If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Lawmakers in New South Wales wrapped up the year by rushing through security legislation that broadens police powers and imposes new limits on protest activity and expression. Passed in an extraordinary sitting of Parliament just before Christmas, the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 represents one of the most far-reaching state security expansions in recent years. Under the new law, the display of a symbol belonging to a “prohibited terrorist organization” can now lead to a prison term of up to two years. Police officers are also granted authority to order individuals to remove face coverings if they are attending a demonstration or public event and the officer “reasonably suspects” they may commit an offense. The legislation also permits police to halt public gatherings in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. More: Victoria Moves to Force Online Platforms to ID Users and Expand State Powers to Curb “Hate Speech” Although the bill is not framed as a censorship measure, it introduces powers that could intersect with the expanding use of surveillance technologies. By compelling people to show their faces during political demonstrations, the law effectively weakens the ability of citizens to shield themselves from biometric tracking at a time when facial recognition systems are increasingly used by both law enforcement and private entities. Premier Chris Minns has openly acknowledged that the law curtails individual freedoms. “These are extraordinary measures, I acknowledge that. I know that not all Australians that live in NSW support these changes, but we have decided it’s the best way of ensuring we do everything possible to keep the people of NSW safe,” he said following the bill’s passage. Minns further conceded that the process was accelerated, crediting bipartisan cooperation for allowing the legislation to pass so quickly. “I know that that happened in a short space of time. I know that the negotiations and the talks had to happen over a short space of time, but we appreciate the goodwill in which we were able to get much-needed reform in New South Wales through the Parliament,” he stated. He justified the timing by saying, “We couldn’t wait, this was urgent.” When pressed about why the measures were bundled into a single omnibus bill, Minns admitted that time was the deciding factor. “If it had been cut up into its component parts, we would have been here way past Christmas…maybe people who oppose elements of those changes would have loved that, because it would have meant that the passage of the bills would have been stalled.” The Premier did not shy away from admitting that rights were being limited in the process. “I accept, I guess, the implicit criticism that this does restrict rights, whether it’s for protests or guns,” he said. “But in these circumstances, we’ve got a higher obligation to the public… our number one obligation is to keep the public safe.” Minns also signaled that more legislation is on the horizon, confirming that the government intends to introduce new “hate speech” laws in the coming months. “I want to make it clear that this isn’t the end of change…we’re currently looking at other areas of the law that are urgently required to confront hate speech, confront Islamist terrorism in our community,” he said. “Hate speech leads to hateful actions…and we’re prepared to take action and steps to keep the community safe.” While the Premier frames the agenda as necessary to safeguard citizens, the process reflects a deeper shift toward governance by emergency. Parliament’s decision to fast-track legal powers during a holiday recess, without full debate or public review, raises serious questions about transparency and proportionality. The rapid normalization of police discretion over identity and assembly carries lasting implications for privacy and dissent. As soon as governments assert the right to define and control “hate speech” or to compel identification at protests, the boundaries of lawful expression narrow quickly. A response to terrorism may end up reshaping the basic relationship between the individual and the state. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post NSW Premier Admits New “Security” Bill Restricts Civil Liberties, Promises More “Hate Speech” Laws Ahead appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. US Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has voiced concern about what she describes as a troubling decline in free expression within the United Kingdom, pointing to cases where individuals face punishment for unpopular views. During an appearance on Bishop Robert Barron’s podcast Bishop Barron Presents, Barrett contrasted the British approach with the protections built into the United States Constitution, saying the First Amendment prevents such suppression from taking root in America. The conversation with Barron revolved around whether modern societies can still find moral common ground, which Barron referred to as “natural law.” Barrett responded that the Constitution itself can serve that function by providing stability through its guarantees of speech and religious freedom. She said these protections act as “articles of peace,” encouraging citizens to tolerate differences. “Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the UK,” she said. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.” Her remarks come at a time when British law enforcement has faced scrutiny for applying legislation that criminalizes “grossly offensive” or “harmful” speech, particularly online. More: UK Ofcom Pushes Rules Targeting “Misogynistic” Content, Prompting (Even More) Free Speech Concerns Statutes such as the Communications Act and the Public Order Act have been used to investigate and, in some cases, arrest individuals for social media posts and public remarks deemed unacceptable by officials. Supporters of open expression argue that such actions transform subjective offense into criminal liability and reduce citizens’ freedom to question authority or cultural norms. In contrast, Barrett said, the American legal framework provides much stronger barriers against censorship. The First Amendment, she explained, not only prohibits government punishment for speech but also forces a social discipline of mutual tolerance. “The First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement,” she said. “There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas that I think we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to kind of hold that in place.” Her observations reflect a broader anxiety about the expanding use of “harm” and “offense” as justifications for limiting speech in Western democracies. In the United Kingdom, law enforcement bodies have increasingly assumed the role of determining what language is permissible. In the United States, by contrast, constitutional limits prevent the government from taking that role. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post US Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett Warns of Declining Free Speech in UK appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. American Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers has sharply criticized British and European speech regulators for attempting to extend their laws to US-based platforms, calling it a direct challenge to the First Amendment. Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction. She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored. Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.” More: EU Launches New Push For Digital ID Age Checks and Big Tech Probe Under Digital Services Act Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts. The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown. That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post. She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are…trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns. On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure. “These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said. Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful. Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites. She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage…about American political controversies…and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.” Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon. Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift. “People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.” Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation. Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Dr. Paris Buttfield-Addison did not commit fraud, leak code, or breach Apple’s precious security wall. He tried to redeem a $500 Apple Gift Card. That simple act, meant to buy extra iCloud storage, ended with Apple locking his account and erasing 25 years of digital life. The message appeared like a bureaucratic verdict: the account had been “closed in accordance with the Apple Media Services Terms and Conditions.” No warning. Macs, iPhones, an iPad, and an Apple Watch all went dark. Files, messages, and developer credentials were trapped behind a locked login screen. 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 Building a Digital Life That Can’t Be Switched Off appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A new Texas statute aimed at inserting the state into routine decisions about app downloads has been stopped at the courthouse door, at least for now. A federal judge ruled days before the law’s scheduled launch that its design collides with the First Amendment and cannot be enforced while the case moves forward. Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking Senate Bill 2420, the Texas App Store Accountability Act, which was set to take effect on January 1. We obtained a copy of the order for you here. The law would have required app stores to verify every user’s age (which would mean digital ID checks or biometric scans) and forced minors to obtain parental approval before downloading apps or buying in-app content. In a detailed written ruling, Pitman concluded the statute is both constitutionally defective and structurally unworkable. “The Act 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,” he wrote. He added that “when considered on the merits, SB 2420 violates the First Amendment.” SB 2420 does not target a narrow category of online services. It applies to nearly every app store and app developer operating in Texas, bringing in news outlets, streaming platforms, educational tools, fitness apps, and digital libraries alongside social media and games. Under the statute, developers must assign state-defined age ratings, explain the reasoning behind each rating, and report significant changes to content or features. App stores would then be responsible for verifying the age category of every user. If the user is a minor, access is cut off until a parent or guardian establishes a verified parent account and grants consent for each individual download or purchase. Failure to comply carries penalties of up to $10,000 per violation under the Texas consumer protection law. More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda Judge Pitman noted that the law leaves little guidance on how developers are supposed to rate content or determine what qualifies as a “material change,” creating incentives for overblocking lawful speech to avoid enforcement risk. The judge found that the statute regulates speech based on its content and therefore must survive strict constitutional scrutiny. In his view, Texas did not come close to meeting that burden. The law restricts access to a vast range of protected expression without evidence that such a broad prohibition is necessary to protect minors. Pitman also determined that key provisions are unconstitutionally vague. Developers face liability for misrating apps without any clear standards, and stores are told to revoke access when content or functionality changes without a workable definition of what changes trigger that duty. This lack of clarity, the court said, invites arbitrary enforcement and chills lawful expression. The injunction applies statewide and bars the Texas attorney general from implementing or enforcing any part of SB 2420 while the case continues. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Federal Judge Blocks Texas App Store Digital ID Age Verification Law, Citing First Amendment Violations appeared first on Reclaim The Net.