If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) has intensified demands for testimony from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The committee’s focus spans content takedown mandates that reach beyond Australia’s borders, demands for online age verification and digital ID, and efforts to suppress VPN use to bypass government controls. Jordan initially invited Grant to testify in a November 18, 2025, letter, centered on eSafety’s global takedown orders and her role in an international roundtable at Stanford University, where foreign officials coordinated strategies for policing online speech. Grant declined to appear by the December 2 deadline. Jordan followed up with a second letter on December 30, urging her again to cooperate voluntarily and warning that “the Committee may have to consider, if necessary, additional steps to obtain compliance with our request.” We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. While the letter stops short of explicitly announcing a subpoena, the implications are clear. If Grant remains uncooperative, Congress may compel her testimony through legal process. Failure to comply with a subpoena could trigger contempt proceedings. The expanded December letter broadens the scope of Jordan’s inquiry. It accuses eSafety of pressuring US companies to implement compliance systems aligned with Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which prohibits users under 16 from maintaining social media accounts. Grant is also alleged to have urged these companies to take action against VPNs that could allow people to evade digital ID restrictions. Jordan’s committee has also obtained newly redacted documents that he says reveal eSafety “harassed American companies ahead of the implementation” of the age verification mandate. The letter points to legal precedent in US law supporting congressional power to compel testimony from American citizens living abroad. In footnote 17, Jordan cites the 1932 Supreme Court decision Blackmer v. United States, where a US citizen residing in France was found guilty of contempt after refusing to respond to a subpoena. The Court affirmed that US citizens overseas remain bound by federal obligations, including lawful orders to testify. Though Grant is an Australian official, she is also a US citizen. The letter suggests that the committee may invoke Blackmer to enforce compliance, despite her current position abroad. The reference to contempt was not made directly, but the legal framework was laid out with clear intent. Australia’s Online Safety Amendment Act is part of a wider regulatory push by the eSafety Commissioner’s office, which has been given authority to issue global takedown orders to digital platforms. These orders can compel companies to remove content deemed harmful, even if hosted or viewed outside Australia. Jordan and other members of Congress are raising concerns that such policies risk exporting foreign censorship standards to American companies and users, particularly when regulators in other democracies coordinate their enforcement efforts. The issue is not merely about age restrictions or illegal content, but about the jurisdictional reach of foreign law over digital platforms that operate globally. Grant has pushed back on claims that her agency is censoring American users, asserting that her focus is limited to protecting children and ensuring online safety in Australia. She has indicated she may respond in writing rather than testifying in person. The Judiciary Committee’s investigation is part of a larger oversight effort into how foreign governments pressure or influence US-based platforms to censor speech or alter service design. Jordan has emphasized that Congress has a duty to examine whether international regulatory actions are infringing on constitutionally protected rights or compelling American firms to adopt foreign speech standards. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Jim Jordan Turns Up the Heat on Australia’s Online Speech Regulator appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. French lawmakers are preparing a renewed push to limit children’s online exposure, unveiling a proposal that would block anyone under 15 from using social media platforms. The draft legislation, reviewed by AFP, sets September 2026 as the target date for enforcement. President Emmanuel Macron has endorsed the plan and urged Parliament to take it up. France’s effort follows a similar move in Australia, which recently became the first country to impose an outright ban on under-16s accessing social media. To apply such a rule, online platforms would need to verify every user’s age at sign-up or login. This would go far beyond the current model of self-declared birthdays and instead rely on official credentials such as national IDs, driver’s licenses, or government-backed digital identity wallets. In effect, it would introduce a form of digital ID into everyday internet use. The United Kingdom has moved in the same direction under its Online Safety Act. The law obliges many digital platforms to check users’ ages before allowing them to see certain types of content, with age-assurance providers emerging as a new industry. These systems often function as digital IDs, determining what users can access online based on proof of identity or verified age. The European Union is developing a coordinated version of this model. The Digital Services Act encourages platforms to adopt “effective age assurance” for minors, while the European Commission is advancing plans for an EU Digital Identity Wallet. This wallet, expected to roll out across member states in 2027, could allow citizens to confirm their age for online access and other services. Though marketed as privacy-preserving, it still centralizes personal identity data across both public and private sectors. In the United States, a growing number of states are taking their own approach. Several have passed or proposed laws that compel social media companies to verify users’ ages and secure parental consent before minors can open accounts. While there is no nationwide policy, these state laws effectively build local versions of digital identity systems tied to online access. Other countries are following suit. New Zealand has proposed similar legislation to bar under-16s from joining social networks unless platforms can verify their age, modeled closely on the Australian example. From a privacy standpoint, these moves share a common consequence: they link identity verification to ordinary online behavior. Digital IDs, even when designed with safety in mind, create centralized points of control and data collection. Once personal credentials are required for social media, streaming, or gaming platforms, the result is a system that could track, categorize, and store information about individuals’ online activity. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post France Plans 2026 Ban on Social Media for Under-15s, Advancing EU-Wide Digital ID Approach appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The State of New York has finally solved the riddle of the digital age: the problem isn’t poverty, education, or infrastructure. It’s scrolling. On Friday, Governor Kathy Hochul signed S4505/A5346, a law that treats your Instagram feed like a carton of Marlboros. Every social media company operating in New York must now display government-written health warnings when users log on, scroll, or so much as glance at a like button. 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 The First Amendment Meets the Scroll Police appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A senior Polish official is pressing the European Commission to take action against TikTok, claiming the platform is hosting a growing number of artificial intelligence-generated videos that urge Poland to withdraw from the European Union. His appeal, directed to Brussels’ top digital regulator, calls for what amounts to a censorship regime over AI-generated speech. Deputy Minister of Digital Affairs Dariusz Standerski wrote to Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen, who oversees the EU’s Tech Sovereignty, Security, and Democracy portfolio, insisting that the European Commission open a Digital Services Act (DSA) investigation into TikTok. He accused the company of failing to build “appropriate mechanisms” to detect and moderate AI-created content and of neglecting to provide “effective” transparency tools that could trace how such material is produced. The letter went further, urging the Commission to introduce “interim measures aimed at limiting the further dissemination of artificial intelligence-generated content that encourages Poland to withdraw from the European Union.” If interpreted literally, this would empower EU authorities to require large-scale filtering of political messages generated or enhanced by AI whenever they express skepticism toward EU membership. Standerski also called for TikTok to produce a detailed internal report covering the supposed “disinformation,” including its scale, reach, and the steps taken to remove or suppress it. Soon after his letter was publicized, Reuters reported that a TikTok account featuring “videos of young women dressed in Polish national colors and calling for Poland to leave the EU” had abruptly vanished from the platform. TikTok, according to the report, had been “in contact with Polish authorities and removed content that violated its rules.” That account, known online as Prawilne_Polki, had blended seemingly genuine clips with AI-generated ones, accumulating around 200,000 views and 20,000 likes within two weeks. Polish-language outlets later confirmed that TikTok deleted Prawilne_Polki for breaching its terms of service. Records suggest that Prawilne_Polki was originally created in May 2023 under a different name and was used for general entertainment videos until mid-December, when it was rebranded and began posting material about leaving the EU. Reports describe it as part of a broader influence operation, though its removal appears to have been voluntary on TikTok’s part rather than the result of a formal EU order. The significance of Standerski’s request lies less in the single account and more in the precedent it seeks. His call for the EC to impose “measures limiting dissemination” would not distinguish between state-backed propaganda and ordinary user content. Any AI-assisted meme, parody, or political joke about EU membership could be targeted under such a rule. The DSA, already in effect, gives the European Commission extensive power to demand “systemic risk” assessments and impose moderation obligations on large online platforms. Enforcement depends on algorithmic filters and opaque reporting systems that encourage platforms to err on the side of deletion rather than debate. Treating AI-generated material as inherently suspect risks criminalizing or suppressing legitimate political commentary. Once moderation directives are issued under the DSA, platforms often act preemptively to avoid fines, creating a censorship mechanism that needs no explicit ban. TikTok has not clarified whether its removal of Prawilne_Polki was related to Standerski’s letter. Still, the sequence of events illustrates how political pressure can shape corporate moderation choices even before any formal legal process begins. The Polish government’s push now places the European Commission in a position to decide whether “disinformation” about EU membership should be treated as a threat to democracy or as part of the democratic conversation itself. The outcome could determine how much room remains for dissenting narratives in Europe. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Polish Deputy Minister Urges EU Investigation Into TikTok Over Videos Promoting “Polexit” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Attorneys representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms have filed an opposition to the UK Office of Communications’ (Ofcom) motion to dismiss their US lawsuit, arguing that the British regulator’s attempt to enforce its Online Safety Act (OSA) on American platforms amounts to unlawful foreign censorship and overreach into the United States’ constitutional domain. The filing, made in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on December 29, 2025, contends that Ofcom’s actions, sending legally binding “Section 100 Orders” via email to compel compliance with the OSA, violate US sovereignty and the First Amendment. We obtained a copy of the filing for you here. The plaintiffs assert that Ofcom’s conduct has no legal force in the United States because it bypassed all recognized international service procedures, including the Hague Service Convention and the US–UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. Lawyers Ron Coleman and Preston Byrne argue that Ofcom’s regulatory model functions like a commercial enterprise rather than a sovereign body, funded through fees extracted from companies it regulates. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the plaintiffs maintain that this structure places Ofcom’s operations within the “commercial activity” exception, thereby stripping it of immunity from suit in US courts. The opposition brief situates the dispute within a broader geopolitical context, describing a “diplomatic standoff” between Washington and London over the reach of online speech laws. It cites US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who called Ofcom’s actions “censorship of Americans in America” and a “red line” for the US government. At issue is whether the United Kingdom can compel US-based websites to remove or monitor speech that remains lawful under American law. Ofcom’s notices to 4chan and Kiwi Farms included threats of multimillion-pound fines and criminal penalties for refusing to conduct “illegal content risk assessments” and implement age-verification systems. Both companies argue that complying would require violating the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The plaintiffs also accuse Ofcom of targeting smaller American platforms to “make public examples” of them as part of an international campaign to export European-style speech regulation. The filing ties Ofcom’s activities to what it calls the “censorship-industrial complex,” a network of government agencies and private advocacy groups collaborating to standardize digital content controls. In essence, the opposition asks the DC court to confirm that the United Kingdom cannot impose or serve censorship orders on US soil, nor conscript Americans into enforcing foreign speech laws. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post 4chan and Kiwi Farms Tell Ofcom It Can’t Censor and Run From Lawsuits appeared first on Reclaim The Net.