'I know what I saw 5 days ago south of the border'

The spill was "one of the largest sewage spills in U.S. history"

'We groaned simultaneously'

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Arizona legislators have introduced what may be the most aggressive app store age verification bill in the country. House Bill 2920 would require age verification not just for app downloads, but for preinstalled software, the browser, the text messaging app, the search bar, the calculator, and the weather widget. Every piece of software on a mobile device would be subject to age-gating ID checks under this proposal. The bill, introduced on January 27 and currently pending before the House Science & Technology Committee, creates a surveillance architecture that applies to every mobile device user in the state. App store providers would be required to verify every account holder’s age category and share that data with developers. HB 2920 divides users into four age categories: children under 13, teenagers between 13 and 16, older teenagers between 16 and 18, and adults. Every person who creates an app store account in Arizona would be sorted into one of these buckets through what the bill calls “commercially available” verification methods, a phrase it declines to define with any precision. The Arizona Attorney General would be tasked with creating rules to establish acceptable verification processes. For anyone under 18, the bill mandates that their account be “affiliated” with a parent account. The app store would then be required to obtain “verifiable parental consent” before allowing the minor to download an application, purchase an application, or make any in-app purchase. This consent requirement extends to preinstalled apps as well. The first time a minor launches their browser or messaging app, the system would need to check with the parent account before allowing access. The law does not specify how parent-child account affiliation would actually be verified. It grants app stores broad authority to determine parenthood through unspecified commercially reasonable methods, but provides no regulation for how this determination would occur. The bill’s reach extends beyond initial downloads. If a developer makes what the legislation calls a “significant change” to an application, the parent account must provide renewed consent before the minor can access the updated version. The definition of significant change covers modifications to privacy policies, changes to data collection categories, alterations to age ratings, the addition of in-app purchases, or the introduction of advertisements. This means a weather app that adds a banner ad would require fresh parental consent. An update to a note-taking app’s privacy policy would trigger the consent mechanism. The bill creates a system where routine software updates become opportunities for access to be blocked. Developers would be required to notify app stores of any significant change, and app stores would then be required to notify parent accounts and obtain renewed consent before providing access to the changed version. The burden falls on both parties, with civil penalties of up to $75,000 per violation and a private right of action allowing parents and minors to sue for $1,000 per violation plus punitive damages. To make this system function, app stores would need to collect and maintain detailed records about every user’s age category, parental relationships, and consent status. This data would then be shared with developers whenever a user downloads, purchases, or launches an app. The bill includes provisions requiring “industry standard encryption” and limiting data use to compliance purposes, but these safeguards exist alongside requirements for extensive data collection. Age category data, parent-child affiliations, verification records, consent histories, all of this information must be maintained and transmitted between parties for the system to work. Texas passed a similar law in 2025. A federal judge blocked it before it could take effect, finding it likely unconstitutional. US District Judge Robert Pitman wrote that the law is “akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book.” The court ruled the Texas law imposed content-based restrictions on speech and failed the strict scrutiny test because Texas did not prove it used the least restrictive means to achieve its goals. The stated purpose of these laws is to protect children. The effect is creating systems that collect more sensitive data from children than currently exists. Every child’s age, every parent-child relationship, every app download, every purchase, and every consent decision would be logged and shared between companies. The bill positions parents as the decision-makers, but the actual gatekeeping happens at the app store level. Apple and Google would be deputized to determine what verification methods meet the “commercially reasonable” standard. They would build the consent interfaces. They would decide how the parent-child affiliation system functions. The chilling effect operates at multiple levels. Developers might avoid making any updates to their apps to prevent triggering renewed consent requirements. Small developers might exit the market entirely rather than build compliance infrastructure. Families might find that the apps they use become unavailable because the compliance costs exceed what the developer can bear. And for anyone who values the ability to access information without first presenting identification, the bill represents a fundamental issue. Reading news, checking the weather, sending messages, using a calculator, all of these activities would require first verifying your age and, if under 18, obtaining parental permission. Arizona joins a growing list of states pursuing app store age verification. Texas, Utah, Louisiana, and California have all passed versions of these laws, with varying effective dates and enforcement provisions. The Texas law faces an appeal after being enjoined; Utah and Louisiana are scheduled to take effect later this year; California’s version arrives in 2027. HB 2920 goes further than most by explicitly including preinstalled applications. A child in Arizona could buy a phone and find themselves unable to use the basic software that came with it until a parent account is established and consent is obtained. The browser that came with the device, the messaging app, and the search function would all be locked behind age verification and parental consent gates. The First Amendment Question By verifying age, these bills could violate the First Amendment primarily due to concerns about the right to speak anonymously online: if users must provide identifiable information about themselves, their ability to share or obtain information anonymously could be jeopardized. The anonymous internet user is becoming an endangered species in this regulatory environment. Age verification at the app store level means identification at the app store level. The ability to download and use software without revealing who you are would functionally disappear. Courts have consistently treated anonymous speech as protected under the First Amendment. The right to read and write without identification has a long constitutional history. These bills require the opposite: verified identity as a precondition for accessing digital tools. Arizona’s HB 2920 has been read twice and awaits committee consideration. If it advances, it would take effect on November 30, 2026, creating yet another deadline for app stores and developers to comply with yet another variation of age verification requirements. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Arizona Bill Would Require ID Checks to Use a Weather App appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Emmanuel Macron stood before the Munich Security Conference last week and offered a blueprint for what European governments should be allowed to delete from the internet. The French president wants mandatory identity verification for social media users, one account per person, algorithm transparency on the government’s terms, and the legal authority to block platforms that refuse to comply. “We have to be sure there is one single person with one account,” Macron said. “If this is an AI system, if this is bot or organized by big organization, it should be just forbidden.” The statement describes a system where every social media user would have their identity verified by platforms and tied to a single permitted account. Anonymous speech, pseudonymous commentary, and the ability to maintain separate personal and professional presences online would effectively end for anyone using platforms that serve the European market. Macron suggested this as a way to protect democracy. The mechanism would give governments a powerful tool to identify, track, and silence any user whose speech they find objectionable. France is moving to ban social media access for anyone under 15, a policy that requires verifying every user. Macron defended this by characterizing free expression online as a form of brainwashing. “Free speech would mean I will give the mind, brand the heart of my teenagers to algorithm of big guys,” he said. “I’m not totally sure I share the values, or Chinese algorithm without any control. We are crazy.” The argument runs as follows: letting young people encounter ideas online without government permission is insanity. The solution requires every user to prove their age to access platforms where public discussion happens. Macron suggested that speech illegal in newspapers should remain illegal when moved online. “How is that the craziest and most harmful narratives can go unchecked in our digital space, where they will fall under the law if published in print?” The question assumes “harmful narratives” is a category the government should define. It also assumes the government should have the power to prevent people from encountering ideas it has labeled crazy. Macron invoked the Digital Services Act as the foundation for expanded censorship across Europe. “This is a very important regulation because for the first time we created the framework to regulate this platform.” The DSA gives EU regulators the authority to demand content removal from platforms. Macron called for going further: using the law to “excuse those who clearly decide not to respect our rules and our regulation” and to “block all those willow interferences in our systems.” He offered a familiar list of speech categories he wants suppressed: “racist speech, hateful speech, anti-Semitic speech.” These terms have no fixed legal definition that applies uniformly across EU member states. Who is racist, what constitutes hatred, which criticism of which policies counts as anti-Semitism: these determinations would be made by regulators and platforms operating under government pressure. Macron described limits on speech as somehow inherent to democracy itself: “When you have free speech, you have respect, you have rules, and the limit of my freedom is the beginning of your freedom.” This formulation treats speech as equivalent to physical coercion. Your words are framed as a boundary violation against others simply by existing. The speech that most requires protection is speech that offends, that challenges consensus, that the powerful would prefer to suppress. Macron’s framework offers no protection for any of it. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who opened the conference, echoed the European position that speech protections should end where government-defined values begin. “A divide has opened up between Europe and the United States,” Merz said. “And Vice President JD Vance said this very openly here at the Munich Security Conference a year ago, and he was right. The battle of cultures of MAGA in the US is not ours. Freedom of speech here ends where the words spoken are directed against human dignity and our basic law.” “Human dignity” is the phrase German law uses to justify prosecuting speech. The Constitutional Court has interpreted it to cover insults, Holocaust denial, and an expanding category of expression that authorities determine undermines respect for persons or groups. It is the legal mechanism under which German police have raided homes over social media posts and prosecuted people for memes. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen joined the censorship chorus with a declaration of territorial authority over online expression. “I want to be very clear: our digital sovereignty is our digital sovereignty,” she said, adding the EU “will not flinch where this is concerned.” Von der Leyen described European speech regulation as under attack from the United States, “which has wielded the threats of tariffs on partners to secure preferential access and has decried the EU’s digital rules as an assault on free speech.” The EU’s digital rules are an assault on free speech. The DSA empowers bureaucrats to demand platforms remove content, under threat of massive fines. The EU has opened formal proceedings against X for its policies. European regulators have forced platforms to suppress content that would be legally protected in the United States. Von der Leyen framed resistance to this regime as a threat to Europe’s “democratic foundation.” She claimed Europe has “a long tradition in freedom of speech” while defending a legal structure designed to ensure certain speech never reaches European audiences. “The European way of life – our democratic foundation and the trust of our citizens – is being challenged in new ways,” she said. “On everything from territories to tariffs or tech regulations.” The phrasing groups speech regulation with tariffs and territorial disputes. All three are matters where Europe will defend its sovereignty. What Europeans are permitted to say, read, and share online is treated as equivalent to where national borders fall. The leaders who gathered in Munich spoke of protecting democracy while proposing tools that would let governments identify and punish dissent. They invoked free speech while demanding the power to decide which speech is free. They claimed to defend Europe while stripping Europeans of the ability to speak freely online. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Macron, Merz, and von der Leyen Defend Expanded Speech Controls appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

How Green Is My Cult: CA Now Importing US Gas From *check notes* 4000 Miles Away

Judges in San Francisco Are Really Something Special

The New York Times is forever looking down its snobby nose at uncredentialed conservative journalists exposing inconvenient stories they don’t want to touch, like the Somali fraud ring in Minnesota. There's no Pulitzer Prize bait in that!  Nick Shirley & Co. come under assault in a story by social-media reporter Nathan Taylor Pemberton. He argued conservative creators are increasingly posting "slopulism," low-quality political content that prioritizes populist rage, aiming to provoke policy action. Exhibit A was Nick Shirley probing fraud in Minneapolis, inspiring new videos investigating fraud in San Diego by Amy Reichert. Ms. Reichert is one among many conservative content creators who have become the internet’s busiest sleuths in recent weeks. They create videos that are light on evidence and traditional journalistic techniques but are filled with sinister-sounding claims that neatly align with the Trump administration’s priorities. It’s a novel form of political behavior that has left many political commentators and researchers struggling to articulate what it is. Though many are quick to say what it’s not: investigative journalism. It is also, experts say, more than misinformation or disinformation, terms that fail to capture the nature of these misleading posts and how they are filtering up into the highest echelons of government. Curt Mills, the executive director of The American Conservative magazine, called it “MAGA-muzak.” Kate Starbird, a researcher at the University of Washington who studies online spaces and extreme politics, has called it “participatory propaganda.” “Try ‘entrepreneurial opportunism,’” said A.J. Bauer, an assistant professor of journalism at the University of Alabama with a focus on right-wing groups. Now contrast this with The Times, whose work on Russian collusion was "light on evidence, but filled with sinister-sounding claims that neatly align with Democratic Party priorities." Their "high-quality investigative journalism" fell apart like a sloppy Jenga tower. It's mildly amusing at how Pemberton tries to say both right and left make slop, but one is about cruelty and sadism, while the other is for justice! On the right, this can look like gleeful cruelty, sadistic memes, posts that “own the libs” or sensationalized claims about fraud and conspiracy. On the left, it could be social justice messaging, online identity politics or populist economic proposals to, say, tax the rich. Pemberton penned a piece for The Nation last year on "Why the Right Fantasizes About Death and Destruction," complaining about growing up with "my family's lunatic fringe" that talked about Benghazi and all that. The Times piece sounds similar: The new wave of fraud-themed content, made by creators like Mr. Shirley, invokes familiar themes of populist rage and elite resentment. It seems to be the latest evolution in a culture where posting is a primary method of practicing politics — except these posts appear to be made not only to get in on a trending wave, but also to provoke policy action. “Slopulism works by harnessing the excitement and vibe of a moment,” said Neema Parvini, a senior fellow at the University of Buckingham in England who is considered to have popularized the term. He believes it’s a way for populist leaders, like Mr. Trump, to keep their bases content. “It convinces supporters to invest their emotions in story lines rather than the substantive politics or structure behind it,” he said. “It doesn’t lead anywhere, it’s just entertainment.” When conservatives who didn't attend Columbia Journalism School probe progressive sacred cows, there can't be any "public interest" in it. No, Pemberton argued this "slopulism" is just "a political tendency that offers followers emotional gratification through mindless, performative gestures online." Perhaps we should redefine "slopulism" to define all the leftist celebrities and influencers shouting "F--k ICE!" That's emotionally gratifying and mindlessly performative. 

He may be a serial killer who wants to wear his victim's skin, but "The Silence of the Lambs" sicko Buffalo Bill is no transphobe. At least according to Ted Levine, who portrayed the troubled womenswear enthusiast — real name Jame Gumb — in 1991 Best Picture winner "The Silence of the Lambs." 'We all know more, and I'm a lot wiser about transgender issues.'"There are certain aspects of the movie that don't hold up too well," the actor recently told the Hollywood Reporter. "We all know more, and I'm a lot wiser about transgender issues. There are some lines in that script and movie that are unfortunate."He added, "It's unfortunate that the film vilified that, and it's f**king wrong. And you can quote me on that."Basket caseAt the same time, the 68-year-old Hollywood vet denied that his character was ever meant to be understood as transgender in the first place. RELATED: 'I wasn't invited to those parties': Kelsey Grammer mocks woke Hollywood hypocrisy "I didn't play him as being gay or trans. I think he was just a f**ked-up heterosexual man. That's what I was doing," Levine insisted.Sick puppyThis interpretation was backed up by "Lambs" producer Edward Saxon."We were really loyal to the book," Saxon said. “As we made the film, there was just no question in our minds that Buffalo Bill was a completely aberrant personality — that he wasn't gay or trans. He was sick."Any connection to transgenderism was an oversight by the production, the producer explained. "We missed it. From my point of view, we weren't sensitive enough to the legacy of a lot of stereotypes and their ability to harm."Saxon said that given the fact those involved in the movie had "friends and family who were gay," they thought it would be clear that Buffalo Bill is simply "incredibly sick," not practicing some form of homosexuality.RELATED: B is for butthead: Raunchy rapper threatens 'bear mace' for ICE agents Photo by Paul Archuleta/FilmMagic 'It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again.'Skin in the gameLevine's remarks came as the actor reflected on the 35th anniversary of his breakout role — and the staying power of a certain famous line. "Pain in the ass, but it's OK. Kind of put me on the map," Levine laughed, "But [the annoyance recently] is less so. The edges have worn off. It's not a big deal. It's fine."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Reporter Steve Cortes’ new documentary, “China’s College Takeover,” takes on the influx of Chinese nationals infiltrating American colleges and universities — which BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales notes is yet another form of immigration that needs to be put under the microscope.“The issue of immigration is something that, once you see the issue, once you see the real problems, you can’t unsee it. It’s peeling back the layers of an onion, and it just gets worse and worse and worse,” Gonzales says.“We are kind of the laughingstock of the globe at this point. ... All of these other countries are just like, ‘Hey, hey, we’re just going to utilize and abuse their system, and we’re just going to take over,’” she adds.“I’m sure there are times when some of the party bosses at the CCP’s buildings in Beijing just laugh to themselves. They cannot believe how willingly the United States will act as a victim, will volunteer for victimhood at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party,” Cortes agrees.“And in this case, I think it’s absolutely outrageous that our most selective universities, our top flagship public schools across the United States are inundated with foreign students,” he says.What Cortes finds “particularly awful” is the CCP “sending its princelings ... over here so that we can educate our enemies so that many of them can spy on us and commit espionage.”“We know that’s happening. There have been charges and convictions already. And then take those skills that they learned at some of our top schools like University of Illinois and go back to Beijing so they can make our adversary more powerful, more wealthy, and better able to continue to take advantage of the United States,” Cortes says.“So, I’m trying to expose this, as you are, and say, ‘Enough.’ Of course, illegal immigration is a scourge to this country, but even the way we’re tolerating legal migration, including the student issue, is just inexcusable, and I think it needs to be exposed,” he adds.Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.