Tag: police state

The Palestine Chronicle Case: When Truth Becomes the Crime

The Palestine Chronicle is not a militant organization. It is a modest, independent publication, sustained by small donations and animated by a singular mission: to bear witness. It tells the untold stories of Palestine, documenting dispossession, resistance, and the endurance of a people condemned to silence. In a media landscape dominated by powerful conglomerates repeating the language of governments, the Chronicle insists on a journalism of proximity – grounded in daily lives, in the rubble of Gaza, in voices otherwise erased. Its true offense, in the eyes of its detractors, is not invention but truth.

At the heart of this endeavor stands Ramzy Baroud. His career is the antithesis of clandestine. For decades he has written, taught, and spoken in public, producing books translated into multiple languages, contributing columns to international publications, addressing audiences in universities and public forums across continents. He is not a shadowy figure; he is a man whose work has been consistent, transparent, and intellectually rigorous. His life is not untouched by the tragedy he describes: many members of his family were killed under Israeli bombardments. Yet while mainstream media rushed to amplify unproven allegations against him, they remained deaf to his personal grief. His tragedy was ignored, his integrity overlooked, his voice distorted – because his engagement is unbearable to those who would prefer silence.

A Crime of Conscience, Not of Law

He is an engaged journalist in the noblest sense: independent, lucid, unflinching. His so-called crime is not collusion with violence but fidelity to memory. That is why he is demonized – not for what he has done in law, but for what he represents in conscience. America, unable to silence Palestinian voices through censorship alone, now instrumentalizes its justice system to achieve by indictment what it failed to achieve by argument. Having harassed universities, intimidated students, and punished professors for their solidarity with Gaza, it turns the courtroom into a new battlefield. And Congress, captive to the whims of its Zionist masters, joins the manhunt, targeting a journalist for the sole offense of telling the truth of his people. As for the mainstream press, it chooses cowardice: ignoring his family’s suffering, ignoring the emptiness of the charges, while echoing the accusations of power as if they were evidence.

Law Twisted into Weapon

The complaint filed against Ramzy Baroud and the organization (People Media Project) that runs the Palestine Chronicle rests on the Alien Tort Statute, grotesquely overstretched to criminalize editorial decisions rather than acts of war. It alleges that by publishing articles from Abdallah Aljamal – described by Israel as a Hamas operative killed during a hostage rescue – the Chronicle “aided and abetted” terrorism. But here lies the first fissure: this characterization of Aljamal comes exclusively from Israeli military sources, themselves a belligerent party. It has never been independently verified. The claim that he was both a journalist and a Hamas operative remains an allegation, not an established fact. To treat it as judicial evidence is to replace proof with propaganda.

Even if – hypothetically – Aljamal had, at the demand of a militant group, harbored hostages, such a circumstance would not in itself render him culpable: what ordinary civilian in a war zone can refuse the command of militants under threat of force? And even if it occurred, how could Ramzy Baroud have known of it? Even taken at face value, the allegation collapses upon scrutiny. No evidence demonstrates that the Chronicle or its editor had actual knowledge of Aljamal’s supposed operational role, nor that modest freelance payments – if any at all – bore any causal nexus to hostage-taking. The federal judge, in February 2025, dismissed the original complaint precisely for lack of proof of knowledge or intent. The plaintiffs returned with an amended filing, repackaged in rhetoric and pathos, but still devoid of the material elements required under international law: actus reus (a substantial contribution to the crime) and mens rea (intent or knowledge).

To equate the publication of articles with material support for terrorism is not jurisprudence but a juridical contortion. It is the substitution of law by politics, the criminalization of journalism under the mask of counterterrorism. What is sought is not justice but intimidation – to cast suspicion on every Palestinian voice, to brand their words as weapons, their witness as crime.

Keep reading

‘World-first’ eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant exposed: How taxpayer’s money is being wasted on an endless game of online whack-a-mole – as it’s revealed banned X posts can simply be re-uploaded

The Australian government’s attempts to police online speech have descended into farce after its ‘world’s first’ eSafety Commissioner admitted it was effectively powerless to stop people re-sharing ‘banned’ posts.

On Tuesday, Daily Mail Australia revealed the Australian government tried to force a Canadian man called Chris Elston to delete an ‘offensive’ post about a UN trans expert, threatening X owner Elon Musk with an $800,000 fine if it was not removed from the platform.

Mr Elston, who goes by the name of ‘Billboard Chris’ on X and lives in Canada, refused to delete the post.

When X subsequently complied with the ‘removal order’ by geo-blocking the post in Australia, Mr Elston simply re-shared the offending post. 

In a colossal back-fire for the e-Safety Commissioner, that post alone has been seen over 130,000 times and a concerted campaign to re-share it by others has racked up hundreds of thousands of views.

In response to this publication’s story, Billionaire X owner Musk said: ‘What is the world coming to?’ 

Now, the taxpayer-funded eSafety Commissioner has admitted it can only block or remove the subsequent posts if other complaints are made by the offended party.

‘eSafety’s Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme is a complaints-based scheme,’ a spokesperson for the eSafety Commissioner told Daily Mail Australia. 

‘In cases where a new version of the material has been posted after a removal notice has been issued and complied with, we require a new complaint from the targeted Australian resident – or someone authorised to report on their behalf – to take regulatory action.’

This effectively means the ‘world’s first’ online safety regulator could be engaged in an endless game of whack-a-mole as it attempts to police speech online. 

Political figures were lining up to condemn the alleged waste of Aussie taxpayer’s money. 

Keep reading

4chan and Kiwi Farms Sue UK Regulator Ofcom Over Online Censorship Law, Citing First Amendment Violations

Two of the internet’s most free-speech supporting platforms, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, are taking their fight for online free speech to court, targeting the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, for what they describe as an unconstitutional attempt to enforce British censorship laws on American websites.

In a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs argue that the UK’s controversial Online Safety Act is not only an unlawful extraterritorial power grab but a direct attack on foundational American liberties.

Read the complaint here.

The suit calls Ofcom’s enforcement tactics a clear violation of the First Amendment and a dangerous attempt to establish global jurisdiction over online speech.

The complaint lays out how the UK’s censorship regime is being pushed onto American soil, despite the fact that both platforms operate entirely within the United States and are in full compliance with US law.

“Parliament does not have that authority. That issue was settled, decisively, 243 years ago in a war that the UK’s armies lost and are not in any position to relitigate,” Kiwi Farms stated bluntly in a letter responding to Ofcom’s demands.

Ofcom, under the new Online Safety Act, is demanding that platforms like 4chan and Kiwi Farms conduct written “risk assessments,” install content moderation systems, remove speech deemed “illegal” by UK standards, and verify the identities of their users.

The platforms face criminal penalties and steep fines of up to £18 million ($24M) or 10% of their global revenue if they refuse.

The plaintiffs argue these demands are not only legally unenforceable but blatantly unconstitutional. “Where Americans are concerned, the Online Safety Act purports to legislate the Constitution out of existence,” the lawsuit states.

Central to the challenge is the claim that Ofcom, a British corporate regulator funded by the very companies it polices, is attempting to impose UK-style speech control on a global scale.

According to the complaint, Ofcom has no lawful authority to regulate US platforms, let alone to compel speech or force the removal of content that is protected under the US Constitution.

The filing asserts that Ofcom’s threats of imprisonment and massive fines, coupled with demands for speech censorship and compelled disclosure of sensitive company information, constitute “egregious violations of Americans’ civil rights.”

The UK regulator has already targeted both platforms with a series of legal notices and threats, despite lacking jurisdiction or proper legal process.

These include multiple emails and letters declaring 4chan and Kiwi Farms in breach of UK law, none of which were served under the required UK-US Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

The plaintiffs argue that these attempts at enforcement are not just improper, but “repugnant to United States public policy.”

“Ofcom purports to regulate content and interactions on platforms and services with which Plaintiffs’ users are voluntarily interacting,” the complaint says. “Ofcom seeks to control those interactions in order to satisfy the whims of Ofcom employees or the UK law enforcement or political apparatuses.”

Notably, both platforms have limited or no access for UK users in response to the threats. Kiwi Farms, for instance, blocked UK IPs entirely after receiving what it interpreted as an impending Section 100 order demanding compliance.

The lawsuit requests the court to block Ofcom from issuing further demands without going through proper international legal channels and to declare the Online Safety Act’s enforcement efforts unenforceable in the United States.

It also seeks a permanent injunction against any future attempts by Ofcom to impose UK regulations on the plaintiffs.

The case stands as a direct confrontation between two visions of the internet: one based on the US constitutional tradition of free speech and open access, and another that embraces government-mandated safety regimes that can be weaponized to silence speech on a global scale.

For the plaintiffs, the message is clear: they will not yield to foreign censors. As the suit puts it, “Delaware and West Virginia are not part of the UK. Their citizens, both natural and corporate, do not answer to the UK.”

Preston Byrne of Byrne & Storm, P.C., who represents the plaintiffs, told Reclaim The Net the platforms are refusing to comply with Ofcom’s demands because “American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail.”

He praised the decision by 4chan and Kiwi Farms to stand firm against the foreign regulator, stating, “In the face of these foreign demands, our clients have bravely chosen to assert their constitutional rights.”

Byrne characterized the UK’s censorship law as a calculated attack on the American tech sector, warning that “the UK Online Safety Act is a brazen attempt by a foreign country to hobble American competitiveness and suffocate American freedom by exporting the UK’s censorship laws to our shores.”

He made it clear that the legal team would not allow such interference to go unanswered: “The First Amendment bar is prepared to hale any foreign censor into federal court at any time to defend any American.”

In a statement to Reclaim The Net, Ronald Coleman of the Coleman Law Firm, P.C., co-counsel in the suit, framed the case as a broader defense of national sovereignty and individual liberty.

Keep reading

South Korea’s Church Raids: A Political Assault by the New Administration Disguised as Law Enforcement

In the span of just a few months in 2025, the South Korean government under President Lee Jae-myung has launched a series of unprecedented raids against major churches and senior Christian leaders. What makes this wave of crackdowns so alarming is not only its scale, but also its unmistakable political targeting.

The churches under attack—Yeouido Full Gospel Church, SaRang Jeil Church, Segyero Church, and Unjeong Chamjon Church—have something in common: they are at the forefront of defending freedom, practicing biblical convictions, and voicing opposition to the impeachment and imprisonment of former President Yoon Suk-yeol and former First Lady Kim Keon-hee.

Since the National Assembly forced through the impeachment bill in December 2024, these churches have been the backbone of nationwide protests demanding Yoon’s reinstatement and release.

Public opposition to impeachment surged above 50%, largely driven by church-led movements. Today, the overwhelming majority of citizens who still reject Lee Jae-myung’s presidency and call for Yoon’s release are Christians.

The government knows this. And by striking at churches, it is attempting to dismantle the very infrastructure of resistance.

Keep reading

Scottish Girl Arrested For Using Knife And Axe To Ward Off Migrant Stalker

The systematic and engineered destruction of Europe through “multicultural” invasion is heartbreaking to watch.  It is clear, beyond any doubt, that this program spearheaded by progressive politicians (and fake conservative politicians) is designed to crush the spirits of predominantly white, native born citizens still retaining a sense of national pride and cultural heritage.  That is to say, they have become the targets of a government funded terror campaign to subjugate the west.

Starting around 2014, millions of third world migrants have been allowed to flood into Europe’s borders, often encouraged by globalist NGOs, the UN and leftist political leaders within the host countries.  The effects of this decade long campaign have been devastating. 

Violent crime has skyrocketed and migrant “grooming gangs” have spread, targeting underage girls for sexual exploitation.  Rape has become a common problem, which local governments have chosen to ignore.

Just this week an American man visiting Dresden, Germany was stabbed in the face while bravely preventing two migrants from assaulting a pair of women on a tram.  One of the man’s attackers, a Syrian refugee, was arrested by police and then immediately released by prosecutors back onto the streets.

And so the story is repeated, over and over again.  European elites invite third world migrants, largely military age men, into their borders in the name of progressive multiculturalism.  The migrants then attack the native population because their culture tells them Europeans are cattle to be farmed.  Whenever a European dares to speak up or defend themselves, they are slapped down by officials or arrested.  The population slowly becomes apathetic, passive and easier to control because they have no recourse but silence.

At bottom, the migrants are merely an ugly symptom of a bigger disease; the source of the problem is the political oligarchy that is facilitating the multicultural agenda.

Yet another example occurred in Scotland this week with the arrest of a 14-year-old girl who went viral on social media after defending another girl from a migrant man stalking them on video.  The teen can be seen pulling out a kitchen knife and a hatchet and screaming at the man to leave them alone. 

She warns the migrant man “Don’t touch my sister, she’s fucking 12…” 

Keep reading

Former Golden Meadow police chief arrested for deleting department records

The former police chief of Golden Meadow was arrested after he reportedly deleted several years of police records immediately after he lost the election to keep his job, the attorney general’s office reports.

Tony Dufrene surrendered himself to authorities Wednesday once a warrant for his arrest was issued, Attorney General Liz Murrill said Thursday in a news release. 

The former chief admitted to deleting more than 12 years of data and records, according to his arrest affidavit. He was charged with malfeasance in office, injuring public records and computer tampering.  

Dufrene’s lost his re-election bid Nov. 5 to Michelle Lafont in a race decided by nine votes. The day after his loss, investigators said Dufrene began deleting files and deactivating modules on Central Square, the police department’s report management system. He continued doing so through Dec. 31 when his time in office came to an end, according to his arrest affidavit.

More than 30 Central Square “reports/modules” were affected, investigators were told. The records affected include calls for service to the police department, fuel use data, Taser reports, thefts, warrants, sick leave and overtime, the affidavit detailed.

State agents interviewed a Golden Meadow police officer who said they had a discussion with Dufrene about his actions on Central Square.

“In conversation, the officer stated that Dufrene told them that since he lost the election he would be deleting files and it was up to the offices [sic] to memorize anything they needed for daily operations,” the affidavit said.

Because certain modules were not available, police were forced to keep handwritten records instead of entering information into Central Square. During the course of the investigation, Central Square was able to recover the removed modules and 12 years of records Dufrene removed.

Keep reading

Report from South Korea: Special Prosecutor Files Arrest Warrant on Opposition Candidate – Something Koreans Learned from the Democrat Party

For four years following his first term as US President, Democrats coordinated attacks on President Trump hoping to bankrupt the former president and imprison him until his death.

Every single charge was complete garbage and they knew it. They didn’t care. They wanted to destroy President Trump and persecute his supporters. The fact that they were destroying the country was not a concern for these wicked people who worked together to tyrannize former President Trump.

We know this first hand at The Gateway Pundit after several years of brutal attacks by the left in their quest to destroy us.

President Trump and the country survived this very dark period by the grace of God.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world was watching as Democrats crucified President Trump. Today we see similar efforts in Brazil and South Korea to destroy and imprison the innocent opposition candidates.

On Monday South Korea’s pro-China President Lee Jae-myung will meet with President Trump at the White House.

Last week Lee Jae-myung’s regime carrying out police raids on political opponents who dare raise questions about election fraud under the current pro-Chinese regime.

On August 20, armed police stormed the office of the Free and Innovation Party, led by former Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn, under the guise of investigating so-called “election law violations,” according to our contact in South Korea, Kim Yu-jin.

Keep reading

South Korean President Courts Chicoms with Official Letter While Visiting US President Trump – This is After Police Raided the Opposition Party’s Headquarters Last Week

On Monday South Korea’s pro-China President Lee Jae-myung will meet with President Trump at the White House.

Last week Lee Jae-myung’s regime carrying out police raids on political opponents who dare raise questions about election fraud under the current pro-Chinese regime.

On August 20, armed police stormed the office of the Free and Innovation Party, led by former Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn, under the guise of investigating so-called “election law violations,” according to our contact in South Korea, Kim Yu-jin.

Hwang, along with hundreds of citizens organized under the Committee for Preventing Election Fraud, had officially registered as election monitors.

They followed legal procedures, participated transparently, and documented what they believed were serious irregularities. Instead of being commended for strengthening democracy, they are now being treated as criminals.

While President Lee Jae-myung is engaging in summit diplomacy with the United States and Japan, he has simultaneously dispatched a special envoy to Beijing with a personal letter for Xi Jinping.

This reveals a troubling double-track policy — speaking of alliance with America while at the same time courting the Chinese Communist Party.

Such actions raise serious questions about Seoul’s reliability as a U.S. ally. The message delivered to Wang Yi, China’s top foreign policy official, emphasized “expanding common interests” with Beijing. At the very moment when Washington is working to strengthen trilateral cooperation with Seoul and Tokyo, South Korea’s leader is signaling deference to Beijing.

Keep reading

Christian bookstore in Colorado Springs sues Colorado over new anti-discrimination act

The owners of a Christian bookstore in Colorado Springs are suing the state over a new anti-discrimination law they claim violates First Amendment rights by forcing them to use pronouns that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of Born Again Used Books, a family-owned bookstore operated by Eric and Sara Smith, with the aim of “seeking to uphold religious and commonsense beliefs about biological sex.”

The lawsuit challenges the Kelly Loving Act, a new state law named after a woman who was killed during the 2022 Club Q shooting.

The act, signed into state law in May, amends the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) to expand protections for transgender individuals, recognizing misgendering and deadnaming as forms of discrimination and prohibiting such acts in public spaces.

Under the revised CADA, businesses classified as “public accommodations” – including bookstores – are prohibited from denying services, advertising in a discriminatory way, or making customers feel unwelcome based on gender expression.

In the lawsuit, the bookstore owners argue that this amended policy infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious freedom by forcing them to express beliefs they don’t hold.

The lawsuit states that the bookstore’s owners believe that “God created everyone in His image, male or female,” and that “sex is immutable.” Born Again Used Books says it welcomes all customers, but cannot affirm “gender choices” that contradict its religious views.

“Although Born Again Used Books happily sells its products to everyone, Colorado now compels the bookstore to speak using pronouns and titles based on a person’s preferred gender expression—thereby requiring the store to prioritize a person’s professed identity over biological reality,” Alliance Defending Freedom said in a release. “That violates the Christian bookstore’s beliefs and the First Amendment.”

In the lawsuit, the store says it wants to be transparent with customers by formalizing this policy into a written pronoun policy and publishing blog posts explaining its reasoning – but the owners believe these actions would now be illegal under the amended Colorado law.

“Because CADA now makes all this illegal, Born Again Used Books must instead profess an ideological view it opposes … and avoid explaining its Christian beliefs about human sexuality in store and online,” the lawsuit reads in part. “In effect, the law requires this Christian bookstore to abandon its core religious beliefs.”

The bookstore is now asking a federal court to block Colorado from enforcing parts of the anti-discrimination law. Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to stop the enforcement of provisions related to gender expression and pronouns.

Keep reading

President Trump Signs Executive Order to Prosecute People Who Burn American Flags – “It Incites Riots… You Burn a Flag, You Get One Year in Jail”

President Trump on Monday signed the “Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag” Executive Order into law, prioritizing the prosecution of crimes that involve the burning of the American flag and potentially opening challenges to the interpretation of the First Amendment protections for flag burning. 

It does not appear to make burning the American flag a crime, but crimes that involve burning a flag will be prioritized.

“Our great American Flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America, and of American freedom, identity, and strength,” the order reads.

“Desecrating it is uniquely offensive and provocative. It is a statement of contempt, hostility, and violence against our Nation — the clearest possible expression of opposition to the political union that preserves our rights, liberty, and security. Burning this representation of America may incite violence and riot.”

The order also describes the act as “a calculated act to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their nationality and place of birth,” used by foreign nationals, and it directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to “deny, prohibit, terminate, or revoke visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits, or seek removal from the United States, pursuant to Federal law, including 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), 8 U.S.C. 1424, 8 U.S.C. 1427, 8 U.S.C. 1451(c), and 8 U.S.C. 1227(a).”

It further argues that flag burning, “conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to ‘fighting words,’” is not constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.

The order directs the Department of Justice and the Attorney General to “prioritize the enforcement to the fullest extent possible of our Nation’s criminal and civil laws against acts of American Flag desecration that violate applicable, content-neutral laws, while causing harm unrelated to expression, consistent with the First Amendment,” including “violent crimes; hate crimes, illegal discrimination against American citizens, or other violations of Americans’ civil rights; and crimes against property and the peace, as well as conspiracies and attempts to violate, and aiding and abetting others to violate, such laws.”

The Attorney General is also permitted to “pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions in this area.”

White House Staff Secretary Will Scharff told the President, the order “charges your department of justice with investigating instances of flag burning, and then where there’s evidence of criminal activity, where prosecution wouldn’t fall foul of the First Amendment, it instructs the Department of Justice to prosecute those who are engaged in these instances of flag burning.”

While signing the order into law, President Trump reasoned that the action causes people to go “crazy” and that “what it does is incite to riot.”

“And what the penalty is going to be if you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. No early exits, no nothing,” he said. “you will see flag burning stopping immediately, just like when I signed the Statue and Monument Act— 10 years in jail if you hurt any of our beautiful monuments. Everybody left town. They were gone. Never had a problem after that, it’s pretty amazing.”

Keep reading