If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Two new resolutions introduced in Congress directly challenge the growing influence of European and British online censorship laws on American speech. Together, they signal a coordinated effort to push back against a creeping erosion of First Amendment freedoms by foreign powers. In the Senate, Senator Mike Lee introduced S. Res. 567, declaring that “any attempt by foreign entities to censor or penalize constitutionally protected speech of United States persons shall be opposed.” The resolution frames freedom of expression as a defining principle of American identity, describing it as “a hallmark of American exceptionalism” and “necessary to ensure that truth can always be spoken, lies can always be exposed, and important questions can always be asked.” The Senate measure specifically condemns the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), arguing that the law seeks to export European censorship norms across borders. It warns that the EU has been “attempting to force United States entities to use products and technology to censor and undermine free speech occurring in the United States” and that it “threatens steep penalties under the Digital Services Act if United States entities do not implement the censorship regime required under the Act.” Senator Lee’s resolution cites the EU’s 2024 threat against Elon Musk over his interview with President Trump on X and the $140 million fine levied against the platform in 2025. It concludes by urging action: “The Senate… urges the Trump administration to ensure swift and firm rejoinders to any implementation of disapproved activities.” Meanwhile, in the House, Representative Jeff Van Drew introduced H. Res. 967, asserting that “European laws and regulations unfairly and unreasonably burden American speech and innovation.” The resolution targets the EU’s Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, along with the UK’s Online Safety Act and Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, calling for formal US opposition to their enforcement. The House measure highlights the political misuse of vague regulatory terms, warning that “labels like ‘misinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ are inevitably used by the powerful to censor critics and silence dissent.” It also references congressional oversight findings that “the Biden administration coerced and colluded with social media companies to censor First Amendment-protected discourse related to elections and the COVID–19 pandemic.” Emphasizing the economic and constitutional stakes, the resolution further states that “European digital censorship laws set de facto international standards for content moderation” and that they “violate the due process rights of American companies to administer fines and penalties that amount to targeted trade barriers against Americans.” Both resolutions reflect a growing determination among lawmakers to prevent foreign governments from shaping the boundaries of US speech. From a free expression perspective, the message is clear: Congress is drawing a line between legitimate cooperation on global digital policy and the imposition of foreign censorship norms within the United States. By formally calling on the Trump administration to respond through diplomatic and economic channels, these measures make a broader statement that the defense of open debate and the protection of American platforms from extraterritorial censorship are matters of national sovereignty and democratic integrity. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Resolutions Introduced in Congress Challenge EU and UK Online Censorship Laws’ Influence on US Free Speech appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Ireland’s Joint Committee on Artificial Intelligence has issued a report urging new national laws to regulate how AI systems and social media platforms handle online speech and data. We obtained a copy of the report for you here. The document, released this week in Dublin, outlines a plan to target “hate” and “misinformation” while pressing the government to go beyond European Union standards and impose tighter domestic controls. The committee’s First Interim Report calls for strict oversight of AI-driven recommendation engines, the systems that determine what users see online. It argues that algorithms which amplify “harmful and hateful content” should be directly addressed through legislation, identifying this as a serious gap in current regulation that “must be addressed in any EU and national legislation.” Two organizations featured prominently in the report’s evidence sessions: the Irish Traveller Movement and BeLonG To. Both receive significant public funding for programs centered on “anti-racism” and “LGBT advocacy.” The Traveller Movement told lawmakers that children in its community are vulnerable to algorithmic bias, while BeLonG To said “AI perpetuating discriminatory stereotypes” and producing content that targets minority groups are growing problems. The committee concluded that “strong enforcement of the Digital Services Act and safety by design” is needed to deal with these harms. Beyond content moderation, the committee recommends that governments compel social media companies to stop AI systems from being used “for misinformation campaigns aimed at destabilising society.” It warns that Ireland “must not shy away from the EU AI Act or try to dilute it,” describing the Act as “a minimum baseline for national AI regulation.” One of the most far-reaching recommendations concerns how platforms deliver information. The committee proposes that “recommender systems should be designed so that recommended material that is put out delivers a balanced point of view, that is evidence-based.” For ordinary users, recommendation features would be switched off by default. For younger users, the report calls for a complete ban on enabling these systems. Although the document never uses the term “digital ID age verification,” its logic depends on it. Identifying which accounts belong to minors would require verifying the age of every user, effectively introducing a nationwide system of identity checks before accessing algorithmic feeds. The report dismisses concerns that stricter oversight could harm innovation. Referring to testimony from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, it argues that “the false dichotomy of innovation vs. regulation serves the vested interests of billionaires,” concluding that “robust, well-implemented regulation of AI is essential.” It also advises the government to invest in “publicly owned AI resources and technologies” to reduce dependence on private companies, and to tighten copyright protections so that AI developers cannot train their models on creative works “without the consent of their creators.” The committee wants a new “national AI Office” in place by August 2026 to coordinate these efforts. Disabling recommendation engines, enforcing “balanced” viewpoints, and tracking user ages would move control of digital information flows toward centralized authorities, raising concerns about privacy, free expression, and the long-term direction of internet governance in Ireland. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Ireland’s AI Committee Urges National Laws on Online Speech, Algorithmic Oversight, and Age Verification appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Louisiana’s attempt to make social media companies verify the ages of their users with a digital ID has been struck down, with a federal judge ruling that the law violates the First Amendment and imposes unconstitutional burdens on lawful speech. In his 94-page decision, US District Judge John deGravelles of Louisiana’s Middle District found that the Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act “is at once under-inclusive and over-inclusive.” We obtained a copy of the decision for you here. The court stated, “It is under-inclusive in that minors can encounter the same potentially harmful content on unregulated websites and can gain more or less unrestricted access to covered platforms upon satisfying the one-time age-verification and parental-consent requirements. It is over-inclusive in that it burdens a large amount of protected speech for minors and adults alike. And it is seemingly largely redundant of existing parental controls, meaning that there is a less-restrictive alternative: Louisiana can encourage the use of available tools.” The case, NetChoice v. Murrill, was brought by an industry group representing Meta, X, Snapchat, and YouTube. More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda NetChoice argued that the law forced both minors and adults to submit identifying information before they could speak or read online, an approach it said would chill speech and invade privacy. Judge deGravelles agreed, writing that “most of the Act’s restrictions are ‘all or nothing’ proposals.” He explained, “An adult or minor must verify her age, at which point she will gain access to more or less the entire platform. But if she balks at the age-verification process, then she will be barred from the platform, including its many forms of fully protected speech.” Drawing on Supreme Court precedents, the judge reaffirmed that “even minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection” and that states do not have “a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.” He added that “to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.” The court also warned of the broader risk that arises when governments justify speech restrictions as safety measures. “The protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions,” deGravelles wrote. “The risk of a chilling effect is enough, because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive.” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who defended the law, said the decision was “very disappointing” and pledged to appeal. She maintained that the policy simply aimed to reinforce parental authority online. Paul Fiske, co-director of NetChoice’s Litigation Center, said the ruling protects both speech and privacy. “Louisiana’s law would have done more than chill free speech,” he said. “It would have created a massive privacy risk for Louisianans like those playing out in real time in countries without a First Amendment, like the UK.” Judge deGravelles ordered the state to pay NetChoice’s attorney fees and court costs. In his words, “When the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.” The court concluded that Louisiana had failed to meet that burden. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Federal Judge Strikes Down Louisiana’s Social Media Digital ID Age Verification Law as Unconstitutional appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Senator Eric Schmitt has called on the US State Department to impose sanctions and visa restrictions against foreign officials, regulators, and organizations that he says are working to export censorship laws into the United States. In a December 18 letter to Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Sarah B. Rogers, Schmitt warned that coordinated efforts by European and other foreign governments pose “threats to American speech and sovereignty.” We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. “I write today to express my grave concerns about the threats to American speech and sovereignty posed by an emergent international censorship regime,” Schmitt stated in the letter. He described the growing influence of European-style digital speech laws as a direct challenge to US independence and warned that these systems aim to “impose hard-left ideological strictures” on American discourse. He urged the State Department to respond forcefully: “We must confront this campaign of foreign subversion with swift and decisive action. I therefore strongly encourage the State Department to impose sanctions and visa restrictions on the foreign individuals and entities involved in this assault on our freedom of speech.” The senator pointed to the European Union’s $140 million fine against X, formerly Twitter, under the Digital Services Act as an example of an attempt to force American platforms to align with European content controls. “The EU’s message to X is clear: This fine is a warning—start censoring Americans or else,” Schmitt wrote. Schmitt’s letter argues that this international pressure campaign reflects a wider “global censorship-industrial complex” modeled on structures he fought domestically. “To ensure our government would no longer censor our fellow Americans, I successfully fought to defund the State Department’s censorship apparatus and shutter the Global Engagement Center,” he noted. He urged the use of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and other statutory tools to target those advancing censorship abroad. “Sanctioning the global censorship-industrial complex would not only send an important diplomatic message that the United States will not tolerate foreign censorship but also forcefully deter and punish all the foreign individuals and entities who seek to impose it.” Schmitt tied his appeal to the principle of national sovereignty: “The fundamental principle of America First demands that we protect our citizens’ fundamental rights from the threats they face from abroad.” He closed with a broader warning about the stakes for American freedom. “The American people will not abide this brazen foreign censorship. Our Constitution and laws prohibit it. If the United States is to protect the freedoms that form the beating heart of our way of life, then we must fight back and prevent foreign governments from violating our sovereignty and eviscerating our freedom of speech by imposing their censorship laws on our citizens on our own soil.” Schmitt’s closing argument positions the issue as a matter of national defense rather than internet policy. He warns that when foreign governments dictate what Americans can say online, they are exercising power over the US public itself. His push for sanctions and visa bans is meant to flip the script, punishing those who attempt to export censorship instead of rewarding them with diplomatic deference. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Senator Eric Schmitt Calls for Sanctions on Foreign Officials Promoting Censorship in the US appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A data breach involving analytics company Mixpanel has left PornHub facing a serious privacy fallout. The stolen data includes email addresses, approximate locations, search terms, and viewing histories linked to PornHub Premium users. PornHub’s internal systems were not breached, but the event exposes a larger problem: once personal data is collected, it can live on indefinitely in third-party systems that may later be compromised. PornHub confirmed that “a recent cybersecurity incident involving Mixpanel, a third-party data analytics provider, has impacted some Pornhub Premium users.” The company stressed that “this was not a breach of Pornhub Premium’s systems” and that “passwords, payment details, and financial information remain secure and were not exposed.” PornHub also said that it stopped working with Mixpanel in 2021, which suggests the stolen records date from that period or earlier. The group known as ShinyHunters has claimed responsibility and is now attempting to extort PornHub. They say they possess about 94GB of data containing more than 200 million analytics records showing what users searched for, watched, and downloaded. Their messages to affected companies begin with “We are ShinyHunters” and threaten to publish the information if no ransom is paid. Samples of the stolen material reportedly include highly specific details such as a user’s email address, what videos they viewed, related search keywords, and timestamps. This data reveals just how much personal insight can be derived from seemingly routine analytics logs. Mixpanel denies that the breach is connected to its November 2025 incident. In a statement, the company said, “Mixpanel is aware of reports that Pornhub has been extorted with data that was allegedly stolen from us. We can find no indication that this data was stolen from Mixpanel during our November 2025 security incident or otherwise.” It added that the data “was last accessed by a legitimate employee account at Pornhub’s parent company in 2023.” This breach highlights a growing privacy concern beyond PornHub itself. Governments in several countries have pushed for mandatory age verification systems for adult websites, often requiring users to provide government-issued identification. More: Tea App Leak Shows Why UK’s Digital ID Age Verification Laws are Dangerous Supporters argue it protects minors, but events like this show the real danger: the more information websites are forced to collect, the greater the harm when that information is exposed. If a site holding only email and activity data can cause this much damage when breached, the outcome would be far worse if those records were tied to verified names or IDs. Centralized identification systems create a permanent risk of exposure. Even data collected years ago can reappear in criminal hands, leaving users with no practical way to erase their digital footprint. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post PornHub Data Leak Shows Danger of Government-Mandated Digital ID Systems for Online Access appeared first on Reclaim The Net.