.” The legal requirement for fair compensation in any lawful taking under eminent domain is already firmly established in precedent and practice. Importantly, the exercise of eminent domain can be contested in court, providing a clear check on government power, unlike covert seizures under the guise of national security, which offer no such judicial review or recourse. The UAPDA merely renders a specific process already governed by over a century of constitutional law.

Keep reading

Is Cannabis Really Legal If You Can’t Grow Your Own Weed?

For many, the cannabis policy reform movement is rooted in the quest for personal liberty. Legalization isn’t just about getting high; it’s about being able to live your life the way you want to live it.

In too many places, however, the legalization of cannabis does not include the freedom to grow the plant. Instead, cannabis patients and consumers are forced to participate in an overregulated and overtaxed market that not everyone can afford.

The Freedom To Grow Depends on Where You Live

A total of 25 states with legal weed have also legalized home cultivation, either for medical cannabis patients or all adults aged 21 and older, according to information from cannabis reform advocacy group the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). But 15 states that have legalized pot (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and West Virginia) still forbid home cultivation. Most of these states have only legalized cannabis for medical use. Delaware and New Jersey, however, have legalized recreational use but don’t allow home cultivation.

Additionally, some states that have legalized home cannabis cultivation for some still deny many adults the right to grow. In Illinois and Washington, home cultivation has only been legalized for medical cannabis patients, while in Nevada, only those who live more than 25 miles from a licensed dispensary can grow their own weed.

The fact that so many states that have legalized marijuana still deny the people the right to grow plants at home raises a fundamental question. Is cannabis really legal if you can’t grow your own weed? 

Keep reading