If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The UK is currently experiencing a massive attack on free speech, spearheaded by new Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is encouraging police to use the full force of controversial British laws to crack down on social media posts. The push for more online censorship has spanned many years, and different governments in the UK have gained new momentum with the recent protests and riots. Emboldened by the crisis, officials seem to be using it to step up the already existing, multi-year effort to get social media companies to “cooperate” with the authorities. It has now emerged that the government in London has started flagging content it deems to be “misinformation” – but also something referred to as “concerning content.” X is among those who have been asked to remove posts which British officials consider to threaten the country’s national security; and while reports say Google, Meta, and TikTok are complying with these demands, X is said to be resisting them. The accusations that social sites are “providing a platform for hate” while allegedly unaccountable for that is coming from cabinet members and MPs alike. Science, Innovation, and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has revealed that he and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper are working to get content they consider “harmful” removed from the internet. Recent actions in the UK regarding the apprehension of individuals for disseminating “incorrect information” highlight a concerning trend that threatens the very core of free speech—a foundational pillar of Western democracies. These developments suggest an alarming escalation in government and law enforcement involvement in regulating online speech, which traditionally enjoys broad protections under democratic norms. The use of existing laws, such as the Public Order Act 1986, to arrest individuals for their online speech is deeply troubling to civil liberties groups. While maintaining public order is a legitimate concern of the state, the broad application of these laws and combining accusations of “stirring racial hatred” with instances of alleged “misinformation” is supercharging an attack on free speech. The introduction of the UK’s most recent censorship law, the “Online Safety Act” further complicates this, with supporters of censorship like Kyle, suggesting that the already-controversial act doesn’t go far enough. As far as Kyle is concerned, he is looking for ways for the government to be able to control online speech to an even greater extent. The primary catalyst appears to be the recent riots and social unrest following tragic incidents, like the knife attack in Southport. Axel Rudakubana is an 18-year-old who has been charged with the murders of three young girls during a knife attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport, England. The victims were Bebe King, aged six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged seven, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, aged nine. In addition to the murder charges, Rudakubana faces charges of attempted murder against a yoga class instructor, a businessman, and eight children, as well as possession of a kitchen knife with a curved blade. Rudakubana was born in Cardiff to Rwandan parents and lived in Banks, Lancashire, England. UK police are alleging that early posts stating that Rudakubana was a Muslim have fueled online hatred and prosecutors are using claims of “misinformation.” Yet while those in the US may be familiar with false allegations being a civil matter, as the First Amendment largely protects citizens from criminal charges for such incidents; in the UK, where free speech is struggling, citizens don’t have the same protections under the current law. In Cheshire, police have taken anti-lockdown campaigner Bernadette “Bernie” Spofforth into custody for allegedly spreading misleading information on social media about a suspect involved in the Southport killings. According to Cheshire police, she faces charges of inciting racial hatred and disseminating false information. Police allege that her actions are part of a broader issue of online misinformation sparking violence nationwide. The controversy centers on a social media post attributed to Spofforth, in which she identified “Ali Al-Shakati” as the Southport suspect, describing him as an “asylum seeker who came to the UK by boat last year” and claiming he was under surveillance by MI6. The post ominously noted, “If this is true, then all hell is about the break loose.” Chief Superintendent Alison Ross commented on the situation, saying, “We have all seen the violent disorder that has taken place across the UK over the past week, much of which has been fueled by malicious and inaccurate communications online. It’s a stark reminder of the dangers of posting information on social media platforms without checking the accuracy. It also acts as a warning that we are all accountable for our actions, whether that be online or in person.” Even the much-criticized Online Safety Act, a sweeping censorship law, is now not enough as far as Kyle is concerned, as he is looking for ways for the government to be able to control online speech to an even greater extent. The UK’s new Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a forthcoming review of the Online Safety Act. During his visit to a police station on Friday, just before two individuals were imprisoned for using social media to incite attacks on asylum seeker accommodations, Starmer emphasized that social media must not be a “law-free zone.” London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who criticized the legislation as inadequate and in urgent need of revision, also suggested it doesn’t go far enough and more censorship power is needed. “I do agree that we’re going to have to look more broadly at social media after this disorder,” Starmer said. “But the focus at the moment has to be on dealing with the disorder and making sure that our communities are safe and secure.” Starmer further commented on what he believes should be the responsibilities of social media executives, telling them to prioritize community safety. He affirmed, “The first thing I’d say is, this is not a law-free zone. And I think that’s clear from the prosecutions and sentencing. Today we’re due sentencing for online behavior.” And, the government has brought in the National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) to monitor online activity “discussing the deaths of the three children killed in Southport and the rioting,” as Kyle put it. NSOIT, previously known as the Counter Disinformation Unit, is infamous for its censorship “handiwork” during the Covid pandemic when it flagged accurate posts from politicians and journalists simply for being critical of the government’s policy. Conservative MP David Davis previously called for the unit to be disbanded, but now, he doesn’t mind “deploying” it to once again police speech: “It’s perfectly legitimate for the state to monitor things that might incite violence,” said Davis. Big Brother Watch Director Silkie Carlo writes that Kyle is “reviving Whitehall’s disgraced Counter Disinformation Unit” and warns that it would be a “grave mistake” to further undermine free speech as it would simply “inflame tensions, sow distrust and undermine democracy.” Carlo also warns about “the very neat response of online censorship that benefits elites who have never really trusted us with free and open access to information online.” Meanwhile, Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales Stephen Parkinson has told citizens not to reshare posts that are “insulting or abusive (…) intended to or likely to start racial hatred.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/parkinson-92.mp4 Some reports interpret this to mean citizens could be prosecuted even if they are sharing that content as a warning to others. The UK government issued a stern warning to its citizens regarding the risks of sharing potentially offensive content online, particularly in the context of the recent riots. Those who incite “hatred” could face imprisonment, as stated in a post by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on the social media platform X. “Think before you post!” the CPS advised. But it’s not just UK citizens that officials are threatening. Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, said that what he terms “keyboard warriors” could face terrorism charges for their online behavior that incites violence, even if they are based overseas. https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/rowley-vid-92.mp4 “And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” highlighting the extended reach of law enforcement to those instigating unrest from afar,” Rowley said to Sky News. “Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law, you can be guilty of offenses of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred, there are numerous terrorist offenses regarding the publishing of material, and all of those offenses are in play if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the thugs and the yobs who are causing the problems for communities.” Keir Starmer has asserted that criticisms of police and accusations of a two-tier policing system in the UK are themselves dangerous. This could have troubling implications for free speech. X owner Elon Musk, who is facing censorship calls from Starmer, called out Starmer’s hypocrisy, highlighting how the Prime Minister himself criticized police back in 2021. “What a hypocrite,” Musk posted. By framing such critiques as not only unfounded but also hazardous, there’s a risk that public discourse may be stifled. This stance might discourage individuals from voicing legitimate concerns about policing, out of fear that their criticisms could be seen as harmful or destabilizing. It suggests a scenario where the public might hesitate to hold law enforcement accountable, which is a crucial aspect of democratic oversight. The suggestion that voicing concerns about police practices can endanger officers potentially shifts the focus from the need for transparency and accountability in policing to a narrative that prioritizes the suppression of dissent to protect police image and safety. This could undermine the principle of free expression, which includes the right to critique and question government institutions. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Free Speech is Under Siege in Starmer’s UK appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Under proposals currently being considered, the Labour Party, led by the new Prime Minister Keir Starmer, plans to compel tech companies to eliminate “fake news” from their platforms. These measures, initiated in response to recent riots, have sparked controversy over potential infringements on free speech. Keir Starmer, addressing these concerns last Friday, indicated that the government would reassess social media regulations to deter future disturbances. The Telegraph has reported that part of this reevaluation involves imposing obligations on social media entities to curb “legal but harmful” content. This would obligate platforms to limit or remove content spreading false information about various sensitive subjects, including asylum seekers and self-harm, irrespective of its legality. Critics, however, have voiced apprehensions that these measures could suppress free expression. They argue that this demonstrates a more authoritarian inclination within Sir Keir’s Labour Party, potentially undermining foundational free speech principles by extensively policing speech that does not necessarily violate laws. The discord has also touched upon interactions between the Prime Minister and Elon Musk, owner of X, especially regarding the handling of the riots. This proposed regulatory push would likely be incorporated into a broader review of the Online Safety Act enacted last year. Originally, the Act included provisions to address “legal but harmful” content but was amended due to free speech concerns, eliminating such clauses after pushback. Critics had worried that these provisions might enable future governments to censor contentious viewpoints. Authorities have responded to recent events by arresting individuals who allegedly supported the riots online. As the potential reintroduction of the “legal but harmful” clause is debated, significant concerns remain over the subjective nature of determining what content is considered harmful and how such decisions would be enforced. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Starmer’s Push to Police “Fake News” Sparks Major Censorship Concerns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Facebook has decided to block user access to posts containing the viral #XX hashtag following the ongoing debate over gender eligibility in women’s Olympic boxing in Paris. Users attempting to access posts featuring this hashtag have been met with a message, stating: “Keeping our community safe: Posts with #XX are temporarily hidden here. Some content in those posts goes against our community standards.” A “learn more” option subsequently redirects users to Facebook’s community standards policy. The hashtag #XX – a reference to the female chromosomes – gained traction online following a symbolic gesture by two female Olympic boxers; their fingers shaped into an “X” following their match loss. This happened against the backdrop of allegations of discrepancies in gender identity by the International Boxing Association (IBA). The body initially disqualified two athletes from their events, stating that their genetic test results revealed XY chromosomes. However, they were permitted to compete by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), a body unaffiliated with the IBA, which does not rely on chromosomal testing for determining an athlete’s eligibility. Svetlana Staneva of Bulgaria and Esra Yildiz of Turkey were the pugilists who made this “X” sign after their loss against Taiwan’s Lin Yu-Ting. Another athlete, Chinese runner Lin Yuwei, replicated this symbol before her 100-meter hurdles race. The narrative was fueled further by Imane Khelif of Algeria who took home Olympic gold in the welterweight finals. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Facebook Takes Sides in Olympic Gender Debate as #XX Hashtag is Blocked appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Under Louisiana’s new, recently enacted law (HB 173), journalists and other citizens are limited in their right to film the police. Anyone who finds themselves within 25 feet of an on-duty officer doing that – after being warned to stop or retreat – could face misdemeanor charges. Now a group of Louisiana-based media companies is challenging the new legislation by suing the state – Attorney General Liz Murrill and two other officials – on First Amendment grounds, seeking an injunction. The plaintiffs behind the Deep South Today v. Murrill case, brought before the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, go into the importance of the media being able to cover police activity to ensure public scrutiny and avoid miscarriage of justice. HB 173, the filing continues, “has grave implications for the ability of reporters and news organizations, including plaintiffs, to exercise their First Amendment rights.” Although the lawsuit does not specifically mention the consequence the law could have on speech online, given that a majority of videos showing police at work get posted on the internet, the restrictions imposed by the act could also have indirect implications for that form of freedom of expression. According to the plaintiffs, the law is unconstitutional and enables the police to prevent both journalists and the public from being close enough to document their work. At the same time, officers are allowed to stop those filming them from approaching, either providing a reason or not, and that includes public gatherings, arrests, and reporting from the scene of an accident. And, there are no exceptions that would regulate when 25 feet is objectively not close enough for a member of the public or a reporter to document police activity. Since officers are now given the right to ask those filming them to leave – this means they are able to “effectively silence them” and bypass the constitution, the filing reads. State AG Murrill, on the other hand, told the press that HB 173 is designed to allow law enforcement to perform their duties “without being threatened or impeded by others.” Murrill also said she would defend the law as a reasonable response to what she calls past “documented interference with law enforcement.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Louisiana’s New Law Sparks First Amendment Showdown appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Washington Free Beacon editor-in-chief Eliana Johnson was forced to correct PBS News Hour host Amna Nawaz on Friday after the latter claimed “there’s no evidence” Democratic VP nominee Tim Walz has embellished his military resume. Johnson correctly pointed out that, on the contrary, “there’s no question” he has “padded and inflated his resume.” Nawaz began by doing the same dishonest trick that MSNBC’s Ali Velshi did, by playing a clip of Walz’s GOP counterpart, JD Vance, accusing him of abandoning his unit prior to an Iraq deployment, but omitting the part where Vance also called out Walz for promoting gun control by comparing certain weapons he wants to ban to weapons he carried “in war,” despite never having been to war.     After the clip, a disappointed Nawaz turned to Johnson, who was again filling in for New York Times columnist David Brooks, “Eliana, this is so reminiscent of that swift-boating attack on John Kerry back in 2004. We know the same man is behind it. He's running the Trump campaign now, Chris LaCivita. Why run with these attacks when there's no evidence for what they're saying right now?” Johnson countered, “Well, I do think there's some evidence for what they're saying, but let's look at it in two parts. One is the issue on the merits, where I think there's no question Tim Walz has padded and inflated his resume. And the second is— ” Nawaz interrupted, “In what way specifically?” Rewinding a bit, Johnson recalled, “Well, JD Vance mentioned that the timing of his retirement is suspect, and I think it would take a little bit longer to talk about the timeline of that… He knew that they were going to be called up. He had gotten a warning that they were going to be called up, and he said in a press release for his campaign, if called up, I have a duty to serve. He didn't do that. It's clear he has — he's inflated this, and he's made it a part of his biography. By the way, this has been an issue in every single one of Walz's campaigns.” Ultimately, Johnson believes that the issue won't matter much in the end because, unlike Kerry, Walz is merely the vice presidential nominee. Still, Nawaz turned to an even more upset Washington Post associate editor, Jonahtan Capehart, “Jonathan, please — your face. It says, ‘I don't know how to react.’” Ignoring the “in war” falsehood, Walz referring to himself by the wrong rank, and everything Johnson just said, Capehart claimed, “It's a spurious charge. The man served his country for, what, 24 years? And, sure, this is a race between Trump and Harris. And if you're going to talk about military record and military service, Donald Trump has none. And so let's just put that to the side. Capehart also remembered something he wanted to say earlier in the segment, “Vice President Harris is not afraid of Donald Trump, which is why I think she has been very effective on the trail in terms of reacting in the most minimal way possible to the racism and sexism and misogyny that he's been hurling at her since she got to the top of the ticket.” As for News Hour and the question of Walz’s retirement, Nawaz’s colleague, Geoff Bennett, also claimed on Thursday that “there is no evidence” to support Vance’s claim, despite Walz’s superior claiming otherwise. Here is a transcript for the August 9 show: PBS News Hour 8/9/2024 7:32 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: Eliana, this is so reminiscent of that swift-boating attack on John Kerry back in 2004. We know the same man is behind it. He's running the Trump campaign now, Chris LaCivita. Why run with these attacks when there's no evidence for what they're saying right now? ELIANA JOHNSON: Well, I do think there's some evidence for what they're saying, but let's look at it in two parts. One is the issue on the merits, where I think there's no question Tim Walz has padded and inflated his resume. And the second is… (Crosstalk) JOHNSON: … his military resume. NAWAZ: In what way specifically? (Crosstalk) JOHNSON: Well, JD Vance mentioned that the timing of his retirement is suspect, and I think it would take a little bit longer to talk about the timeline of that. But the… (Crosstalk) NAWAZ: He's alleging that he retired because his unit was being deployed. JOHNSON: Right. He knew that they were going to be called up. He had gotten a warning that they were going to be called up, and he said in a press release for his campaign, if called up, I have a duty to serve. He didn't do that. It's clear he has — he's inflated this, and he's made it a part of his biography. By the way, this has been an issue in every single one of Walz's campaigns. But, separately, I think there's a question of, how significant is this going to be down the road? You mentioned the swift-boat veterans. Those attacks were effective, but they were levied against the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, John Kerry, back in 2004… NAWAZ: We should say they were also discredited. JOHNSON: … which is different. And so this race is not going to be won or lost based on attacks made on either JD Vance or Tim Walz. It's going to be about Trump and the Harris/Biden record. So, I don't think they're — that this is actually likely to be a very significant issue down the line. NAWAZ: Jonathan, please — your face. It says, “I don't know how to react.” JONATHAN CAPEHART: It's a spurious charge. The man served his country for, what, 24 years? And, sure, this is a race between Trump and Harris. And if you're going to talk about military record and military service, Donald Trump has none. And so let's just put that to the side. I remembered what I was going to say in that first — and the thing is, Vice President Harris is not afraid of Donald Trump, which is why I think she has been very effective on the trail in terms of reacting in the most minimal way possible to the racism and sexism and misogyny that he's been hurling at her since she got to the top of the ticket. 

CNN Cut Short Interview With Tim Walz's Ex Unit Commander Because of 'Technical Difficulties'

Brazilian authorities worked Saturday to piece together what exactly caused the plane crash in Sao Paulo state the previous day that killed all 62 people on board. Local airline Voepass' plane, an ATR 72 twin-engine turboprop, was headed for Sao Paulo's international airport.

The Philippine military chief condemned Saturday what he said was the provocative actions of two Chinese air force aircraft that executed a dangerous maneuver and dropped flares in the path of a Philippine air force plane on routine patrol in the South China Sea.

Researchers at Johannes Gutenberg University have decoded the history of the Roman mill complex of Barbegal in France using calcium carbonate deposits from the site....

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 40:01 — 55.0MB)Subscribe: Android | RSS | More In this week’s episode, we talk with Luis Valdes of Gun Owners of America. Luis is the Florida state…