It is something else wearing Christianity's clothes.

'Protect them from bikini images'

Toss those demands in the trash

News The Lord of the Rings Liv Tyler Says Arwen Was Originally Part of the Fellowship in The Lord of the Rings Films “I was in Helm’s Deep, fighting” By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on January 13, 2026 Screenshot: New Line Cinema Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: New Line Cinema It’s been twenty-five years(!) since Peter Jackson’s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy hit the big screen. To celebrate the occasion, Empire brought together Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett, who played Arwen and Galadriel respectively in the films, to reminisce about their experiences during production. In the books, Arwen—the elf who ultimately marries Aragorn (played in the movies by Viggo Mortensen)—doesn’t do much. Her role in the films was expanded, but Tyler shared that Arwen initially had an even larger part to play in the story. “Originally, when I came into the project, I was included in the Fellowship,” she said. “I was in Helm’s Deep, fighting.” Tyler actually shot scenes at Helm’s Deep, though those never made it into the final film (many people think, however, that a brief shot of Arwen got through, and point to the person in red in the background at the 4:29 mark in this clip). “I was there with Viggo and everyone,” she said. “It was fucking hard, man. It was brutal. And it didn’t really work. Then it changed again. Over the course of three years, I didn’t always have something to hold on to with the text, so I had to really lean into this idea of unwavering love and groundedness that was the role of Arwen in the story.” Tyler and Blanchett also vaguely recalled a scene they had together as well, though they couldn’t remember the details. “You’d see Viggo [Mortensen] and Pete [Jackson] going to knock off another few shots from the battle sequences, which I was longing to be part of,” Blanchett said. “But it really felt like they were invested in finding a way that the female characters could anchor things, so that even though they weren’t a huge part of the narrative, they weighted the story in quite a profound way.” [end-mark] The post Liv Tyler Says Arwen Was Originally Part of the Fellowship in <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> Films appeared first on Reactor.

The Supreme Court heard two cases out of Idaho and West Virginia on Tuesday that could determine the future of state laws banning males from playing female sports.  Chief Justice John Roberts, seen as a swing vote in the case, hinted that he would side with the states. He said allowing a male identifying as a female to compete in women’s sports could make federal Title IX statutes difficult to enforce.   “How we approach the situation of looking at it not as boys versus girls, but whether or not there should be an exception,” Roberts said during questioning. “If we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics.” Lindsay Hecox, a self-identified “transgender” athlete who wanted to be on the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University, sued the state. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed an injunction.  In the West Virginia case, the plaintiff, Becky Pepper-Jackson wanted to compete on the middle school girls’ cross country team. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act violates Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and school athletics.  The high court heard the cases back-to-back on Tuesday.  Roberts said the question before the court is different from the 2020 Bostock ruling, where the court determined the Civil Rights Act protections against sex-based employment discrimination also extended to gender identity and sexual orientation.  West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams agreed with that view. “The law is indifferent to gender identity because sports are indifferent to gender identity,” Williams said.  However, plaintiff lawyer Joshua Block argued that West Virginia’s law “takes a wrecking ball to Title IX.” “Unlike the exclusion of a cisgender boy, excluding BPJ doesn’t advance any interest in ensuring overall fairness and safety,” Block said. “Unlike the case of the cisgender boy, excluding BPJ from the girls’ teams excludes her from all athletic opportunity while stigmatizing and separating her from her peers. Justice Elena Kagan, in the court’s liberal wing, acknowledged there could be instances where individuals have not had the same hormone treatments as others who want to join a girls’ team. She asked Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst why schools could not determine on a case-by-case basis if an athlete has an unfair advantage. Hurst answered with a detailed hypothetical as to why that would not work, in practice. If “only 10% of males who identify as transgender take the testosterone suppression,” Hurst noted, the other side would argue, “the [protected] class is just the males who take the testosterone suppression.” However, if the state argued that, of males who take testosterone suppression, 75% still have an athletic advantage, plaintiffs would change their definition of who is in the protected class, Hurst argued. They would say, “our class is males who identify as transgender, who suppress their testosterone… and are able to get it down to where they don’t have a competitive advantage.” “That is going to be enormously burdensome for everyone, and the state can never win because whenever the state points to the fit and the statute, they just redefine their class,” Hurst said.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh pushed Hecox’s attorney Kathleen Hartnett to address the harm for female athletes, noting the NCAA and the Olympic Committee have acted to keep men out of women’s sports.  “For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal, or doesn’t make all-league, there’s a harm there, and I think we can’t sweep that aside,” Kavanaugh said. “The NCAA, the Olympic Committee, a lot of state governments, that’s a lot of people who are concerned about women’s sports.” Hartnett argued that her client had medical procedures that mitigated any sex-based advantage. She said the Idaho statute shouldn’t apply to her client. “The question is: is there an unfair biological advantage?” Hartnett argued. She added, “That’s why we are here, not proposing a rule of absolute inclusion, but saying that in the case, people like our client, who have mitigated their advantage, don’t match the statutory interest.” Justice Neil Gorsuch is also considered a swing vote in the case since he voted with the liberal wing in Bostock, but then, in 2025, voted to uphold state bans on trans surgeries for minors.  Gorsuch said the question at hand is what advantage a male who identifies as a female would have in an athletic competition.  “That’s the kind of question we’re going to ultimately have to answer, not the science question, but the percentage question,” Gorsuch said.  Hartnett responded that someone with hormone treatment could be at a disadvantage when competing in female sports.  “Being a transgender woman, actually, to the extent you’ve repressed your testosterone, you’re at somewhat of a disadvantage in many ways, because you have this larger frame with weaker muscles and no testosterone,” Hartnett said. The post How Justices Reacted to Arguments in Women’s Sports Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Much of the Left’s agenda focuses on creating feel-good but nonfunctional programs for the supposed downtrodden and oppressed, while ensuring that they—and their allies—share in the spoils of government largesse. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani could very well be a maestro at giving his leftwing base exactly what they want while doing nothing to solve the problems he says he intends to address. Mamdani has really stressed the problem of “affordability” and abusive landlords in his so-called “rental ripoff” tour. “In a city filled with older buildings that could use some tender loving care, some landlords are taking advantage of the housing market to gouge tenants with outrageous fees, all while leaving them trying to survive in homes with collapsing ceilings and sinking floors,” Mamdani said in an Instagram video according to the New York Post. To address this issue, Mamdani intends to use the power of government, which by his estimation can fix any problem. To make everything better with housing in New York, Mamdani appointed some notable advisers. One is his tenant director Cea Weaver, a committed communist whose goal is apparently to collectivize property and impoverish middle class white people. Don’t ask her questions about that though or she’ll cry about it. Another is Dina Levy, who Mamdani announced as the Commissioner of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. The mayor’s office announced that Levy “brings decades of experience developing and organizing for safe, affordable housing to the agency, fighting tirelessly for dignified housing for all New Yorkers” and said that Levy will ensure “the habitability of all homes in New York.” Proud to have Dina Levy joining us as Commissioner of @NYCHousing. Dina has spent decades fighting for safe, affordable, and dignified housing, and she’ll help move our housing agenda forward for New Yorkers. pic.twitter.com/sgmzanQE5r— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) January 5, 2026 That sounds good, except there is a little problem. Levy’s management of housing in New York appears to be worse than the private sector alternatives. According to the New York Post, a Bronx apartment that Mamdani showed off while introducing Levy to the public is deeply troubled and has “racked up nearly 200 unresolved violations.” “The 102-unit building at 1520 Sedgwick Ave. in Morris Heights as of Saturday had a staggering 194 open housing-code violations dating back to 2016—including 88 ‘Class C’ violations considered ‘immediately hazardous,’” the Post reported. These violations include problems related to various pest infestations, mold, broken appliances, and more. The complex has more than double the “Class C” violations of the 71-unit complex in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn that Mamdani used to demonstrate the problem with privately-owned housing in the city. The Post reported that Levy “helped facilitate a 2011 deal for nonprofit Workforce Housing Advisors to buy and rehab the Sedgwick Avenue complex from private landlords.” She did this “with help from a $5.6 million HPD loan she and her own nonprofit, the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board.” On top of the violations, some of the residents in Levy’s affordable housing complex told the Post that the building was better run under a previous, private landlord. “I have been here over 20 years, and I preferred it when it was under private management because they used to screen people in and out of the building,” said current resident Mordistine Alexander in an interview with the New York Post. “Since [the nonprofit] took over, the building has deteriorated,” Alexander said. “They lack porters. No one is maintaining it, and the complaints fall on deaf ears—especially if you complain a lot.” One city councilwoman, Republican Joann Ariola from Queens, said in the story that nonprofits like the one running the Sedgewick Building are little more than “taxpayer-funded slumlords.” Great stuff. As usual with the Left, it’s the thought that counts. And, now in New York, the Left has a clear runway to make their thoughts count in all the most terrible ways. The New York City Council is looking to pass a law to force property owners to take their first sale offers from “community land trusts” and nonprofits like Levy’s, which will have the ability to match any offer. It’s a clear attempt to squeeze private ownership out of the Big Apple. No doubt the results will be the same. People like Levy and Mamdani will do just fine while everyone else pays the price. Mamdani said he would govern like a socialist, and I believe him. For now, it’s all about photo ops and good intentions. Tomorrow, it will be failure and cynicism. Hence, the cycle of socialism repeats itself. The post Mamdani Housing Adviser Gives Preview of City Stripped of Private Ownership appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. On January 12, Australia’s Attorney-General Michelle Rowland stepped to the podium and announced what she called “the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.” The government plans to push its Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 through Parliament on January 20, turning Australia’s speech laws into something that reads more like a psychological test than a criminal code. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here (and the memorandum here.) The same week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was praising Iranians “standing up for their human rights,” his government was preparing to criminalize speech at home even when no one’s rights or feelings had actually been touched. The bill’s centerpiece is a new racial vilification offense. It bans “publicly promoting or inciting hatred” based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin, with penalties of up to five years in prison. The measure’s core novelty is what it removes: proof of harm. It’s “immaterial,” the draft says, whether “the conduct actually results in hatred” or whether anyone “actually” feels intimidated or fears harassment. The courts will instead consider what a hypothetical “reasonable” member of the targeted group would feel, even if no such person exists in the case. Prosecutors, the explanatory note clarifies, “would not be required to prove” any real fear at all. The message: you can go to prison for causing theoretical discomfort in a theoretical person. Rowland’s bill doesn’t stop at the town square or the street corner. It explicitly defines a “public place” to include any form of electronic communication, including social media, blogs, livestreams, recordings, and content posted from private property if the public can see it. In other words, the living room webcam and the backyard podcast are now public arenas. A joke, a meme, or an overheard rant could be weighed for its impact on an imaginary “reasonable person” who never existed. That five-year penalty isn’t for causing harm; it’s for crossing a line no one can quite locate. The one solid shield in this maze of liability is religion. The offense “does not apply to conduct that consists only of directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.” Everyone else is left to improvise a defense under the general “good faith” clauses. The memorandum calls this exemption “peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant,” which is legalese for: you better prove your sermon was holy enough. The government has built a speech hierarchy, placing priests and imams on the top shelf and comedians and columnists in the discount bin. The Combatting Hate bill reads like the product of a government that wants to be applauded for standing up to bigotry but can’t resist the lure of control. It recasts expression as a form of potential violence, with guilt determined not by actions or consequences but by how a hypothetical observer might feel. The Combatting Hate bill takes the already broad category of “prohibited hate symbols” and turns it into a legal booby trap. Under the amendments, anyone accused of displaying one must now prove their own innocence. The idea of innocent until proven guilty would now be reversed. The government boasts that the law “removes the current requirement…for the prosecution to disprove the existence of a legitimate purpose” and instead “reverses the burden of proof to require the defendant to provide evidence suggesting a reasonable possibility of the existence of a legitimate purpose for display.” In plain language, the accused must demonstrate that they had a permitted purpose, such as education or historical context, before prosecutors even have to make their case. Police can demand the removal of online material and seize physical items. The likely effect is predictable: artists, academics, and journalists will think twice before touching any material that could be misinterpreted. The courtroom will not even need to convict. The process itself becomes the punishment. The bill goes further with a new power to designate “prohibited hate groups.” The Australian Federal Police Minister can create these listings without hearings or due process. The statute leaves no ambiguity: “The AFP Minister is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness in deciding whether or not the AFP Minister is satisfied for the purposes of this section.” This power does not stop at the Australian border. The listings can reach backward in time and across borders. The bill allows an organization to be blacklisted if it “has advocated (whether or not in Australia)” conduct that qualifies as hateful, even if that conduct “occurred before subsection (1) commences.” That means a person can be prosecuted for speech or association that was entirely legal when it occurred. The past is no refuge, and geography offers no escape. Once a group lands on the list, the penalties multiply. According to the government’s own factsheet, “The maximum penalties for these offences range from 7 to 15 years imprisonment.” Membership can mean seven years. Providing support, training, recruitment, or funding can mean fifteen. The memorandum quietly adds that the Director-General of Security’s advisory role in the process is also exempt from procedural fairness. The bill presents itself as protection, but is written in language that is surprisingly reckless and shamelessly authoritarian. It reads like the product of a government comfortable with punishing ideas instead of actions. The text removes the need for evidence of harm, rewrites fear as a legal standard, and shifts the burden of innocence onto the accused. Its tone is revealing. The clauses are direct and unapologetic, describing censorship powers and reversed burdens as if they were routine administrative steps. There is no hesitation or recognition of limits, only the steady assumption that control is an acceptable substitute for trust. This legislation normalizes the management of thought through regulation. The state positions itself as the final arbiter of acceptable speech, using fear as both the metric and the motive. Once written into law, that kind of authority rarely asks permission to grow. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Australia’s New Hate Speech Bill Is Reckless, Contradictory, and Repressive appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Efforts by the British government to restrict X over its AI assistant Grok have ignited an unexpected diplomatic storm, with Washington warning that ministers and regulators involved could be barred from entering the United States. The dispute, rooted in the collision between online safety laws and free speech norms, has quickly evolved into a peak of how far Western democracies are willing to go in policing digital communication. US officials told The Telegraph that they were ready to impose travel bans if Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer follows through on threats to block X inside the United Kingdom. One senior figure said Washington “had the right to up the ante” should Britain move to censor a US company. The danger is a new British law that criminalizes the creation of non-consensual, sexualized AI images. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said she would make the offense a formal priority under the Online Safety Act, forcing platforms to demonstrate that they are curbing the spread of explicit synthetic content. She confirmed that Ofcom, the country’s communications regulator, would gain expanded powers to investigate and, if necessary, suspend access to sites that fail to comply. Ofcom officials contacted X last week, demanding documentation by Friday showing how the firm enforces safety compliance. The regulator warned that it could ultimately block the service if the company refuses to cooperate. That possibility has alarmed Washington, where authorities view the threat as a direct assault on an American firm and on free expression more broadly. “UK officials could face being barred from the US over plans to ban X,” a State Department source told the paper. The warning was reinforced by Sarah Rogers, President Donald Trump’s undersecretary for public diplomacy, who said during a GB News appearance that “nothing’s off the table” when it comes to defending free speech. Rogers was unsparing in her criticism. “If the UK bans X, it won’t be the first country to do so. Russia bans X. Venezuela bans X. Iran bans X. Free societies generally don’t,” she said. She accused the Starmer government of using the language of online safety to disguise a political motive: “What the British government wants isn’t a reasonable, safe, online, discursive environment for women or whatever it claims… What the British government wants is the ability to curate a public square to suppress political viewpoints it dislikes.” She later posted on X, calling the proposal “a Russia-style X ban,” adding that “America has a full range of tools that we can use to facilitate uncensored internet access in authoritarian, closed societies where the government bans it.” Washington, particularly under Trump’s leadership, has made opposition to censorship abroad a cornerstone of its tech policy. The United States has already revoked visas from British and European figures linked to organizations that promote online content moderation, including Imran Ahmed of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate and Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index. Both groups were founded or supported by allies of the Labour Party, of which Prime Minister Keir Starmer is the leader. A source familiar with Whitehall’s discussions acknowledged that a full ban on X could trigger severe diplomatic retaliation. “They were determined not to sanction any government officials, but they considered X the prize jewel to protect. If X were banned, all hell would break loose,” the source said. The transatlantic fallout has already spilled into trade. Washington suspended the “tech prosperity” cooperation agreement last month, citing Britain’s censorship direction under the Online Safety Act. Members of Congress have also joined the pushback. Republican representative Anna Paulina Luna warned that she would introduce legislation to “sanction not only Starmer, but Britain as a whole” if Labour proceeds with restrictions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the sentiment, describing European and British moves against Musk’s company as “an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people.” Asked about the escalating dispute, a State Department spokesperson declined to address specific sanctions but reiterated: “The United States will continue to take all necessary actions to protect the free speech rights of our citizens from foreign threats.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post US Threatens Sanctions Over UK Plan to Block X appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Become a Member and Keep Reading… Reclaim your digital freedom. Get the latest on censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance, and learn how to fight back. Join Already a supporter? Sign In. (If you’re already logged in but still seeing this, refresh this page to show the post.) The post From Roblox To The IRS: The Great Biometric Data Grab appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

“Americans are sick of high-IQ stupid people trying to run their lives,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Tuesday, introducing a video clip from a recent interview on the Planet Tyrus podcast. “There are a lot of smart people in Washington, but that doesn’t mean they have any common sense,” Kennedy said in a X.com post including video of his interview with Host Tyrus Murdoch. “In Washington, common sense is illegal,” Kennedy said. “And, there are a lot of smart people here, Tyrus – but, that doesn’t mean that they have common sense.” Agreeing, Tyrus noted that “Common sense is also not very popular in entertainment or in the news world or on any panels.” “Once they figure out what common sense is, I won’t have a job, anymore,” the podcast host, Fox News contributor and author added. Sen. Kennedy also revealed how he cheers himself up whenever he’s feeling down: “When I feel inadequate and I’m feeling bad, I just look around. You’ve got a lot of high-IQ stupid people up here.”   There are a lot of smart people in Washington, but that doesn’t mean they have any common sense. Americans are sick of high-IQ stupid people trying to run their lives. pic.twitter.com/vINfwIkwEk — John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) January 13, 2026