If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The US State Department has announced visa restrictions on five individuals identified as central figures in what officials described as the “global censorship-industrial complex.” The decision, revealed by Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers, targets foreign officials and NGO executives involved in suppressing online expression through state-backed or coordinated initiatives. Those named include former European Commissioner Thierry Breton, Imran Ahmed of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), and HateAid’s Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon. The measure was enacted under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the US to deny entry to foreign nationals whose presence could have adverse foreign policy effects. Rogers stated that the United States “is prepared to expand the list if other foreign actors do not reverse course on censorship,” adding that certain relatives may also fall under the restrictions. The action represents one of the first instances of US policy explicitly aimed at penalizing individuals engaged in transnational censorship efforts that target American speech or media outlets. Breton, during his time as an EU Commissioner, became a chief architect of the Digital Services Act (DSA), Europe’s internet regulation law that compels platforms to police “harmful” speech. He made headlines in August 2024 after threatening Elon Musk’s platform, X, ahead of a scheduled interview with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, resigning from his post hours later. Imran Ahmed’s CCDH has repeatedly pressured social networks to remove content it labeled “disinformation.” Its “Disinformation Dozen” report accused twelve individuals, including current US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of producing the majority of vaccine skepticism online, a claim later used by major tech platforms to justify bans. The group also mounted campaigns to economically damage Musk’s X, and it has financial ties to the UK Labour Party and government funding sources. Clare Melford’s GDI operates a blacklist system that discourages advertisers from funding media outlets it deems “high risk for disinformation.” Internal communications showed GDI boasting of “defunding” publications through these lists, which are reportedly used by major firms such as Microsoft and Oracle. Despite its censorship role, GDI previously received over $100,000 from the State Department’s now-defunct Global Engagement Center and more than $750,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy. HateAid, co-directed by Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon, has led legal actions demanding the removal of online posts labeled “hate speech.” The group filed a complaint that triggered an EU investigation into X under the DSA, and its “trusted flagger” status gives it privileged authority to request takedowns under that law. Ballon appeared on a 60 Minutes segment defending Germany’s aggressive online speech prosecutions, stating that “free speech needs boundaries.” The sanctions reflect an emerging American stance against cross-border censorship systems previously encouraged by Western governments. By invoking the same statute once used for human rights abuses and corruption cases, Washington signals that censorship of political discourse can constitute a diplomatic offense. The move also exposes a growing divide between US and EU regulatory philosophies, Washington reasserting online free expression as a strategic interest, while Brussels and allied NGOs continue expanding mechanisms of content control. Free speech advocates view the decision as a landmark moment that acknowledges the organized, institutional nature of modern censorship networks. The visa bans serve as both a warning and a precedent: the United States may now treat coordinated foreign censorship campaigns as acts with direct implications for American sovereignty and democratic dialogue. French President Emmanuel Macron issued a public response condemning the US decision, framing it as an attack on Europe’s regulatory authority rather than a response to specific censorship actions.  In a statement posted on X, Macron wrote: “France condemns the visa restriction measures taken by the United States against Thierry Breton and four other European figures.”  He described the move as “intimidation and coercion aimed at undermining European digital sovereignty,” presenting the visa restrictions as an attempt to pressure European institutions over their digital rules.  Macron added: “The European Union’s digital regulations were adopted following a democratic and sovereign process by the European Parliament and the Council.” Macron further argued that Europe’s digital regime is internally focused and jurisdictionally bounded. He stated that the rules “apply within Europe to ensure fair competition among platforms, without targeting any third country, and to ensure that what is illegal offline is also illegal online.”  He then ironically drew a line against outside influence, saying “the rules governing the European Union’s digital space are not meant to be determined outside Europe.”  Macron concluded by pledging that France, “together with the European Commission and our European partners,” will continue “to defend our digital sovereignty and our regulatory autonomy.” That defense of regulatory autonomy arrives as France faces growing scrutiny for aggressive enforcement actions that extend well beyond platform compliance.  French authorities arrested Telegram founder Pavel Durov in connection with content posted by Telegram users, a move widely viewed as holding an individual executive responsible for third-party speech.  Placed alongside Macron’s condemnation of US visa restrictions, the arrest reveals a widening gap between Europe’s stated claims of democratic process and the practical effects of its enforcement choices. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post US Imposes Visa Bans on Key Figures Involved in Global Censorship Pressure appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A Facebook meme has placed a retired police officer from rural Tennessee in a constitutional battle with his own county sheriff. Larry Bushart, a former law enforcement veteran, spent more than five weeks in jail on a two-million-dollar bond after Perry County deputies arrested him for what they claimed was a threatening social media post. His supposed offense was a meme quoting President Donald Trump’s remarks about an Iowa school shooting, a post that by any plain reading referred to events hundreds of miles away. “I spent over three decades in law enforcement, and have the utmost respect for the law,” Bushart said. “But I also know my rights, and I was arrested for nothing more than refusing to be bullied into censorship.” With support from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Bushart has now taken Sheriff Nick Weems and Perry County to federal court. His lawsuit accuses them of abusing their authority, falsifying grounds for arrest, and retaliating against him for constitutionally protected expression. We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. FIRE senior attorney Adam Steinbaugh stated, “If police can come to your door in the middle of the night and put you behind bars based on nothing more than an entirely false and contrived interpretation of a Facebook post, no one’s First Amendment rights are safe.” The controversy started after Bushart commented on a community post promoting a candlelight vigil for activist Charlie Kirk. He shared a meme using a photograph of Trump with the quote “We have to get over it,” a line from the former president’s reaction to a 2024 school shooting in Perry, Iowa. Bushart added a brief remark: “This seems relevant today…” Sheriff Weems treated that post as a possible threat toward Perry County High School in Tennessee, arguing that the reference to “Perry” might alarm locals. That interpretation was all it took to set a full criminal process in motion. Around 8 pm, an officer knocked on Bushart’s door to tell him the sheriff’s office had concerns about something he had posted online. Body camera footage captured the officer’s unease. “I have really no idea what they’re talking about,” he said. When told his post might “insinuate violence,” Bushart replied, “No, it wasn’t. I’m not going to take it down.” Just after 11 p.m., officers returned with an arrest warrant accusing him of “threatening mass violence at a school.” The same footage shows one deputy finishing Bushart’s sentence during the arrest. When Bushart said, “I may have been an asshole, but…” the officer replied, “…that’s not illegal.” Bushart remained behind bars for 37 days, losing his job and missing family milestones, including his wedding anniversary and the birth of a grandchild. The arrest affidavit omitted key details, including the fact that the meme originated elsewhere and clearly referenced another state. Weems later admitted in an interview that he knew the post was unrelated to Tennessee schools at the time of arrest. Bushart’s release came only after media coverage drew national attention. The sheriff defended his actions by claiming the post triggered “mass hysteria,” yet public records show no evidence of community panic. The school district reported no complaints about Bushart’s post, and the county has since declined to produce documentation supporting the sheriff’s account despite multiple public records requests. The filing asserts violations of both the First Amendment, protecting political and social commentary, and the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unlawful seizure. Because FIRE contends that Weems and Morrow knowingly overstepped constitutional limits, the suit also targets them personally, making them financially liable if they lose. Local firm Phillips and Phillips, PLLC, which previously represented Bushart in criminal court, has joined FIRE in the case. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Retired Tennessee Officer Sues Sheriff After Arrest Over Meme in First Amendment Case appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A courtroom drama over state surveillance in India took a striking turn when a Supreme Court judge suggested that people who live transparently should not be troubled by government monitoring. The case involved allegations that Telangana’s state intelligence apparatus was used for political snooping, but the discussion soon widened into a philosophical clash over privacy and power. Former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief T. Prabhakar Rao, accused of directing unlawful phone tapping during the previous BRS government, was before the bench as the State sought more time to keep him in police custody. During the hearing, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned why citizens would object to being monitored at all, asking, “Now we live in an open world. Nobody is in a closed world. Nobody should be really bothered about surveillance. Why should anyone be bothered about surveillance unless they have something to hide?” Her comment prompted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to caution against normalizing government spying. He asked whether this meant “every government will have a free hand in putting people under surveillance,” warning that secret monitoring without authorization was unlawful and incompatible with basic freedoms. Mehta reminded the bench that the Constitution, as affirmed in the landmark Puttaswamy ruling, enshrines privacy as part of human dignity and liberty. “The Supreme Court knows the difference between an ‘open’ world and being under illegal surveillance. My personal communications with my wife… I have a right not to be under surveillance,” he said. Although Justice Nagarathna acknowledged that “ideally” surveillance should not occur, she continued to stress that a person who has “nothing to hide” should not fear it. This reasoning, one often used to rationalize intrusive data collection, was met with unease from those who believe privacy is not contingent on innocence. The case against Rao is centered on claims that he and others conspired to “misuse” SIB systems to watch and profile citizens for partisan advantage. According to police, data obtained through illegal tapping included personal and medical information, and the accused later attempted to destroy the records. “This was an illegal surveillance without any authority of law under the guise that they were being monitored in connection with left-wing extremism…This was profiling. It has to stop here. Thereafter, they tried to destroy the data and evidence,” Mehta argued. The Supreme Court extended Rao’s custody until December 25, after which he must be released while the broader matter remains pending. The bench also prohibited coercive action against him until the next hearing, set for January 16, and instructed him to cooperate with investigators. Rao surrendered at Jubilee Hills police station on December 12, following directions from the top court. His surrender came after the Telangana High Court rejected his request for anticipatory bail, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court. The assumption that only the guilty need privacy overlooks a core constitutional truth: personal life and communication deserve protection not because people have secrets, but because autonomy itself depends on the right to be left alone. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Indian Supreme Court Judge Says Those With Nothing to Hide Shouldn’t Fear Surveillance appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The state of Karnataka has enacted the Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, making it the first Indian state to introduce a standalone law aimed at restricting what it calls “hate speech.” The legislation was passed on December 18 after an incomplete debate and strong objections from the Opposition. Civil liberties groups warn that the law’s language and structure may create one of the most far-reaching systems of preemptive censorship ever introduced at the state level. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. The law defines “hate speech” as “any expression…with an intention to cause injury, disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will,” linked to “prejudicial interests” such as religion, caste, gender, language, or other identities. The definition rests on intent and emotion rather than on provable harm, leaving its interpretation open to broad administrative discretion. “Hate crime” is defined simply as the “communication of hate speech.” Legal observers argue that this collapses the long-recognized distinction between speech and criminal conduct. The Campaign Against Hate Speech (CAHS), a network of lawyers, activists, and academics, stated in a letter to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah that Section 2(i) is “based on emotion of hatred,” a vague standard that has already created problems under the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Home Minister G. Parameshwara, who introduced the bill on December 10 following its Cabinet approval earlier in the month, defended the legislation by referring to recent outbreaks of communal violence. “If we get alerts that a person’s speech is going to create tension, we will ban him. How long can we do that? Therefore, a law is required,” he said, explaining that police needed a lasting framework instead of relying on temporary bans. However, the powers created by the law extend far beyond the ability to impose bans. It authorizes Executive Magistrates, Special Executive Magistrates, and police officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent or above to take “preventive action” against anyone they believe is “likely to commit an offense” under the Act or has “threatened to commit” one. The law does not specify what preventive action may involve or require any procedural safeguards. A separate provision enables the government to order online platforms, service providers, or other intermediaries to block or remove what it considers “hate crime material.” This mirrors the central government’s authority under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, but without its procedural checks. The central law requires written reasons, a hearing, and review by an inter-ministerial committee. The Karnataka bill omits all of these safeguards. The penalties under the new legislation are severe. A first-time conviction can lead to up to seven years in prison and a fine of ₹50,000 (around $556). Repeat offenses can bring up to ten years in prison and a fine of ₹1,00,000 (around $1,112). These offenses are non-bailable, and arrests can be made without a warrant. The law also introduces collective liability. Any organization or institution found guilty of an offense is treated as a whole, and every person “in charge and responsible” for its conduct is presumed guilty unless they can prove lack of knowledge or that they took “all due diligence” to prevent the act. Lawyers note that this reverses the normal presumption of innocence by shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Karnataka Enacts India’s First “Hate Speech” Law appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Dallas Police are considering a plan that would extend facial recognition searches to more routine offenses, expanding Clearview AI’s use beyond serious crimes. The department wants to use the system for cases such as trespassing and package theft, moving biometric surveillance into investigations that previously relied on traditional methods. The partnership with Clearview AI began in mid-2024. Since then, police have used the technology 156 times and say it has helped lead to 25 arrests. Officials described the tool as “vital” during a presentation to the Community Police Oversight Board. If the new proposal moves forward, officers would be able to search Clearview’s massive online image database to identify suspects in minor cases. The company’s system collects billions of photos from public websites and social media, creating a searchable map of faces taken from the open internet. This practice has drawn steady concern from those who see it as a quiet normalization of mass identification. Dallas approved the use of facial recognition last spring after then Police Chief Eddie Garcia said the technology would revolutionize investigations. More: UK Expands Live Facial Recognition Surveillance as Greater Manchester Police Join Nationwide Rollout The city joined other North Texas departments already using similar tools, though officials emphasized that the delayed rollout allowed time to develop stricter internal safeguards meant to protect privacy. Developed by Clearview AI, the program is only permitted for violent crimes or emergencies posing immediate threats to public safety. Each case must be approved before it can be analyzed by an FBI-trained specialist who runs the image through the system. A second analyst independently reviews the matches before any lead moves forward. The department says that four requests have been denied either because the incident did not meet the system’s severity threshold or lacked proper authorization. Council member Cara Mendelsohn expressed confidence when the tool was first adopted. “I have always had a lot of concerns about privacy, whether it is data or other things. This feels very comfortable for me. This feels like efficiency and just the next step,” she said at the time. Only weeks earlier, the company agreed to settle a US lawsuit that consolidated privacy complaints from several states. The Illinois-based case alleged that Clearview’s method of collecting and cataloging people’s faces without consent breached biometric privacy protections. The settlement could cost as much as $50 million. For Dallas, the technology’s promise of faster investigations coexists with the possibility of deeper surveillance. As city leaders weigh efficiency against autonomy, the underlying question remains whether any system built on billions of scraped faces can ever be compatible with true personal privacy. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Dallas Police Propose Expanding AI Facial Recognition to Minor Crimes appeared first on Reclaim The Net.