Tag: social media

UK Blocks Lucy Connolly, Jailed for Social Media Post, From Speaking in US on Free Speech Crackdown

Lucy Connolly, the British woman jailed in 2024 over a social media post, says senior government officials have blocked her from traveling to the United States to speak about online expression and state censorship.

The invitation came from Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who had arranged for her to testify on Britain’s handling of speech-related prosecutions.

Connolly was released from prison in August 2025. She remains under strict supervision until March 2026 as part of the country’s highest-level public protection scheme. The ban on travel, she says, was not issued by probation officers but was directed by government officials.

“They did go straight to the top. They bypassed probation and went, you know, to the government and yeah it came back as a ‘absolutely not,’” Connolly told GB News.

She said the original plan to travel involved direct outreach to Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s office.

“I don’t know the ins and outs of what was said and what happened. I just know that I got an answer back of “it’s a hard no.”

Connolly had been asked to speak in the US about the UK’s use of criminal charges for controversial online speech.

Authorities blocked the trip under MAPPA, the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements framework, a system typically reserved for individuals considered violent or sexually dangerous.

Connolly is currently held under MAPPA Level 3, the most intensive level, which places her under oversight from not only probation officers but also police, government press handlers, and other agencies.

Under the terms, she must request approval for any public appearance and is monitored in her daily life.

“I’m a MAPPA level three. I don’t know if you know what that means, but sex offenders and terrorists get put on MAPPA level three,” she said.

“So I’m not just answerable to probation… I have to ask them permission to do everything.”

Since her release, she has been denied permission to travel internationally and must seek formal clearance for any public engagement, including, she says, observing a parliamentary debate on whether prison is an appropriate response to social media offenses.

“They use the excuse of, well, it’s because of the press interest, you’re high profile with the press,” she said.

Connolly believes the monitoring has less to do with risk and more to do with optics. Her case, she says, has become politically inconvenient.

“You’re basically chucked in the same bag as sex offenders and some of the worst people in society, all because of that tweet,” GB News reporter Ben Leo told her. She replied, “A hundred percent.”

She also described being questioned by authorities over unrelated press attention, which was flagged internally as a concern. The incident, she said, was “something and nothing,” but was treated as a serious issue “because it’s me.”

Connolly says the government’s posture on speech no longer reflects a free society.

Keep reading

EU’s Weakened “Chat Control” Bill Still Poses Major Privacy and Surveillance Risks, Academics Warn

On November 19, the European Union stands poised to vote on one of the most consequential surveillance proposals in its digital history.

The legislation, framed as a measure to protect children online, has drawn fierce criticism from a bloc of senior European academics who argue that the proposal, even in its revised form, walks a perilous line. It invites mass surveillance under a veil of voluntarism and does so with little evidence that it will improve safety.

This latest draft of the so-called “Chat Control” law has already been softened from its original form. The Council of the European Union, facing mounting public backlash, stripped out provisions for mandatory on-device scanning of encrypted communications.

But for researchers closely following the legislation, the revised proposal is anything but a retreat.

“The proposal reinstates the option to analyze content beyond images and URLs – including text and video – and to detect newly generated CSAM,” reads the open letter, signed by 18 prominent academics from institutions such as ETH Zurich, KU Leuven, and the Max Planck Institute.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

The argument, in essence, is that the Council’s latest version doesn’t eliminate the risk. It only rebrands it.

Keep reading

France’s Censors Release Their Favorite Captive

French authorities have lifted the travel ban that had confined Telegram founder Pavel Durov to France for more than a year.

The restriction, imposed after his arrest in Paris last August, had prevented him from leaving the country while prosecutors pursued charges tied not to his own actions but to what users on his platform were allegedly doing.

The order, signed on Monday, and reported by Bloomberg, also cancels the obligation for Durov to report regularly to a local police station.

The decision restores his freedom of movement, though the investigation into Telegram itself continues.

Prosecutors have not clarified why the head of a communications service is being held legally responsible for user activity, an approach that raises questions about how far governments are willing to go in policing online speech.

According to France’s Prosecutor’s Office, Durov faces preliminary charges for “facilitating a platform that enables illicit transactions.”

If convicted, he could face up to ten years in prison and a fine of roughly $550,000.

Keep reading

TikTok Zombie Brain Rot Confirmed By Major Study

A bombshell Griffith University study has validated a long suspected reality: short-form videos (SFVs) like TikToks and Instagram Reels are frying brains, slashing attention spans, and crippling cognitive endurance.

Such content is turning a generation into scatterbrained zombies unable to tackle real-world complexities amid algorithmic dopamine traps.

The meta-analysis, reviewing 71 studies and data from 98,299 participants, uncovered a “consistent pattern” of harm from heavy SFV consumption. 

Such content is turning a generation into scatterbrained zombies unable to tackle real-world complexities amid algorithmic dopamine traps.

Keep reading

Report: Biden Admin Hid Online Footprint Of Trump’s Would-Be Assassin

The Biden administration hid critical information about Thomas Matthew Crooks — the person who shot President Donald Trump and three others in Butler, Pennsylvania — throughout the 2024 election, according to a report from the New York Post.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Biden appears to have knowingly lied to Congress, misled the American people, and, at best, was negligent in its duty to track Crooks after he reportedly made numerous statements about committing political violence and assassinations.

The NYP received information from a source showing that Crooks did have a history of significant online activity, despite then-Biden FBI Director Christopher Wray testifying that Crooks had no “online history that pointed to motive or political ideology.” Wray also attempted to downplay Trump’s being shot by suggesting he may have been hit with a piece of shrapnel from his podium, despite no evidence of that whatsoever.

Paul Abbate, former FBI deputy director under Wray, seemed to muddy the water even more, telling Congress that some social media accounts connected to Crooks “appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse political violence and are described as extreme in nature.”

That is true, but the posts Abbate was referring to — which appear to paint Crooks in some sort of right-wing extremism light — were quite a bit older than posts showing a left-wing, anti-Trump ideology Crooks seems to have adopted over time.

Crooks’ online footprint appears to show someone who has always been interested in political and mass violence, who grew to openly hate Trump and called for “terrorism style attacks” and assassinations. He also seemingly became involved with “furry” fetish platforms — often a sexual deviancy associated closely with gender ideology. Furry fetishes and transgender ideology are more and more common among those who commit left-wing violence, and the person who allegedly assassinated Charlie Kirk in September was apparently immersed in both.

In light of Crooks’ online threats, it seems impossible that he was not known to the FBI before he attempted to assassinate Trump, and yet his online footprint was completely omitted from the final report about the shooting released in December 2024.

It is important that the American people get answers about Crooks and his attempted assassination of a former president who, by all serious accounts at the time, was the leader in the presidential race. But it is also important to keep in mind that, in addition to nearly killing Trump, Crooks’ bullets took the life of rallygoer Corey Comperatore and wounded rallygoers David Dutch and James Copenhaver. They and their families deserve answers too.

Crooks was 20 years old when he tried to assassinate Trump. He was shot dead by the Secret Service on the scene, but not before he was able to fire eight bullets.

His online history goes back at least to when he was 15, showing a political evolution from Trump supporter (though violent) to left-wing terrorist. The source cited by the NYP found 17 online accounts on platforms YouTube, Snapchat, Venmo, Zelle, GroupMe, Discord, Google Play, Quizlet, Chess.com, and Quora.

Crooks’ “radicalization, violent rhetoric and obsession with political violence were all documented under his real name,” the NYP source stated. “The threat wasn’t hidden.”

And, far from the all-too-common “lone wolf with no discernible motive” narrative peddled by officials after acts of mass violence or political violence, Crooks’ political development was out in the open for anyone to see — and for the FBI to monitor.

Keep reading

Soros funded NGO that tried to ‘kill Musk’s Twitter’ – media

A grantmaking network created by billionaire investor George Soros funded a controversial UK-based NGO which seeks to “kill” Elon Musk’s X media platform and censor conservative media, the Washington Free Beacon reported on Monday.

According to the database of Soros’ Open Society Foundation (OSF), the charity gave the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) a $250,000 grant last year “to provide general support.” While the nonprofit stipulates that its goal is to hold social media companies “accountable” for spreading hate, in practice, it has pressured advertisers to censor companies and lobbied to deplatform and cancel news organizations it found offensive, the paper said.

According to the outlet, the CCDH, founded by former Labour Party operative Imran Ahmed, has targeted conservative outlets such as The Federalist and the Daily Wire over alleged racist content. The nonprofit also reportedly tried to persuade US policymakers to create an “independent digital regulator.”

Keep reading

Italian Court Orders Google to Restore Banned Catholic Blog

Google has been compelled by the Tribunale di Imperia to restore Messainlatino.it, a major Italian Catholic website that, as you may remember, the company had abruptly taken down from its Blogger platform in July.

The ruling, issued against Google Ireland Limited, the firm’s European branch, also requires payment of approximately €7,000 (about $8,100) in court costs.

The blog’s editor, Luigi Casalini, filed legal action after Google deleted the site without warning, claiming a violation of its “hate speech” rules.

The company’s notification consisted of a short, generic email and provided no explanation or chance to appeal.

For Casalini, whose publication had accumulated over 22,000 articles since 2008 and reached around one million monthly readers, the removal appeared to be less a matter of policy enforcement and more an attempt to silence dissenting religious opinion.

Messainlatino.it was well known for covering issues surrounding traditional Catholic liturgy and had been cited by major outlets.

Following Google’s action, questions were raised in both the European Parliament and Italy’s Chamber of Deputies.

Legislators noted that the deletion “raises serious questions about the respect for freedom of expression, speech and religion” as guaranteed by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

They also pointed to the Digital Services Act (DSA), which, despite being a censorship law, obliges platforms to apply their moderation policies with “due regard” for fundamental rights.

Casalini’s legal case focused on that provision. He argued that Google’s decision breached Article 14 of the DSA, which calls for a balance between policy enforcement and the user’s right to free expression.

As Casalini stated to LifeSiteNews, “Google acted in this way in violation of the Digital Services Act.”

Google responded through five lawyers based in Milan. The company claimed that an interview with Bishop Joseph Strickland, who opposed the ordination of women as deacons, violated its hate speech policy.

When the defense team countered that the post merely reported the bishop’s words and contained no discriminatory content, Google’s attorneys maintained in court documents that “it does not matter the source, more or less authoritative (bishop, Pontiff) of the post, if it violates the Policy.”

Keep reading

Britain’s Speech Gulag Exposed: 10,000 Arrested Last Year For Social Media Posts

A damning study complete with an interactive map has revealed that UK police arrested nearly 10,000 people in 2024 for “grossly offensive” social media posts—equivalent to 30 arrests every single day—while knife crime, burglary, and sexual offences go unsolved.

This Orwellian crackdown, driven by vague “communications” laws, has turned Britain into an international embarrassment, with forces devoting more manpower to policing opinions than protecting citizens.

Compiled from Freedom of Information requests to 39 police forces, the data shows 9,700 arrests in 2024 alone under the Communications Act 2003 and Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Keep reading

Launching a High Court Challenge Against Australia’s Social Media ID Check Law

Australia’s online digital ID checks and under-16 social media ban are now facing a constitutional challenge, with a coalition of Australians led by NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick preparing to contest the new law in the High Court.

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, scheduled to take effect on December 10, 2025, will require all users to prove they are over 16 before accessing major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X, and Snapchat.

To comply with this, people will have to give up their privacy by verifying with a government-issued ID.

John Ruddick announced the challenge after being elected President of the Digital Freedom Project (DFP) at its inaugural general meeting this week.

Ruddick said the DFP’s mission is to “raise public awareness about this East German-style intrusion by the state into our private lives” and to “launch a High Court challenge that argues the law is unconstitutional as it is a violation of the long-accepted ‘implied constitutional freedom of political communication’.”

He argued that the new law will be burdensome for both social media users and platforms, with companies facing fines of up to $53 million per day for breaches.

“The guts of the matter is that to have a social media account in Australia from 10 December, you will need to prove to the social media platform you are over 16,” Ruddick said.

He added that the verification process could require uploading identification documents, which would enable the eSafety Commissioner to “track what websites you visit to double check you really are over 16.”

Keep reading

German Police Raid a Libertarian’s Home for the Crime of Calling Civil Servants “Parasites”

A new insane German speech crime investigation just dropped.

On September 29th of this year, a German man of libertarian persuasion known only by the pseudonym Damian N. tweeted the following:

No, anyone who is financed by the state pays no net taxes; they live off taxes: every civil servant, every politician, every employee in a state-owned enterprise, everyone who is subsidised and financed by the state. Not a single parasite pays any net taxes.

You can find the tweet here; as I write this, it has a grand total of 402 views and 10 likes.

No matter: yesterday morning, police acting on behalf of the Ulm public prosecutor’s office raided Damian’s home. He is suspected of the crime of inciting hatred (in violation of Section 130 of the German Criminal Code) for his rough remark about government “parasites”.

Apollo News reports:

“At almost exactly 6am, my doorbell rang. I went to the intercom and heard: ‘Police, please open the door, we have a search warrant,’” N. recounts.

“They then gave me a choice: ‘Either you unlock your cell phone and give us the PIN, and we’ll take the cell phone with us, or we’ll take everything.

“Under pressure, I naturally cooperated, unlocked my cell phone, and gave them the PIN,” he said. The officers then took Damian N. to the police station for identification procedures. “The whole programme,” said N.: “Weight, height, photos from many angles, and all the biometric data from my hands. I felt like a serious criminal.” The police also asked for a blood sample – “for your DNA,” as one officer is reported to have said. N. refused. “I thought I hadn’t heard right.”

The identification procedures – roughly comparable to a police booking in the United States – were likely illegal in this case. Damian N. further claims that the police produced no search warrant and provided no receipt for his confiscated phone, which would represent a further violation of the law. Before leaving, an officer instructed our suspected speech criminal to “think carefully about what you post in future”, because “you must realise that you are now under observation”.

Keep reading