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.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Victoria is preparing to introduce some of the most far-reaching online censorship and surveillance powers ever proposed in an Australian state, following the Bondi Beach terror attack. Premier Jacinta Allan’s new five-point plan, presented as a response to antisemitism, includes measures that would compel social media platforms to identify users accused of “hate speech” and make companies legally liable if they cannot. Presented as a defense against hate, the plan’s mechanisms cut directly into long-standing principles of privacy and freedom of expression. It positions anonymity online as a form of protection for “cowards,” creating a precedent for government-mandated identity disclosure that could chill lawful speech and dissent. During her announcement, Premier Allan said: “That’s why Victoria will spearhead new laws to hold social media companies and their anonymous users to account – and we’ll commission a respected jurist to unlock the legislative path forward.” Under the proposal, if a user accused of “vilification” cannot be identified, the platform itself could be held responsible for damages. This effectively converts private platforms into instruments of state enforcement, obligating them to expose user data or face financial risk. The Premier also announced plans to accelerate the introduction of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Act 2024, which had been due to take effect in mid-2026. It will now be brought forward to April 2026. The law allows individuals to sue others for public conduct, including online speech, that a “reasonable person” might find “hateful, contemptuous, reviling or severely ridiculing” toward someone with a protected attribute. These protected categories include religion, race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability, among others. This framework gives the state and private citizens broad interpretive power to determine what speech is “hateful.” As many civil liberties experts note, such wording opens the door to legal action based on subjective offense rather than clear, objective harm. More: Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention Weakening Oversight of Speech Prosecutions Premier Allan also intends to remove a major procedural safeguard from Victoria’s criminal vilification laws: the requirement that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) consent to police prosecutions. Without that check, police could independently pursue speech-based offenses, bypassing higher legal oversight. This change would hand significant discretion to law enforcement in determining which speech crosses into criminality. Once enacted, it would mean that a person’s online comments could be prosecuted directly, without review from the state’s top legal office. The “anti-hate” package extends beyond censorship. It proposes new powers for police to shut down protests in the aftermath of “designated terrorist events” and establishes a Commissioner for Preventing and Countering Violent Political Extremism to coordinate programs across schools, clubs, and religious institutions. These measures, combined with the online anonymity restrictions, represent a substantial consolidation of state power over communication, movement, and association, all justified in the name of combating hate and maintaining safety. Requiring companies to unmask users fundamentally undermines the principle of anonymous participation, a cornerstone of free expression, whistleblowing, and political organizing. Anonymity has historically protected vulnerable groups, dissidents, and small voices from retaliation. Under Victoria’s proposal, those protections could erode rapidly as platforms are pressured to reveal identities or face litigation. Laws targeting “hate speech” often extend far beyond their original purpose, evolving into broad speech controls that deter public criticism, satire, and unpopular opinions. Once enacted, such powers rarely contract. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Victoria Moves to Force Online Platforms to ID Users and Expand State Powers to Curb “Hate Speech” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.