Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Canada's speech crackdown has already begun — speak up while you still can I genuinely believe we are closer to a real speech crackdown in this country than at any point in modern Canadian history. And the craziest part is they’re not even hiding it anymore. While Canadians were... distracted by inflation, tariffs and housing costs, the Liberals quietly buried something deeply disturbing on page 145 of the Spring Economic Statement: amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act expanding police powers to search and seize your mail. Your actual physical mail. Letters. Packages. Private correspondence. Read that alongside the Liberals’ censorship agenda, and the pattern becomes impossible to ignore. If Canadians move sensitive conversations off social media and back to texts, phones and old-fashioned mail to avoid government snoops, Carney’s people appear to have anticipated that already. They are tightening control over digital communication while quietly expanding state access to private correspondence at the same time. There is no escape hatch. And before anybody accuses me of paranoia, let me remind you what Trudeau’s government already tried to make law. Bill C-36 would have allowed anonymous complaints over lawful speech. Somebody could accuse you of hateful expression, and you might never properly confront your accuser. The bill proposed fines of up to $20,000 paid directly to the complainant, plus another $50,000 paid to the government itself. Over speech. Not violence. Not terrorism. Speech somebody found offensive online. And then came the truly chilling part: pre-crime restrictions. The Liberals wanted courts to impose curfews, communication bans and house arrest conditions on Canadians who had committed no criminal offence whatsoever, simply because somebody claimed to fear what they might say in the future. Not punishment for criminal conduct. Punishment for predicted wrongthink. Then came Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which proposed even more censorship infrastructure through digital safety commissions, regulators and online speech enforcement bodies. The same activist ecosystem backed every step of it: anti-hate NGOs, censorship advocates, activist academics and taxpayer-funded organizations that increasingly treat free expression itself as the social problem to solve. Those bills died when the election was called. The agenda didn’t. Now Mark Carney’s government is openly signalling it wants another crack at it. Marc Miller admitted Canada is “a couple years behind” Britain and Australia on internet regulation. Britain. The country where police investigate tweets and Facebook posts. Where citizens get questioned over memes and offensive jokes. Where authorities reportedly made more than 12,000 arrests tied to online communications offences in a single year. And instead of treating that as a warning sign, Canada’s political class increasingly talks about it like it’s a model worth copying. That should terrify every Canadian. Because freedom rarely disappears dramatically. It disappears slowly, bureaucratically and under the language of safety and harm reduction. And Carney may actually be more effective at advancing this agenda than Trudeau ever was because Trudeau sounded ideological and flaky. Carney sounds calm, managerial and “evidence-based,” which makes people lower their guard while the state accumulates more power over speech and information. And independent media will obviously be among the first targets. Government-funded outlets like the CBC have very little to fear from censorship systems because they already exist safely inside the approved institutional framework. They support the government because the government supports them. The pressure lands on independent journalists, alternative media and anybody operating outside establishment narratives — because we are skeptics of government. That’s where this road leads: criminalized dissent, self-censorship and a country where ordinary people slowly become afraid to speak honestly because the legal, financial and social consequences become too risky. And once that fear becomes cultural, governments barely need to censor anybody anymore. People start censoring themselves. We need to speak up now, while we still can. Go toshow more

Rebel News

654,331 subscribers

13,480 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika Eğitim

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Canada liberal government has 3 bills that when passed will be their most destructive bills ever put into law Free speech will be ended, Canadians will be thrown in prison for social media posts, warrantless searches of phones, pre-crime punishments and even open your mail Bill C-2 - empowers government employees, not police, to open your mail, search your phone or computer — all without a warrant. Bill C-8 - gives cabinet ministers the power to kick Canadians off the internet, impose fines, and demand data — no judge, no police review. Bill C-9 - removes legal safeguards around free speech. Justice Centre expands “hate” prosecutions. Online Harms Act - brings pre-crime punishment: house arrest, ankle bracelets, curfews for people who haven’t committed a crime. Because they might. “If the Online Harms Act is brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive non-criminal speech with penalties up to $50,000” (This is a bill that insiders say is about to be revived and passed with the 3 above) “Canada will be a police state by Christmas if Parliament passes bills C2, C8, and C9 in their current form. C2 is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant. It criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than $10,000. And it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous.” “You're gonna see a Digital Safety Commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respective of the internet and internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wearing an ankle bracelet and respect a curfew, et cetera. Giving the federal government, giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security.”

Canada liberal government has 3 bills that when passed will be their most destructive bills ever put into law Free speech will be ended, Canadians will be thrown in prison for social media posts, warrantless searches of phones, pre-crime punishments and even open your mail Bill C-2 - empowers government employees, not police, to open your mail, search your phone or computer — all without a warrant. Bill C-8 - gives cabinet ministers the power to kick Canadians off the internet, impose fines, and demand data — no judge, no police review. Bill C-9 - removes legal safeguards around free speech. Justice Centre expands “hate” prosecutions. Online Harms Act - brings pre-crime punishment: house arrest, ankle bracelets, curfews for people who haven’t committed a crime. Because they might. “If the Online Harms Act is brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive non-criminal speech with penalties up to $50,000” (This is a bill that insiders say is about to be revived and passed with the 3 above) “Canada will be a police state by Christmas if Parliament passes bills C2, C8, and C9 in their current form. C2 is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant. It criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than $10,000. And it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous.” “You're gonna see a Digital Safety Commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respective of the internet and internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wearing an ankle bracelet and respect a curfew, et cetera. Giving the federal government, giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security.”

Wall Street Apes

172,347 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....

Michael Shellenberger

21,896,156 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Karnatka's Hate Speech Bill: Congress government in Karnataka has tabled a bill that claims to curb hate speech, but it attempts to risk free speech! The wording of the bill is vague and open to interpretation, which means even ordinary statements could be judged as ill will and lead to serious criminal action. India already has laws to deal with hate speech, and even the Supreme Court has said that the real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of law. When the line between free speech and crime becomes unclear, people begin to self censor out of fear rather than responsibility!

Karnatka's Hate Speech Bill: Congress government in Karnataka has tabled a bill that claims to curb hate speech, but it attempts to risk free speech! The wording of the bill is vague and open to interpretation, which means even ordinary statements could be judged as ill will and lead to serious criminal action. India already has laws to deal with hate speech, and even the Supreme Court has said that the real problem is weak enforcement, not the absence of law. When the line between free speech and crime becomes unclear, people begin to self censor out of fear rather than responsibility!

Praffulgarg

11,257 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Canada’s free press is dying — and the Liberals are the ones killing it While Mark Carney and the Liberals like to crow about “supporting a reliable, independent press,” what we actually have is a government-funded media cartel and an active campaign of censorship against independent voices. Canada has dropped again in the World Press Freedom Index. According to the 2025 report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Canada now ranks 21st in the world, with a score of 78.75. That’s a significant decline from 14th place in 2024, and a steep 13-place drop since 2015, when the Liberals took power. This isn’t a slide. It’s a collapse. And it’s happening by design. While Mark Carney and the Liberals like to crow about “supporting a reliable, independent press,” what we actually have is a government-funded media cartel and an active campaign of censorship against independent voices. Let’s start with the facts: Bill C-11 handed the CRTC sweeping powers to regulate online content—including yours. Bill C-18 forced tech companies to bankroll legacy media outlets—prompting Meta to block Canadian news outright. Carney now wants to “clean up online pollution”—his euphemism for purging dissenting voices. At the same time, Carney has pledged $150 million more to the CBC, on top of the $1.4 billion it already receives each year. Add to that the $600 million media bailout fund for struggling Liberal-friendly outlets, and what you get isn’t a free press—it’s a paid press. And the payment comes with strings. We saw it firsthand during the French-language leaders' debate, where the CBC and other subsidized media lied outright about the presence of independent journalists. They smeared reporters who dared to show up and ask questions. Not because they weren’t real journalists—but because they weren’t on the government’s approved list. Meanwhile, independent outlets like Rebel News are: Denied access to press conferences Banned from leadership debates Physically removed by police for daring to do journalism And still, Carney has the gall to say we have a “free press”? No. What we have is a two-tiered media system. One tier is paid, protected, and praised—for toeing the Liberal line. The other is punished, excluded, and smeared—for refusing to. The RSF report warns that economic fragility and government interference are the biggest threats to press freedom globally. In Canada, those aren’t threats. They’re Liberal policy. This government doesn’t fear misinformation. It fears journalism it can’t control. And that’s why the press freedom rankings will keep falling—until Canadians stand up and say enough. Because someone has to hold power to account. And it sure as hell won’t be the CBC. By Sheila Gunn Reid.

Canada’s free press is dying — and the Liberals are the ones killing it While Mark Carney and the Liberals like to crow about “supporting a reliable, independent press,” what we actually have is a government-funded media cartel and an active campaign of censorship against independent voices. Canada has dropped again in the World Press Freedom Index. According to the 2025 report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Canada now ranks 21st in the world, with a score of 78.75. That’s a significant decline from 14th place in 2024, and a steep 13-place drop since 2015, when the Liberals took power. This isn’t a slide. It’s a collapse. And it’s happening by design. While Mark Carney and the Liberals like to crow about “supporting a reliable, independent press,” what we actually have is a government-funded media cartel and an active campaign of censorship against independent voices. Let’s start with the facts: Bill C-11 handed the CRTC sweeping powers to regulate online content—including yours. Bill C-18 forced tech companies to bankroll legacy media outlets—prompting Meta to block Canadian news outright. Carney now wants to “clean up online pollution”—his euphemism for purging dissenting voices. At the same time, Carney has pledged $150 million more to the CBC, on top of the $1.4 billion it already receives each year. Add to that the $600 million media bailout fund for struggling Liberal-friendly outlets, and what you get isn’t a free press—it’s a paid press. And the payment comes with strings. We saw it firsthand during the French-language leaders' debate, where the CBC and other subsidized media lied outright about the presence of independent journalists. They smeared reporters who dared to show up and ask questions. Not because they weren’t real journalists—but because they weren’t on the government’s approved list. Meanwhile, independent outlets like Rebel News are: Denied access to press conferences Banned from leadership debates Physically removed by police for daring to do journalism And still, Carney has the gall to say we have a “free press”? No. What we have is a two-tiered media system. One tier is paid, protected, and praised—for toeing the Liberal line. The other is punished, excluded, and smeared—for refusing to. The RSF report warns that economic fragility and government interference are the biggest threats to press freedom globally. In Canada, those aren’t threats. They’re Liberal policy. This government doesn’t fear misinformation. It fears journalism it can’t control. And that’s why the press freedom rankings will keep falling—until Canadians stand up and say enough. Because someone has to hold power to account. And it sure as hell won’t be the CBC. By Sheila Gunn Reid.

Rebel News

20,711 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

CBC workers labour union, the Canadian Media Guild, advocates for more government funding, restricted online speech and legislated protections "92% of our members support increasing CBC Radio Canada funding " "89% of members say they need supports in health, safety and mental well being." "We urge the government to support stronger protections through the upcoming Online Harms Act, particularly with journalist safety and mental health as explicit priorities." "95% of media workers believe government action is essential to support the media sector action like protecting both the Online News act and the Online Streaming Act." Canadian government funded journalists for censorship and government control CMG - La Guilde

CBC workers labour union, the Canadian Media Guild, advocates for more government funding, restricted online speech and legislated protections "92% of our members support increasing CBC Radio Canada funding " "89% of members say they need supports in health, safety and mental well being." "We urge the government to support stronger protections through the upcoming Online Harms Act, particularly with journalist safety and mental health as explicit priorities." "95% of media workers believe government action is essential to support the media sector action like protecting both the Online News act and the Online Streaming Act." Canadian government funded journalists for censorship and government control CMG - La Guilde

cbcwatcher

13,506 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

.Joe Rogan: "Liberals and progressives want the War in Ukraine to be funded. They want to censor speech online. They want to give the World Health Organization, which is deeply influenced by Big Pharma, control over what we take and don't take. That's crazy! That's not what the liberals were when I was a kid. My parents were hippies. We lived in San Francisco during the Vietnam War. The liberals always wanted education and open-mindedness. The liberals at the ACLU let the Nazis talk and have a rally. They said you can't infringe on people's free speech because if you infringe on the free speech of people you disagree with, you're being a hypocrite. The only solution to bad speech is better speech. We've always known that. Everyone has to be able to talk, and we have to figure out who is right because you might be wrong, and you might be clinging to this idea that you are right, and you're going to do the whole thing a terrible disservice. When you have people who are supposedly progressive and liberal, and they are opposed to the idea that free speech is an absolute right as an American citizen. It's very, very important because too many people can decide what you can and can't say. Like when Tim Walz was saying, 'Free speech doesn't apply to hate speech and misinformation.' Of course, it does. But first of all, you said misinformation. If that is the case, where is all the punishment for people who spread misinformation during COVID? Where's the call for accountability? It doesn't exist. It's not real because they don't really care about misinformation. They care about controlling information."

.Joe Rogan: "Liberals and progressives want the War in Ukraine to be funded. They want to censor speech online. They want to give the World Health Organization, which is deeply influenced by Big Pharma, control over what we take and don't take. That's crazy! That's not what the liberals were when I was a kid. My parents were hippies. We lived in San Francisco during the Vietnam War. The liberals always wanted education and open-mindedness. The liberals at the ACLU let the Nazis talk and have a rally. They said you can't infringe on people's free speech because if you infringe on the free speech of people you disagree with, you're being a hypocrite. The only solution to bad speech is better speech. We've always known that. Everyone has to be able to talk, and we have to figure out who is right because you might be wrong, and you might be clinging to this idea that you are right, and you're going to do the whole thing a terrible disservice. When you have people who are supposedly progressive and liberal, and they are opposed to the idea that free speech is an absolute right as an American citizen. It's very, very important because too many people can decide what you can and can't say. Like when Tim Walz was saying, 'Free speech doesn't apply to hate speech and misinformation.' Of course, it does. But first of all, you said misinformation. If that is the case, where is all the punishment for people who spread misinformation during COVID? Where's the call for accountability? It doesn't exist. It's not real because they don't really care about misinformation. They care about controlling information."

KanekoaTheGreat

12,569,121 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Today the Federal Government in conjunction with the Coalition and with no resistance from One Nation passed a bill against Hate Speech. They gagged debate again and rammed the laws through with no scrutiny where we could ask questions. This is a direct attack on Free Speech. For the third parliamentary week in a row the major parties have devoted Parliament to controlling you, not serving you, by shutting you down. The Misinformation Law, the Online Safety Bill and now Hate Speech are all designed to censor people and push back on government overreach. The hate speech law is dangerous because it threatens freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. People First stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. Upholding these values will foster trust and preserve the liberties that Australians hold dear. I am disappointed that One Nation did not stand with me on this issue. These laws extend to all people including children. When a motion was moved to exclude children under 14 from these laws, Malcolm Roberts voted against it. Children should not be penalised for the actions or thoughts of their parents. I challenge Malcolm and Pauline to debate me on the reasons why they support this law. It is government overreach plain and simple. There are already state laws against violence and inciting violence. Under the constitution, the States are responsible for policing crime not the Federal Government. There is no need for these laws. They will only be used to censor you. #auspol

Today the Federal Government in conjunction with the Coalition and with no resistance from One Nation passed a bill against Hate Speech. They gagged debate again and rammed the laws through with no scrutiny where we could ask questions. This is a direct attack on Free Speech. For the third parliamentary week in a row the major parties have devoted Parliament to controlling you, not serving you, by shutting you down. The Misinformation Law, the Online Safety Bill and now Hate Speech are all designed to censor people and push back on government overreach. The hate speech law is dangerous because it threatens freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. People First stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. Upholding these values will foster trust and preserve the liberties that Australians hold dear. I am disappointed that One Nation did not stand with me on this issue. These laws extend to all people including children. When a motion was moved to exclude children under 14 from these laws, Malcolm Roberts voted against it. Children should not be penalised for the actions or thoughts of their parents. I challenge Malcolm and Pauline to debate me on the reasons why they support this law. It is government overreach plain and simple. There are already state laws against violence and inciting violence. Under the constitution, the States are responsible for policing crime not the Federal Government. There is no need for these laws. They will only be used to censor you. #auspol

Gerard Rennick

177,632 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

There is nothing more disgusting than a government using a parent's grief as cover to ram through bad law. Emma Mason is being used. You can see just how cruel the government is, on this interview with Deb Knight on A Current Affair last night. Her grief is being abused by governments and the media in Australia to justify removing access to social media from all children under the age of 16. Worse than that, they are using her to justify the most draconian internet access rules in the world, and it’s not just for kids. Every adult in Australia will have to age verify to get online to use sites like YouTube, facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X. Emma’s story, and that of her daughter is tragic, but the truth is: banning selective social media access will not stop bullying. It will not save the lives of children, and it does not absolve parental responsibility. Outsourcing parenting to government is both cowardly and foolish. Anyone who caught the ABC Lateline piece from 1975 released on this platform by John Adams earlier this week, would know, the Australian Government does not care about our children. We’ve seen real harm perpetrated on kids at government and government regulated childcare facilities. We see a rise in juvenile crime and weak bail laws, encouraging kids to perpetrate more and more extreme crime, and we know there still exists a culture of coverup when it comes to child harm among the establishment elite. The people who have drafted and passed the social media age ban laws are either not au fait with technology, or worse, they are authoritarian bullies who do not want any criticism from the only outlet available to the public – social media. Most disturbing to me though, is this misconceived belief that parents need the government to ban social media so they can parent their children. That is most certainly not the case. Mason further calls on even more government to provide the resources to help parents copilot the law. Because even she can see that it is an absolute mess that will cause harm. The government is an uncaring and incompetent machine, and most Australians seem completely unaware of those facts. The law only impacts the law abiding, and silly laws make for more lawlessness. The social media age ban and the subsequent requirement for adult identification is a silly law. It is possible to circumvent, and it will be circumvented. It will also breed a culture of lawlessness among our youth, and when they start to get away with these smaller ‘crimes’, they will indeed feel emboldened to test other laws. I am tired of Australian governments using tragedy to take more of our rights and freedoms away. We don’t need the government’s help to parent our children or lull us into the false sense of security that they keep us and our children safe. Go shopping in Melbourne and see how safe you feel. Watching the heartless machine use a mother’s grief is painful. It is disgusting. Albanese, Ley and the rest of the Australian political establishment should be ashamed of themselves, because they know exactly what they are doing. We must not stand for this. We must resist, push back and not comply. It is nothing more than a government sponsored attack on our privacy and free speech. It has nothing to do with child safety. We must parent our own children and educate them on how much we have already lost in the name of security and safety. We must show them that we don’t support the government, and maybe by the time they have grown up and are voting, we can start to elect people who deserve to be in leadership positions. Because the people we have right now are a danger to our future prosperity. This is not Australia. I just want Australia back.

There is nothing more disgusting than a government using a parent's grief as cover to ram through bad law. Emma Mason is being used. You can see just how cruel the government is, on this interview with Deb Knight on A Current Affair last night. Her grief is being abused by governments and the media in Australia to justify removing access to social media from all children under the age of 16. Worse than that, they are using her to justify the most draconian internet access rules in the world, and it’s not just for kids. Every adult in Australia will have to age verify to get online to use sites like YouTube, facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X. Emma’s story, and that of her daughter is tragic, but the truth is: banning selective social media access will not stop bullying. It will not save the lives of children, and it does not absolve parental responsibility. Outsourcing parenting to government is both cowardly and foolish. Anyone who caught the ABC Lateline piece from 1975 released on this platform by John Adams earlier this week, would know, the Australian Government does not care about our children. We’ve seen real harm perpetrated on kids at government and government regulated childcare facilities. We see a rise in juvenile crime and weak bail laws, encouraging kids to perpetrate more and more extreme crime, and we know there still exists a culture of coverup when it comes to child harm among the establishment elite. The people who have drafted and passed the social media age ban laws are either not au fait with technology, or worse, they are authoritarian bullies who do not want any criticism from the only outlet available to the public – social media. Most disturbing to me though, is this misconceived belief that parents need the government to ban social media so they can parent their children. That is most certainly not the case. Mason further calls on even more government to provide the resources to help parents copilot the law. Because even she can see that it is an absolute mess that will cause harm. The government is an uncaring and incompetent machine, and most Australians seem completely unaware of those facts. The law only impacts the law abiding, and silly laws make for more lawlessness. The social media age ban and the subsequent requirement for adult identification is a silly law. It is possible to circumvent, and it will be circumvented. It will also breed a culture of lawlessness among our youth, and when they start to get away with these smaller ‘crimes’, they will indeed feel emboldened to test other laws. I am tired of Australian governments using tragedy to take more of our rights and freedoms away. We don’t need the government’s help to parent our children or lull us into the false sense of security that they keep us and our children safe. Go shopping in Melbourne and see how safe you feel. Watching the heartless machine use a mother’s grief is painful. It is disgusting. Albanese, Ley and the rest of the Australian political establishment should be ashamed of themselves, because they know exactly what they are doing. We must not stand for this. We must resist, push back and not comply. It is nothing more than a government sponsored attack on our privacy and free speech. It has nothing to do with child safety. We must parent our own children and educate them on how much we have already lost in the name of security and safety. We must show them that we don’t support the government, and maybe by the time they have grown up and are voting, we can start to elect people who deserve to be in leadership positions. Because the people we have right now are a danger to our future prosperity. This is not Australia. I just want Australia back.

Matthew Camenzuli

29,745 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Laurence Fox: Defending Freedom of Speech Against Censorship At the Unite The Kingdom Freedom of Speech rally, Laurence Fox delivered a passionate speech on the state of free expression in Britain. He exposed the dangers of political censorship, cancel culture, and media manipulation, while calling on the people to reclaim their right to speak the truth without fear. This powerful address reminds us why freedom of speech is the foundation of every other liberty — and why it must be defended at all costs. Please sign up to the website to register your interest and keep up to date with UTK news and events organising.

Laurence Fox: Defending Freedom of Speech Against Censorship At the Unite The Kingdom Freedom of Speech rally, Laurence Fox delivered a passionate speech on the state of free expression in Britain. He exposed the dangers of political censorship, cancel culture, and media manipulation, while calling on the people to reclaim their right to speak the truth without fear. This powerful address reminds us why freedom of speech is the foundation of every other liberty — and why it must be defended at all costs. Please sign up to the website to register your interest and keep up to date with UTK news and events organising.

Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧

83,851 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

🇨🇦⚖️🤡 : Justice Minister Sean Fraser admits there are already numerous laws to deal with hate-based crimes but wants to pass another bill to protect Canadians against “hate”. A term Liberals will define and make numerous exemptions for. 🇬🇧🕌It will be used like we see in the UK to target people critical of the government and groups that prey on certain communities, like grooming gangs that target children. The 2 lesbian women attacked by a throng of Muslim men on the streets of Halifax was virtually ignored by the Liberals & NDP. The police arrested no one, despite the violent bloody assault being captured on video. The Muslim youth simply walked away from the police, with only one of the men providing ID. We didn’t need a “hate” bill to protect those women. We needed the police & justice system to act. We have real crimes being committed where the individuals doing the violent assaults are routinely released back into the community. Yesterday I posted about how 40 people in Vancouver were arrested 6,000 times in 1 year. Isn't that an act of hatred to society when people can openly break laws so freely and have no real consequence for it? We have witnessed the glorification of terrorism across Canada for years, including people chanting "Death to Canada", while praising terrorism in Vancouver and our government refused to prosecute those people. So it's flat out absurd to think this Bill is anything more than a targeted assault on free speech and average Canadians who demand accountability for actual hate crimes. Bill C-63 was promoted as protecting children. When the Liberals couldn't ram though their censorship bill based on that, they ditched even pretending it's about protecting kids. They are not trying to pass a bill to protect kids anymore, it's flat out about censorship. Remember Sean Fraser & the Liberals IMPORTED and promoted this hatred we see in Canada. They did it so they could pass laws that stifle real debate and criticism, like we see in the UK.

🇨🇦⚖️🤡 : Justice Minister Sean Fraser admits there are already numerous laws to deal with hate-based crimes but wants to pass another bill to protect Canadians against “hate”. A term Liberals will define and make numerous exemptions for. 🇬🇧🕌It will be used like we see in the UK to target people critical of the government and groups that prey on certain communities, like grooming gangs that target children. The 2 lesbian women attacked by a throng of Muslim men on the streets of Halifax was virtually ignored by the Liberals & NDP. The police arrested no one, despite the violent bloody assault being captured on video. The Muslim youth simply walked away from the police, with only one of the men providing ID. We didn’t need a “hate” bill to protect those women. We needed the police & justice system to act. We have real crimes being committed where the individuals doing the violent assaults are routinely released back into the community. Yesterday I posted about how 40 people in Vancouver were arrested 6,000 times in 1 year. Isn't that an act of hatred to society when people can openly break laws so freely and have no real consequence for it? We have witnessed the glorification of terrorism across Canada for years, including people chanting "Death to Canada", while praising terrorism in Vancouver and our government refused to prosecute those people. So it's flat out absurd to think this Bill is anything more than a targeted assault on free speech and average Canadians who demand accountability for actual hate crimes. Bill C-63 was promoted as protecting children. When the Liberals couldn't ram though their censorship bill based on that, they ditched even pretending it's about protecting kids. They are not trying to pass a bill to protect kids anymore, it's flat out about censorship. Remember Sean Fraser & the Liberals IMPORTED and promoted this hatred we see in Canada. They did it so they could pass laws that stifle real debate and criticism, like we see in the UK.

Bruce McGonigal

109,634 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

The Kids Online Safety Act is back in Congress, rebranded as child protection while quietly expanding the pressure on platforms to police “harmful” content. On paper, it targets mental health risks and dangerous material. In practice, it hands regulators and state attorneys general more leverage over what platforms allow to circulate. That means more algorithmic suppression, more over-moderation, and more political speech getting buried to avoid liability. Pro-Palestine content, anti-war organizing, and dissenting narratives are always the first to get flagged when compliance becomes the priority. This is how censorship evolves in America. Not with a dramatic ban, but a bill poised to be for your “safety”

The Kids Online Safety Act is back in Congress, rebranded as child protection while quietly expanding the pressure on platforms to police “harmful” content. On paper, it targets mental health risks and dangerous material. In practice, it hands regulators and state attorneys general more leverage over what platforms allow to circulate. That means more algorithmic suppression, more over-moderation, and more political speech getting buried to avoid liability. Pro-Palestine content, anti-war organizing, and dissenting narratives are always the first to get flagged when compliance becomes the priority. This is how censorship evolves in America. Not with a dramatic ban, but a bill poised to be for your “safety”

YourFavoriteGuy

37,070 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

John Carpay is urging Canadians to take action now and help stop the return of the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63). This proposed legislation would expand government censorship powers and threaten free expression online. Canadians can push back today by sending a message to the federal government here:

John Carpay is urging Canadians to take action now and help stop the return of the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63). This proposed legislation would expand government censorship powers and threaten free expression online. Canadians can push back today by sending a message to the federal government here:

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

15,159 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

🚨 ELON MUSK: “You can tell which side is the good side and which side is the bad side by which side wishes to restrict freedom of speech. The side that is restricting freedom of speech (the Hitlers, Stalins, and Mussolinis of the world) had very strong censorship on freedom of speech. That’s one of the signs that they are the bad guys. Restriction on speech and large government is fundamentally fascist. Ironically, in pushing for censorship, it makes it clear that the left is the side that is against freedom; and freedom of speech is one of the many freedoms we should have as a civil society. Idea should win on the strength of their arguments. They should not win because they are suppressed.”

🚨 ELON MUSK: “You can tell which side is the good side and which side is the bad side by which side wishes to restrict freedom of speech. The side that is restricting freedom of speech (the Hitlers, Stalins, and Mussolinis of the world) had very strong censorship on freedom of speech. That’s one of the signs that they are the bad guys. Restriction on speech and large government is fundamentally fascist. Ironically, in pushing for censorship, it makes it clear that the left is the side that is against freedom; and freedom of speech is one of the many freedoms we should have as a civil society. Idea should win on the strength of their arguments. They should not win because they are suppressed.”

Autism Capital 🧩

1,777,440 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Over the last couple of days, it's become very apparent to me that we, in Australia, you and I, we are at the forefront of a battle for internet freedom, for freedom of speech, for the freedom of political communication, the right to share ideas and the rights of internet freedom that we in our modern societies should have distinct from the involvement of the government. Don't ignore what the Australian government is attempting to do, participate in the process and have your say on their "Ministry of Truth".

Over the last couple of days, it's become very apparent to me that we, in Australia, you and I, we are at the forefront of a battle for internet freedom, for freedom of speech, for the freedom of political communication, the right to share ideas and the rights of internet freedom that we in our modern societies should have distinct from the involvement of the government. Don't ignore what the Australian government is attempting to do, participate in the process and have your say on their "Ministry of Truth".

Rukshan Fernando

131,813 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

ELON: WE NEED TO RESTORE FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY “The current government [of Germany] is suppressing speech very aggressively. When you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy, because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. So this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech so people can make an informed vote and it can be a true democracy. But this is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is frankly, a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany and have freedom of speech and have less government oppression in general.” Source: AfD Meeting, January 2025

ELON: WE NEED TO RESTORE FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY “The current government [of Germany] is suppressing speech very aggressively. When you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy, because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. So this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech so people can make an informed vote and it can be a true democracy. But this is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is frankly, a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany and have freedom of speech and have less government oppression in general.” Source: AfD Meeting, January 2025

Mario Nawfal

83,619 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Around the world, the crackdown on free speech is accelerating. In Britain, the courts are sentencing people to years in prison for things they posted on X, formerly Twitter. In the United States, the architects of the Censorship Industrial Complex are raising money for Kamala Harris in hopes of re-imposing government censorship on social media platforms after she wins. And in Brazil, the government has forced X to end its operations after threatening to arrest X’s employees in Brazil if the company continues to refuse to permanently ban disfavored journalists, influencers, and elected political leaders from its platform. The Brazilian government may soon block access to X in Brazil, forcing its citizens to rely upon VPNs, or virtual private networks, in order to access X illegally. On the one hand, none of these events appear to have anything in common. In Britain, there were riots triggered by misinformation that the killer of two children was an illegal immigrant. In the United States, the Censorship Industrial Complex emerged in reaction to the 2016 election of Donald Trump. And in Brazil, a single Supreme Court justice has taken it upon himself to demand extreme levels of censorship in reaction to the election of a populist president in 2018. But at another level, all of these events are connected. Starmer, Harris, and Lula have all embraced the first and most important step toward totalitarianism, which is censorship. This is even more alarming given the events of the last few days, when Harris announced that she would seek price controls on food and a housing agenda that would significantly expand the role of the government without increasing supply. I don’t think the labels of communist or fascist accurately describe the systems that Starmer, Harris, and Lula are creating. In some ways, those three leaders are drawing upon elements of both totalitarian systems. But trying to compare what’s happening now to what happened in the early 20th Century risks confusing us as to what is happening before our very eyes. But I do think the label of totalitarianism is accurate to describe what these leaders are doing and where they appear to be headed. Part of what’s so alarming about what they are doing is that they are melding together the demands of global capital and of Woke Leftists at the grassroots level. Both are driven by intolerance of free speech and free expression. Scarcely a day passes without the mainstream media attacking Elon Musk as a threat to democracy because he has allowed freedom of speech on X. Why are they doing that? Because the mainstream media are financed by and should be thought of as global capital’s marketing and propaganda operation. And, as alarming, there is strong evidence that those leaders are and have been working together to impose a censorship industrial complex worldwide. Europe, Australia, and Brazil have all sought to ban and censor disfavored views and individuals not just in their home countries but worldwide. Over the last decade, these governments, politicians, and political parties have worked to coordinate their work at the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and other NGOs that operate across borders. And reporting by Public and others has uncovered collaboration between intelligence agencies in all three nations. Media disinformation that populism poses a threat to democracy has increased the public’s support for online censorship. From 2018 to 2023, the share of Democrats who told Pew they wanted the government to engage in more censorship of disfavored online speech rose from 40% to 70%. An identical dynamic is occurring in Brazil and Britain, whereby the mainstream news media and Left-wing political activists have called for the censorship of their political enemies. Friends, I’m sorry to say, but this is what the global transition to totalitarianism looks like. Big businesses, left-wing governments, and the legacy news media have made clear that they cannot tolerate free speech online. They grew accustomed to controlling public opinion first through the legacy media and then through Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Global elites have made clear that they believe that freedom of speech on a single social media platform, and one that is far smaller than Facebook or Google, is intolerable. This desire for total control is the central characteristic of the totalitarianism that is presently emerging from elites at the corporate and political levels around the world. In addition to pushing censorship, these leaders and global elites are seeking to overturn liberal democracies and impose a radically different system of iliberal rule in the Western world. Rather than meritocracy and equal justice for all, elites are seeking to impose a Woke racialist hierarchy that gives preferential treatment to some groups and prejudicial treatment to other groups supposedly based on historic oppression. There are signs of hope. Recently, a group of censorsial advertisers called the group of advertisers, called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) disbanded after X sued them. But X cannot defend freedom of speech alone. We need a global free speech movement to defend our fundamental freedom against tyranny. If we lose free speech we will lose everything else, including our civilization. The step between censorship and price controls and shortages will be a very small one. We are working with our allies around the world to raise the alarm. In June we gathered free speech advocates from the United States, Britain, Brazil, and other countries, and we are now working together on a combined effort to stand up for freedom and against the tyrants. If you’d like to support our work, please subscribe now to Public. If you can do more than that, please consider a tax-deductible donation to support the free speech movement. The moment we have been warning about is approaching more rapidly than any of us expected.

Around the world, the crackdown on free speech is accelerating. In Britain, the courts are sentencing people to years in prison for things they posted on X, formerly Twitter. In the United States, the architects of the Censorship Industrial Complex are raising money for Kamala Harris in hopes of re-imposing government censorship on social media platforms after she wins. And in Brazil, the government has forced X to end its operations after threatening to arrest X’s employees in Brazil if the company continues to refuse to permanently ban disfavored journalists, influencers, and elected political leaders from its platform. The Brazilian government may soon block access to X in Brazil, forcing its citizens to rely upon VPNs, or virtual private networks, in order to access X illegally. On the one hand, none of these events appear to have anything in common. In Britain, there were riots triggered by misinformation that the killer of two children was an illegal immigrant. In the United States, the Censorship Industrial Complex emerged in reaction to the 2016 election of Donald Trump. And in Brazil, a single Supreme Court justice has taken it upon himself to demand extreme levels of censorship in reaction to the election of a populist president in 2018. But at another level, all of these events are connected. Starmer, Harris, and Lula have all embraced the first and most important step toward totalitarianism, which is censorship. This is even more alarming given the events of the last few days, when Harris announced that she would seek price controls on food and a housing agenda that would significantly expand the role of the government without increasing supply. I don’t think the labels of communist or fascist accurately describe the systems that Starmer, Harris, and Lula are creating. In some ways, those three leaders are drawing upon elements of both totalitarian systems. But trying to compare what’s happening now to what happened in the early 20th Century risks confusing us as to what is happening before our very eyes. But I do think the label of totalitarianism is accurate to describe what these leaders are doing and where they appear to be headed. Part of what’s so alarming about what they are doing is that they are melding together the demands of global capital and of Woke Leftists at the grassroots level. Both are driven by intolerance of free speech and free expression. Scarcely a day passes without the mainstream media attacking Elon Musk as a threat to democracy because he has allowed freedom of speech on X. Why are they doing that? Because the mainstream media are financed by and should be thought of as global capital’s marketing and propaganda operation. And, as alarming, there is strong evidence that those leaders are and have been working together to impose a censorship industrial complex worldwide. Europe, Australia, and Brazil have all sought to ban and censor disfavored views and individuals not just in their home countries but worldwide. Over the last decade, these governments, politicians, and political parties have worked to coordinate their work at the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and other NGOs that operate across borders. And reporting by Public and others has uncovered collaboration between intelligence agencies in all three nations. Media disinformation that populism poses a threat to democracy has increased the public’s support for online censorship. From 2018 to 2023, the share of Democrats who told Pew they wanted the government to engage in more censorship of disfavored online speech rose from 40% to 70%. An identical dynamic is occurring in Brazil and Britain, whereby the mainstream news media and Left-wing political activists have called for the censorship of their political enemies. Friends, I’m sorry to say, but this is what the global transition to totalitarianism looks like. Big businesses, left-wing governments, and the legacy news media have made clear that they cannot tolerate free speech online. They grew accustomed to controlling public opinion first through the legacy media and then through Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Global elites have made clear that they believe that freedom of speech on a single social media platform, and one that is far smaller than Facebook or Google, is intolerable. This desire for total control is the central characteristic of the totalitarianism that is presently emerging from elites at the corporate and political levels around the world. In addition to pushing censorship, these leaders and global elites are seeking to overturn liberal democracies and impose a radically different system of iliberal rule in the Western world. Rather than meritocracy and equal justice for all, elites are seeking to impose a Woke racialist hierarchy that gives preferential treatment to some groups and prejudicial treatment to other groups supposedly based on historic oppression. There are signs of hope. Recently, a group of censorsial advertisers called the group of advertisers, called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) disbanded after X sued them. But X cannot defend freedom of speech alone. We need a global free speech movement to defend our fundamental freedom against tyranny. If we lose free speech we will lose everything else, including our civilization. The step between censorship and price controls and shortages will be a very small one. We are working with our allies around the world to raise the alarm. In June we gathered free speech advocates from the United States, Britain, Brazil, and other countries, and we are now working together on a combined effort to stand up for freedom and against the tyrants. If you’d like to support our work, please subscribe now to Public. If you can do more than that, please consider a tax-deductible donation to support the free speech movement. The moment we have been warning about is approaching more rapidly than any of us expected.

Michael Shellenberger

88,025 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Elon Musk: We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany! “The current government is suppressing speech very aggressively. When you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy, because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. So this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech so people can make an informed vote and it can be a true democracy. But this is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is frankly, a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany and have freedom of speech and have less government oppression in general.” AfD Meeting, January 30, 2025

Elon Musk: We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany! “The current government is suppressing speech very aggressively. When you suppress freedom of speech, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have a true democracy, because freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. People cannot be expected to vote in an informed manner if they are not able to know the truth. So this is why it is so important to have freedom of speech so people can make an informed vote and it can be a true democracy. But this is not what the current government has been doing. They have been suppressing freedom of speech and putting people in jail for even mild criticisms of politicians or social media posts. This is crazy. This is frankly, a totalitarian approach. It is not a democratic approach. We need to restore freedom to the people of Germany and have freedom of speech and have less government oppression in general.” AfD Meeting, January 30, 2025

ELON CLIPS

26,485 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce