Tag: wrongthink

FTC Warns PayPal, Stripe, Visa, Mastercard Against Debanking

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent letters on Thursday to the CEOs of PayPal, Stripe, Visa and Mastercard, warning them against debanking practices — including denying access to services due to a customer’s lawful business activities.

“It is inconsistent with American values to deny law-abiding individuals the ability to run their legitimate businesses and feed their families because they attracted the ire of rogue American officials, overzealous activists, or, more worryingly, foreign governments seeking to control public discourse,” the letters read. “That is why President Trump’s August 7, 2025, Executive Order on debanking makes clear that it is unacceptable to debank law-abiding citizens due to ‘political affiliations, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities.’”

As XBIZ reported last year, that executive order prohibits banks, savings associations, credit unions or other financial service providers from restricting access to accounts, loans or other services on the basis of a customer’s lawful business activities “that the financial service provider disagrees with or disfavors for political reasons.”

Following Trump’s executive order, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a report on debanking, in which it named adult entertainment as one of several sectors facing discrimination for engaging in activities contrary to banks’ “values.”

Ferguson’s letters inform the targeted companies that deplatforming such customers, or denying them access to financial products or services, could lead to an FTC investigation and potential enforcement action.

Keep reading

Finland’s Supreme Court Convicts Parliamentarian for 2004 Church Pamphlet “Insulting” Gay People

Finland’s Supreme Court has found parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of “hate speech” for “insulting” gay people by expressing her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a church pamphlet from 2004. ADF International, which is supporting Räsänen, has more.

In a narrow 3-2 decision, the Finnish Supreme Court has found parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of “hate speech” on one charge relating to the expression of her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 20 year-old church pamphlet. Räsänen has been criminally convicted for publishing the 2004 pamphlet for her church, alongside Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola. The conviction is for “making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group”. The Supreme Court unanimously acquitted Räsänen for her 2019 Bible verse tweet.  

Räsänen was previously unanimously acquitted on all charges by two lower courts. 

The long serving parliamentarian and former Minister of the Interior has been convicted for “hate speech” under a section of the Finnish criminal code titled “war crimes and crimes against humanity”. The medical doctor and grandmother of 12 was tried in early 2022 and again in 2023 for expressing her beliefs in a 2019 tweet, which included a Bible verse, in addition to a 2019 radio debate and 2004 church booklet.  

After the prosecutor appealed for a third time, the Supreme Court, which heard the case in October 2025, has now ruled on two of the three original charges: concerning the tweet and the church booklet. The Supreme Court was not asked to rule on the radio debate as the prosecution did not appeal it, so Räsänen’s acquittal for the debate stands. 

“I am shocked and profoundly disappointed that the court has failed to recognise my basic human right to freedom of expression. I stand by the teachings of my Christian faith, and will continue to defend my and every person’s right to share their convictions in the public square,” stated Päivi Räsänen after receiving the judgment.

“I am taking legal advice on a possible appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. This is not about my free speech alone, but that of every person in Finland. A positive ruling would help to prevent other innocent people from experiencing the same ordeal for simply sharing their beliefs,” added Räsänen.  

The Court found Räsänen and the Bishop guilty for having “made available to the public and kept available to the public opinions that insult homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation”. It held that: “It must be taken into account that the text forming the basis for the conviction did not contain incitement to violence or comparable threat-like fomenting of hatred. The conduct is therefore not particularly serious in terms of the nature of the offence.”

The pamphlet was authored by Räsänen in 2004. The Court convicted her on the basis that: “After a preliminary investigation into the matter was launched in 2019, Räsänen continued to share the article on her own internet and social media pages in 2019 and 2020.”

Keep reading

Blackburn’s TRUMP AMERICA AI Act Repeals Section 230, Expands AI Liability, and Mandates Age Verification

Senator Marsha Blackburn has introduced a 291-page legislative discussion draft that would reshape how information is allowed to exist online.

The TRUMP AMERICA AI Act, officially titled the “The Republic Unifying Meritocratic Performance Advancing Machine intelligence by Eliminating Regulatory Interstate Chaos Across American Industry” Act, bundles together Section 230 repeal, expanded AI liability, age verification mandates, and a stack of additional bills that have been circulating separately for years.

All of it is wrapped in a national AI framework that claims it is tied to President Trump’s December Executive Order. The bill is framed as pro-innovation, pro-safety, designed to “protect children, creators, conservatives, and communities” while positioning the US to win the global AI race.

What the actual 291 pages describe is a system that centralizes regulatory authority, removes the legal protections platforms currently rely on, and hands new enforcement tools to federal agencies, state attorneys general, and private litigants simultaneously.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The legal foundation of the modern internet is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It shields platforms from being sued for the content that users post. Without Section 230, platforms could become legally responsible for what their users post, which could mean anything controversial, contested, or legally ambiguous becomes a liability they’ll quietly remove rather than defend.

Blackburn’s bill repeals it entirely, after a two-year transition period.

Platforms and AI developers could face lawsuits for “defective design,” “failure to warn,” or deploying systems deemed “unreasonably dangerous.”

AI platforms would be incentivized to heavily monitor users.

Keep reading

Israel seeking ‘significant change’ in how Canada tackles antisemitism

Israel is pursuing a sweeping diplomatic and public relations campaign to convince Canada to change the way it tackles acts of antisemitism.

From the office of Israel’s president down to its ambassador in Ottawa, the message is the same: Canada must do more to curb threats against Jews.

But while the country’s ambassador is suggesting Ottawa should limit certain “freedoms” in order to deal with threats his government links to Iran, he hasn’t said which freedoms should be limited.

“We have a very clear objective this year, and that is to create a significant change in the way antisemitism is being dealt with here in Canada,” Israeli Ambassador Iddo Moed told a virtual forum last week.

“It is hard for a liberal person to think that we have to limit other people’s freedoms, so that our freedom will be protected. But that’s where we are right now.”

Carleton University political scientist Mira Sucharov, who researches Israeli-Palestinian relations and Jewish politics, said there “are two things happening” — Israel is trying both to improve protection for Jews worldwide and to generate support for the war it has launched with the U.S. against Iran.

Moed spoke after Israel issued a series of high-level statements following shootings at three Toronto-area synagogues.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog convened a call with Toronto-area Jewish community leaders on March 9 — a rare move by a country whose head of government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has refused to speak with Prime Minister Mark Carney.

“We must learn the lessons of previous antisemitic attacks, including the horrific Bondi Beach terror attack,” Herzog wrote on social media, citing the mass shooting last December at a Hanukkah event in Australia.

“All eyes are on Canada: it’s time to halt the unprecedented wave of Jew-hatred that has erupted ever since Oct. 7,” Herzog added, referencing the 2023 attack by Hamas and its allies against Israel which started the war in Gaza.

Keep reading

Court Backs First-Grader in Suit Over School Reaction to ‘Any Life’ Matters Drawing

Can a “schoolyard dispute” warrant federal court intervention? Do first-graders have First Amendment rights? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit just gave a resounding yes to both questions.

The case centers on a first-grader identified in court documents as B.B. After her teacher read a story about Martin Luther King Jr., B.B. drew a picture of her and her multiracial friend group. “Black Lives Mater [sic] any life,” it said. Sweet, right?

Apparently not to the administrators at Viejo Elementary School in California’s Capistrano Unified School District. The school’s principal, Jesus Becerra, spoke with B.B. about her drawing, allegedly telling her that it was inappropriate. According to B.B., she was also barred from recess for two weeks.

B.B.’s mother, Chelsea Boyle, sued, alleging that her daughter’s First Amendment rights had been violated.

A federal district court sided with the school and Becerra, holding that B.B.’s drawing was not protected by the First Amendment. “This schoolyard dispute—like most—does not warrant federal court intervention,” wrote U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in the court’s 2024 opinion.

Now, the 9th Circuit has weighed in and reversed course. “We hold that elementary students’ speech is protected by the First Amendment,” the appeals court ruled, vacating the lower court’s decision and sending the case back for reconsideration.

“Schools may restrict students’ speech only when the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the safety and well-being of its students,” the 9th Circuit judges wrote.

Keep reading

UK Teacher BANNED For Saying Migrants Should ‘Respect Our Laws Or Leave’ 

A British Physical Education teacher has been indefinitely banned from the classroom after daring to state that migrants should respect Britain’s laws, culture, and way of life — or leave.

Sam Everett taught at Haughton Academy in Darlington for two years. Someone identified his X account, reported him to the school, and triggered an investigation into his political views. 

The independent Teaching Regulation Agency panel that heard the case cleared him of racism and sexism, praised his unblemished teaching record, noted colleague endorsements, and recommended he keep his job. Publication of the findings alone would suffice as punishment, they ruled.

However, the Department for Education stepped in anyway and overruled the panel, claiming it had “failed to give sufficient weight” to the seriousness of his conduct. 

Everett is now banned from teaching for life — or at least two years before he can even apply to be reinstated, with no guarantee of success. He lost his job at the academy in June 2024.

The posts that sparked the witch hunt were hardly fringe. In one, Everett wrote: “Completely agree, if you don’t respect our laws, culture and way of life you should leave, nobody is forcing you to stay. We don’t go to other peoples countries and tell them they’re wrong for how they go about things.”

Responding to a claim that “The law of Allah is superior to your laws,” he replied: “Sick of hearing rubbish being spouted by these idiots. They can live in societies where their values are accepted, it isn’t here. Leave. You won’t be missed.”

Keep reading

Young NASCAR Driver Indefinitely Suspended for Using “Gay Voice” to Mock Driver During Livestream 

A young NASCAR driver was indefinitely suspended for using a “gay voice” to mock another driver during a livestream.

22-year-old Daniel Dye was forced to apologize for ‘homophobic’ and ‘disparaging’ comments.

On Tuesday evening, Daniel Dye was penalized for ridiculing fellow driver David Malukas.

NASCAR.com reported:

Daniel Dye has been indefinitely suspended from NASCAR after insensitive comments made during a recent livestream, officials announced Tuesday evening.

Dye, driver of the No. 10 Kaulig Racing Ram in the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series, was penalized under Section 4.3.C in the NASCAR Rule Book, which states in part, “NASCAR Members shall not make … a public statement or communication that criticizes, ridicules, or otherwise disparages another person based upon that person’s race, color, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, age, or handicapping condition.”

Dye was discussing his experience around NTT IndyCar Series driver David Malukas while opening trading cards on a recent livestream, during which the 22-year-old Dye used language that officials deemed unacceptable, resulting in Tuesday’s suspension. Dye must complete sensitivity training before he may return to competition.

Kaulig Racing also announced in a statement that the team has suspended Dye effective immediately “after becoming aware (Tuesday) of comments he made on social media.”

AJ Allmendinger was later announced as the fill-in driver for Friday’s race at Darlington Raceway (7:30 p.m. ET, FS1, NRN, SiriusXM NASCAR Radio). Allmendinger, who drives full-time for Kaulig in the Cup Series, has 14 career starts in the Truck Series, with his last coming in 2021 at Watkins Glen International for GMS Racing.

Daniel Dye was later forced to apologize to the LGBTQ community.

Keep reading

Tucker Carlson: “Throughout the West Criticizing the Netanyahu Government is Now a Crime Punishable by Imprisonment”

Tucker Carlson released his latest interview on Monday.

He invited longtime friend and fellow Israel critic Glenn Greenwald as his guest.

Tucker made this bold statement to his audience, “Throughout the West, criticizing the Netanyahu government is now a crime punishable by imprisonment.”

(You can listen to this at 1:02:10 in the video below.)

It’s not clear what he is referring to today.

Glenn Greenwald says that censorship of conservative voices in the West is not as big of threat on free speech as criticizing Israel and Jews.

This video interview comes out just days after Tucker said the CIA has been reading his text messages and is referring a criminal complaint against him.

Keep reading

Bill C-9 against quoting Bible verses could turn Canada into police state: pro-freedom group

A Canadian constitutional freedom group warned that the imminent passage of a bill that threatens religious expression when it comes to quoting from certain Bible passages after it becomes law will turn Canada into a “police” state.

The Democracy Fund (TDF) alerted Canadians that Bill C-9, or the “Combatting Hate Act,” will expand the “legal definition of hatred and removes key free expression safeguards in the Criminal Code.”

“TDF will continue to oppose the Bill and all attempts by the government to censor Canadians,” the group warned.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, all debate on Bill C-9, a bill that could open the door to the criminalization of religious expression and belief when quoting certain parts of the Bible, was stopped last week.

Bill C-9 passed the committee phase last Friday and will soon pass third reading in the House of Commons.

TDF was invited to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding Bill C-9. In a brief it filed, the TDF outlined its reasons for opposing the bill.

“Ironically, the government has moved to end debate on issues of public concern for a bill that would end debate on issues of public concern. The Bill empowers prosecutors to bring charges based on the merest suggestion that the impugned conduct is motivated by an ill-defined concept of ‘hatred,’ massively increasing potential jail time and legal jeopardy for defendants,” the TDF noted.

“In our experience, these types of offences tend to be laid against marginalized and working-class people rather than powerful elites and political insiders. However, all Canadians can expect greater digital censorship and increased online police surveillance if the Bill becomes law. We only have to look at the UK example, where police make approximately 12,000 annual arrests for online ‘hate incidents’ under similar legislation.’”

Bill C-9 is a Liberal Party censorship bill that has attracted massive backlash from religious Canadians of many faiths. Once it becomes law, certain protections for sincerely held religious beliefs, particularly regarding LGBT issues, could be removed.

In comments to LifeSiteNews, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) campaigns manager David Cooke warned that Bill C-9 would result in the “prosecution of Canadian Christians” when quoting the Bible on issues of life and family.

The federal government, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, recently passed an amendment to the bill removing a religious exemption, prompting condemnation from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who issued an open letter calling for its removal.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Bill C-9 has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way. The bill was introduced by Justice Minister Sean Fraser last year.

CLC had earlier warned that Bill C-9 would open the door to the “criminalization of religious expression and belief” when quoting the Bible

Keep reading

CIA Prepares Criminal Referral of Tucker Carlson, as Israel and its Loyalists Demand His Arrest

On Friday morning, I taped an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s program to discuss the ongoing Iran War, growing Israeli influence in the U.S., and proliferating attacks on free speech in the West in the name of shielding that one foreign country from critique (I presume it will air in the next few days). Perhaps the most notable part of our conversation was what Tucker told me prior to the cameras rolling.

Tucker said he had learned from several high-placed sources — and he obviously has many within the Trump administration — that the CIA was preparing a criminal referral about him to the DOJ. The subject of the agency’s report of suspected crimes: conversations he allegedly had with Iranian officials and others in Iran prior to the start of the Trump/Netanyahu war. The clear implication was that Tucker had committed acts of subversion or even treason by speaking to Iranians in advance of the war that was about to be launched on their country.

Despite how innately shocking this claim is, I had and still have zero doubt that Tucker was telling the truth about what he heard. I have known him for many years, spent much time talking to him both in front of a camera and away from one, and never once has he lied to me or mislead me. Tucker has been in public life as a journalist and media figure since his 20s. There have been many harsh criticisms launched against him during those decades, many of which — as he will be the first to tell you — were ones that were quite valid.

Notably, many of the harshest attacks on Tucker came from me during my first decade after becoming a journalist (last year, Tucker discussed our friendship in a podcast conversation Chris Cuomo and he noted that, during the War on Terror and his ongoing war cheerleading, “nobody was meaner to me than Glenn Greenwald”; Cuomo said the same was true of him).

Keep reading