If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Bluesky has halted access to its platform in Mississippi, choosing to stand against a newly-enacted state law that compels online services to verify the age and identity of every user before granting access. The company argues that the legislation not only threatens individual privacy but also risks eroding the foundations of online anonymity and freedom of expression. Mississippi’s HB 1126 requires all users, regardless of what content they intend to access, to undergo age verification and, in the case of minors, provide parental consent. More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda The law imposes significant penalties for noncompliance, with fines that could reach $10,000 per user. For Bluesky, a small team working on decentralized, privacy-focused social technology, these demands represent more than just a logistical burden. “The Supreme Court’s recent decision leaves us facing a hard reality: comply with Mississippi’s age assurance law—and make every Mississippi Bluesky user hand over sensitive personal information and undergo age checks to access the site—or risk massive fines,” the company said in a statement. “The law would also require us to identify and track which users are children, unlike our approach in other regions.” Bluesky warned that the implications of this law extend well beyond child safety. By forcing identity verification for every user, the state has essentially enacted a digital ID system that undermines the ability to engage online without being monitored. “We think this law creates challenges that go beyond its child safety goals, and creates significant barriers that limit free speech and disproportionately harm smaller platforms and emerging technologies.” While Bluesky reiterated its commitment to protecting younger users: “Keeping children safe online is a core priority for Bluesky.” It also pointed out that effective safety tools don’t require sacrificing basic digital rights. Such blanket mandates not only threaten personal privacy but make anonymous participation in public discourse nearly impossible. Bluesky’s leadership noted that the law would force the platform to build a system that gathers and stores extensive personal data from every user, an approach at odds with the values that underpin decentralized technologies. “Unlike tech giants with vast resources, we’re a small team focused on building decentralized social technology that puts users in control,” the company stated. “Age verification systems require substantial infrastructure and developer time investments, complex privacy protections, and ongoing compliance monitoring — costs that can easily overwhelm smaller providers. This dynamic entrenches existing big tech platforms while stifling the innovation and competition that benefits users.” The company warned that introducing identity checks across the board could chill free speech and suppress minority voices that rely on anonymity for safety. “We believe effective child safety policies should be carefully tailored to address real harms, without creating huge obstacles for smaller providers and resulting in negative consequences for free expression.” Until the courts decide whether the law will stand, Bluesky is blocking access from Mississippi IP addresses. Visitors from the state will now see a notice explaining the temporary restriction. This policy only affects the Bluesky app itself. Other applications built on the AT Protocol are free to make different choices. “We believe this flexibility is one of the strengths of decentralized systems—different providers can make decisions that align with their values and capabilities, especially during periods of regulatory uncertainty.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Bluesky Halts Access in Mississippi to Oppose Digital ID Law appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Lucy Connolly is not, by her own admission, a politician, a pundit, or a revolutionary. She is, as she puts it, a “nobody.” A mother of two from Northampton, England, married to an engineer and local politician; and, until last year, was more concerned with school runs and snack schedules than the state of Britain’s freedom of expression. Then came a social media post, written in a moment of raw emotion after a horrific mass killing, and the next thing she knew, Connolly was in prison serving a sentence for inciting racial hatred. The facts of the case are already well documented. In the immediate aftermath of the Southport murders, where three girls were killed at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event, Connolly posted on X, calling for mass deportations. Her comments were inflammatory, emotional, and, within hours, deleted. Days later, the police came knocking. Connolly was arrested, charged, and eventually sentenced to 31 months behind bars. She served just over a year. Lucy Connolly’s imprisonment has sparked a renewed conversation about the fragile state of free speech in the United Kingdom. Her case became a stark reminder of how little legal protection exists for freedom of expression in Britain, particularly when compared to countries like the United States. In the UK, there is no equivalent to the First Amendment. Speech can and regularly does result in criminal charges if it is deemed “grossly offensive” or judged to incite hatred, a standard so vague and subjective that it often hinges on political context, public backlash, or media scrutiny. Connolly’s conviction under hate speech laws for a deleted tweet that expressed rage following a horrific child murder is a chilling example of where those limits now fall. Connolly’s persecution received international attention. Across the Atlantic, the legal outcome would almost certainly have been different. In the United States, even the most inflammatory speech is generally protected unless it directly incites imminent lawless action. That line, clearly defined by decades of Supreme Court rulings, allows for harsh, even outrageous expression without fear of state punishment. The American model treats speech as a shield against government overreach; the UK, increasingly, uses speech as a gateway to prosecution. As Connolly herself pointed out in an interview with the Telegraph after finally being released from prison, “I will never understand how it got to this.” The truth is, it got to this because the UK’s legal framework allows it, and increasingly, encourages it. Connolly is calling it what she believes it was: a political prosecution. “Absolutely. Me and several other people,” she said to Allison Pearson, when asked if she saw herself as a political prisoner. And she does not mince words about who she believes orchestrated the example-making. The Prime Minister himself. Connolly says her tweet was not premeditated. It was not part of any campaign. It was a burst of rage, written in grief. She had lost her first child in 2012 due to failures of the UK’s National Health Service, a wound that, she says, was ripped wide open by the killings in Southport. “It came from a place of pain,” she told Pearson. “It was not my finest moment.” But she insists it was not an incitement to violence, nor was it rooted in hatred. “I definitely don’t advocate violence,” she said. The state argued otherwise. The CPS believed the post could incite racial hatred and saw fit to prosecute under one of the UK’s most serious public order laws. Connolly’s supporters, on the other hand, argue that while the post was unquestionably offensive and wrong, the response from the state was wildly disproportionate. The political undercurrent in Connolly’s prosecution is impossible to ignore, especially given the timing. Just days before her arrest, Prime Minister Keir Starmer gave a televised speech in the wake of riots across the country following the Southport killings. He condemned what he described as “far-right thuggery” and warned that those stoking unrest online would be dealt with. Connolly believes those comments were not rhetorical. They were operational. “A hundred per cent,” she said, when asked if she believed Starmer’s remarks influenced her prosecution. “He needs to practice what he preaches. He’s a human rights lawyer, so maybe he needs to look at what people’s human rights are; what freedom of speech means.” Speaking to Dan Wootton of the Outspoken podcast, Connolly went further. Connolly accused Starmer of turning her into a political example. Connolly said Starmer deliberately pushed for her to be remanded in custody as part of a wider crackdown. “Remand” means being held in prison before trial or sentencing rather than being released on bail. Bail is normally granted to defendants who are not considered a flight risk, particularly first-time offenders, but Connolly says she was denied that standard practice. “Instead of saying, you know, we know you’re upset, we know you’re angry, but this is not the way, and it won’t be tolerated,” Starmer instead said: “You’re all far right activists and racists and thugs. And you know, I don’t care if you’re upset that those three children have died, I don’t care if you’re scared for your own children, this is what we’re going to do. And you know, he said it himself, we will remand you, because that isn’t standard practice. To remand people like me, that isn’t a flight risk, that’s never offended before, and was very unlikely to offend again. It wouldn’t be standard practice,” she said. Starmer’s message was clear. Social media rage was going to be met with legal action. Connolly, many believe, simply became the most convenient test case. On the wider question of civil liberties under the Starmer government, Connolly was blunt: “I don’t think so, no [the UK does not have free speech]. And that’s become increasingly apparent, isn’t it?…We need to remember that there are still other people in prison.” She described those detainees as “other political prisoners,” adding: “So I would like Keir Starmer and the CPS and any of these people that had a hand in this to tell me exactly what they are achieving by putting the likes of me in prison…What are they gaining apart from an absolute minimum of £55,000 a year bill to the taxpayer? What’s being gained?” Connolly maintains she was pressured into pleading guilty. The courts were backlogged. Her daughter was waiting at home. Her legal team advised her that a trial would drag out for months. “What is my quickest route home?” she asked. And with that, she signed the papers. She also claims the police misrepresented her during the investigation. A CPS statement initially alleged that she told officers she “disliked immigrants.” That was later walked back. Lucy Connolly did not wait long to make her intentions clear. Just one day after stepping out of HMP Peterborough, she announced she was weighing legal action against the very authorities who put her there. “That’s something that I will be looking into,” she told The Telegraph. “I don’t want to say too much because I need to seek legal advice on that, but I do think the police were dishonest in what they released and what they said about me, and I will be holding them to account for that.” Since her release, she has returned to being a mother, albeit one who now sees the state from a far less innocent perspective. She marked her return with a bracelet and necklace gifted by her daughter, a private moment after more than a year of very public punishment. “They hope they broke me while I was in there,” she said. “But I’m here to tell you that they didn’t.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Speech Police: Lucy Connolly Speaks Out After Jail For Social Media Post appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. 4chan’s legal team has firmly rejected an attempt by UK regulator Ofcom to impose penalties under Britain’s new Online Safety Act, declaring the proposed fine unenforceable and a direct challenge to free expression protected by US law. The media regulator wants the site to pay a £20,000 ($27,010.78) penalty, with additional daily fines if it continues to ignore requests tied to its ongoing investigation. However, Preston Byrne, the attorney representing 4chan, argues that the demand lacks legal standing in the United States. Speaking to the BBC, Byrne described the regulator’s actions as “an illegal campaign of harassment” directed at American tech firms. Byrne made clear his client would not comply: “4chan has broken no laws in the United States, my client will not pay any penalty.” Ofcom launched its investigation to determine whether the platform meets requirements laid out in the Online Safety Act, which compels digital services to shield UK-based users from “harmful” content. In August, the regulator issued what it called a “provisional notice of contravention,” accusing 4chan of failing to respond to two formal data requests. The site, long known for its loose moderation policies and anonymous posting, has been a regular target of controversy over the years. Its open nature allows for a broad range of user expression, which some governments now seek to restrict under the pretext of safety. In a public statement released on X, legal representatives for 4chan doubled down. Byrne & Storm, alongside Coleman Law, stated: “American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email.” They argued that US courts have consistently refused to enforce foreign censorship fines, and if necessary, they would escalate the matter in federal court to protect those constitutional rights. The statement added that US authorities were already briefed on the situation, and it urged the Trump administration to “invoke all diplomatic and legal levers” in defense of US-based platforms against what it called “extraterritorial censorship mandates.” Ofcom declined to provide further comment while the investigation remains open. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post 4chan Rejects UK Ofcom Fine, Citing US Free Speech Protections and Threatening Legal Action appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Foreign Malign Influence Center (FMIC), a government office created during the Biden administration under the pretense of countering foreign disinformation, has been officially shut down as part of a broad overhaul of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) led by Director Tulsi Gabbard. The move is being described by the administration as an effort to dismantle wasteful, politicized, and unconstitutional programs that have operated well beyond the intended scope of US intelligence work. A fact sheet released by ODNI reveals that FMIC, along with its earlier incarnations, served as a tool for suppressing domestic political speech, particularly viewpoints at odds with the previous administration. “FMIC and its predecessor entities were used by the previous administration to justify the suppression of free speech and to censor political opposition,” the document states. Furthermore, it details the existence of a sustained partnership between the center and major technology companies, including X, Facebook, and Google, which ODNI says lacked any objective or scientific grounding and may have been weaponized against Americans. This coordination, according to ODNI, took place under the guise of countering foreign influence but functioned in practice as a mechanism to police and control public discourse online. The fact sheet highlights a specific incident from October 2020, when FMIC, then operating as the Election Threats Executive, was involved in shaping how social media platforms responded to the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop. That reporting was rapidly suppressed across major platforms, an act that later drew widespread condemnation from free speech advocates. The ODNI document directly connects FMIC to that censorship effort, noting its coordination with platforms on their response to the story. Gabbard, speaking with Fox News host Jesse Watters, condemned the center’s activities in clear terms. “It was essentially used as a means to censor Americans’ free speech, calling it, ‘Hey, you’re spreading disinformation,’” she explained. Gabbard further stated that FMIC worked directly with social media companies to silence dissent, particularly criticism of the Biden administration, which she described as “a direct contradiction and undermining of our fundamental constitutional rights.” Although the ODNI fact sheet stops short of using the term “abolished,” it does confirm that FMIC’s functions are being dismantled and its personnel absorbed elsewhere. The agency’s language states it is “refocusing functions within the Foreign Malign Influence Center” and integrating any necessary components into other divisions like Mission Integration and the National Intelligence Council. Nevertheless, in her interview, Gabbard was clear that the center’s days of operating as an independent entity are over. Beyond FMIC, the Gabbard-led reforms are targeting a range of other ODNI entities accused of serving partisan purposes rather than advancing national security. Among those being eliminated are the External Research Council and the Strategic Futures Group, both criticized for pushing politically motivated intelligence. According to the fact sheet, the overall restructuring, referred to as “ODNI 2.0,” will slash agency staffing by nearly half and save taxpayers over $700 million per year. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Tulsi Gabbard Shuts Down Foreign Malign Influence Center, Citing Political Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies has advanced a bill marketed as a child protection measure, drawing sharp condemnation from lawmakers who say the process ignored legislative rules and opens the door to broad censorship of online content. Bill PL 2628/2022, which outlines mandatory rules for digital platforms operating in Brazil, moved forward at an unusually fast pace after Chamber President Hugo Motta approved an urgency request on August 19. That decision cut off critical steps in the legislative process, including committee review and broader debate, allowing the proposal to reach the full floor for a vote just one day later. The urgency motion, Requerimento de Urgência REQ 1785/2025, passed without a roll-call vote. Instead, Motta used a symbolic vote, a method that records no individual positions and relies on the presiding officer’s perception of consensus. Requests for a formal, recorded vote were rejected outright. Congressman Marcel van Hattem (NOVO-RS) accused the Chamber’s leadership of bypassing democratic norms. He said Motta approved the urgency request to expand the “censorship” of the Lula government. Other deputies joined the protest, calling the process arbitrary and abusive. Under the bill, digital platforms must verify users’ ages, take down material labeled offensive to minors, and comply with orders from a newly created federal oversight authority. That body would hold sweeping powers to enforce regulations, issue sanctions, and even suspend platforms for up to 30 days in some circumstances, potentially without a full court decision. Although the urgent request had been filed back in May, it gained renewed traction after social media influencer Felca released a series of videos exposing what he called the “adultization” of children online. His content prompted widespread media coverage and pushed the topic of online child safety to the forefront. In response, Motta committed to fast-tracking related legislation. Opponents argue the bill serves as a vehicle for political control over online speech. Congressman Mario Frias (PL-SP) said, “Hugo Motta emptied the plenary and, in cowardice, approved ‘symbolically’ a project they say is to protect children, but which is actually censorship.” He accused Motta of betraying the institution’s commitment to freedom of expression. Congressman Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG) criticized the move as an abuse of authority. “I do not believe that this is a position that the President should adopt in this House,” he said, pointing to the use of the symbolic vote as a way to silence debate. Mauricio Marcon (Podemos-RS) warned that the bill is being used as a way to justify restrictions on digital platforms and political speech. “The government uses children and adolescents as a shield to censor social networks,” he said. “There is no more democracy even within the Brazilian Parliament; Brazil is over.” The proposal will now return to the Senate for final analysis. As Brazil barrels ahead with legislation that imposes age checks, content takedowns, and a powerful regulatory body in the name of child safety, lawmakers and civil society should take note of how a similar approach in the United Kingdom has already triggered significant resistance and exposed serious risks to free speech and digital rights. The UK’s Online Safety Act, passed in 2023 after years of debate, was also introduced under the banner of protecting children from harmful online content. Much like Brazil’s PL 2628/2022, the British law gave broad powers to regulators, required platforms to enforce age verification, and demanded fast takedowns of content labeled as harmful. The result was a flurry of backlash from free speech advocates, tech experts, privacy campaigners, and even members of Parliament who warned the law would do far more than protect minors. Critics argued the UK’s law blurred the line between illegal and “legal but harmful” content, allowing the state to pressure platforms into removing lawful speech based on vague or politically influenced definitions. The result, many warned, would be a chilling effect across the internet, particularly around sensitive subjects such as politics, gender, and health. Concerns were also raised about the surveillance implications of mandatory age checks, which often require biometric data or government ID, effectively ending online anonymity for millions. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Brazil Uses Child Safety as Cover for Online Digital ID Surge appeared first on Reclaim The Net.