If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Controversial Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes has ordered a nationwide suspension of the video-sharing platform Rumble, citing its refusal to comply with legal directives. The Brazilian Supreme Court justice issued the ruling on Friday, accusing the platform of deliberately evading Brazil’s judicial system. The conflict escalated after Moraes demanded on Thursday that Rumble appoint a legal representative in Brazil within 48 hours. The company did not respond to the directive, prompting the justice to take action. According to pro-censorship Justice, Rumble has exhibited a pattern of non-compliance, showing a “repeated, conscious, and willing” disregard for Brazil’s legal framework. A key issue in the dispute is Rumble’s failure to remove the account of Allan dos Santos, a Brazilian fugitive residing in the United States since 2020. Dos Santos, a vocal supporter of former President Jair Bolsonaro, has been the subject of legal actions in Brazil. A tweet from Chris Pavlovski addressing Alexandre, rejecting what he describes as an illegal and secret order, stating it lacks authority over Rumble in the USA. “I determine the immediate, complete, and total suspension of the operations of ‘Rumble INC.’ in national territory until all court orders issued in these proceedings – including the payment of fines – are complied with, and a legal or natural person is designated in court as the representative in national territory,” the ruling stated. In response, Rumble denounced the suspension, describing it as “unprecedented censorship in Brazil.” “Justice de Moraes demanded that Rumble remove specific content and halt financial transactions related to individuals exercising their free speech rights under US law,” the company said in a statement to the press. “Our commitment to free expression and adherence to US legal standards compelled us to reject these extraterritorial censorship demands.” Rumble also stated that it is exploring all legal avenues to challenge the ruling. Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski addressed de Moraes directly in a tweet, rejecting what he called an illegal and secret order that he believes has no authority over a US-based platform. In a follow-up post, he declared, “Make Brazil Free Again” and assured Brazilians that he would fight relentlessly for their freedom of expression. Rumble and Truth Social’s parent company, TMTG, have filed a lawsuit in Florida, arguing that Moraes’ secret censorship orders targeting US users violate the First Amendment. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Pro-Censorship Brazilian Justice Orders Nationwide Ban on Rumble appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Another showdown between US tech platforms and Brazil – more to the point, Brazilian pro-censorship Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes – has started, but compared to the events of last year, under dramatically different political circumstances in the US. Rumble and Truth Social owners TMTG have just filed a lawsuit in Florida, alleging that Moraes’ secret censorship orders targeting US users violate their First Amendment rights and, back in Brazil, Moraes has chosen to continue with the same tactic he used in the past – increase pressure on those tech companies that challenge his censorship policies. A tweet from Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski addressing Alexandre, rejecting what he describes as an illegal and secret order, stating it lacks authority over Rumble in the USA. Here, the justice decided to go after Rumble, by giving the company 48 hours to comply with the order to inform the authorities about its legal representative in Brazil and provide proof of regular corporate status (essentially, establishing jurisdiction over the platform). This is done as part of ongoing investigations into social platforms allegedly spreading “illegal content” and “attacks on democracy.” The requirements related to legal representation are explained as necessary to ensure foreign companies can respond to court orders – “especially” those related to fighting “disinformation” and, “hate speech.” Moraes wants Rumble to block the channel of Allan dos Santos, a dissident Brazilian journalist who is based in the US, prevent him from creating new ones, and also block financial transfers to Santos, who some Brazilian media reports refer to as “an influencer.” Pavlovski’s posts on X on Thursday, a day after the lawsuit against Moraes was filed, read, “Make Brazil Free Again” – and, addressing all Brazilians, and stating that while he may not be one, “no one will fight harder for your freedom of expression rights than me. I will fight to the very end, relentlessly, without folding.” The Rumble-TMTG lawsuit accuses Moraes of violating free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment by issuing an order to suspend the US-based account “of a specific well-known, politically outspoken user.” The announcement of the lawsuit also noted that “neither Rumble nor TMTG have any entities, operations, employees, bank accounts, or businesses in Brazil,” while the Florida court is asked to declare Moraes’ demands “unenforceable in the United States.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes Escalates Pressure on Rumble After Lawsuit Over Secret Censorship Orders appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In Ireland, the national police and security service, Garda Síochána, failed in its attempts to get X to hand over private messages and the personal details, including IP addresses of every person who had logged into the account of an independent outlet, Gript Media. The police wanted the data starting from the time in April 2024 when Gript Media published footage of an incident involving Garda officers and members of the public, that happened as a migrant asylum center was being opened in Newtownmountkennedy. One of the scenes included an officer using force and pepper spraying Gript Media journalist Fatima Gunning. However, this attempt to enlist X in Garda’s efforts to spy on journalists resulted in the platform successfully challenging it in court. A post from X’s Global Affairs team said that 10 users in Ireland were informed on February 14 that court orders that sought to give government access to their data were successfully opposed. Several days later, Gript Media editor John McGurk made a statement to say the demand sent to X was an intolerable and disturbing development and a serious problem that represented an attack on the free press and privacy in Ireland. McGurk put things in perspective that are similar to what is happening in other countries where police time and resources are wasted on what are ultimately issues involving political speech. “When you have a police force in a country with a serious problem with increasing levels of crime, especially violent crime, devoting energy and efforts to try and peer into the private messages of the only truly independent and non-state-funded national media platform in their own country, we’ve got a serious problem here,” McGurk said. He underlined that the nature of the Dublin court orders – issued to X last June – was such that it left the media outlet without the opportunity to mount a legal defense or respond. Section 62 (Criminal Justice Act 1994) was cited in the order, basing its necessity on what McGurk calls “the very flimsy pretext that we might have some evidence connecting somebody somewhere to that crime.” That was supposed to be enough to persuade X to allow the authorities access to the journalists’ IP addresses, but also private messages exchanged with readers, sources, and supporters. McGurk noted that the only reason Gript Media staff know about this is X’s “proactive approach” in informing them. “It is very telling that when the Irish police were challenged on the legality of their act by X, they backed out,” McGurk said, adding, “They decided not to pursue it, and therefore I’m happy to report that none of our material was handed over to them, nor will it be.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post X Wins Legal Battle Against Irish Police Over Gript Media User Data Request appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday, Vice President JD Vance sharpened his criticism of America’s European allies while issuing a strong warning against censorship. His speech, which kicked off the three-day gathering, echoed the assertive stance he took at the Munich Security Conference last week. Vance took aim at one of America’s closest international partners, highlighting growing ideological rifts over free speech. He criticized restrictive online censorship laws in the European Union, arguing that such measures could drive a wedge between the US and its allies under President Trump’s leadership. Display "Vice President JD Vance Appeals to Young Voters at CPAC: "We Need You"" from rumble.com Click here to display content from rumble.com Always display content from rumble.com Open "Vice President JD Vance Appeals to Young Voters at CPAC: “We Need You”" directly “We’re going to continue to have important alliances with Europe, but I really do think the strength of those alliances is going to depend on whether we take our societies in the right direction,” Vance stated. “You have to allow free speech to debate this stuff,” Vance declared, emphasizing the importance of open discussion on controversial issues, particularly immigration. “You have to stop doing things to the populations of the world. You’ve gotta give the populations of the world the opportunity to speak up and say, no more of this BS.” The Vice President did not hold back in his criticism of the previous US administration, stating, “The Biden administration did more to destroy free speech, not just in the United States, but also in Europe, than any administration in American history.” Vance also took direct aim at Germany, highlighting the contradiction of American taxpayers funding the country’s defense while its government cracks down on free expression. “Germany’s entire defense is subsidized by the American taxpayer,” he said. “Do you think the American taxpayer is gonna stand for that if you get thrown in jail in Germany for posting a mean tweet? Of course, they’re not.” The Vice President framed his argument in terms of shared values, asserting that true alliances are built on a foundation of democratic freedoms. “You do not have shared values if you’re jailing people for saying we should close down our border,” he warned. “You don’t have shared values if you cancel elections because you don’t like the result. You do not have shared values if you’re so afraid of your own people that you silence them and shut them up.” His message resonated with conservative leaders attending CPAC’s international summit, where discussions focused on resisting censorship and preserving national sovereignty. Vance closed with a call for unity among Western nations based on principles of democracy and free speech. “Let’s have shared values. Let’s defend democracy. Let’s have free expression, not just in the United States, but all over the Western world. That is the path to strong alliances in Europe.” His words were met with enthusiastic applause from the CPAC audience. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post VP JD Vance Criticizes European Censorship, Calls for Free Speech as Basis for US-Europe Alliances at CPAC appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Apple has effectively told the UK government to get lost when it comes to inserting a worldwide surveillance backdoor into its iCloud encryption. Instead of playing along with Britain’s ever-expanding digital police state, the tech giant has chosen to pull its most secure data protection feature — Advanced Data Protection (ADP) — for users in the UK. Because nothing says “we respect your privacy” like stripping away the very feature designed to protect it. The whole mess started when the British government, wielding the notoriously invasive Investigatory Powers Act (a law that might as well be named the “We Own Your Data Act”), demanded that Apple sabotage its own encryption. The UK’s authorities wanted a golden key to every citizen’s iCloud storage, under the guise of “public safety.” But here’s the wider issue: the directive wouldn’t only affect Brits — it would have compromised Apple’s encryption system worldwide. This was an attempt to strong-arm one of the world’s most powerful tech companies into submission, setting a precedent that could crack open user privacy like an egg. Rather than comply, Apple responded with a very diplomatic version of hell no. Instead of weakening encryption for everyone, the company opted to remove ADP from the UK entirely. In a statement that practically oozed frustration, Apple declared: “We are gravely disappointed that the protections provided by Advanced Data Protection will not be available to our customers in the United Kingdom, given the continuing rise of data breaches and other threats to customer privacy.” They continued, insisting that they remain committed to offering users “the highest level of security” and expressing “hope” that they’ll be able to restore ADP in the UK at some point in the future. That’s corporate-speak for, maybe when your current government stops acting like the digital arm of Big Brother. Apple’s Advanced Data Protection settings, explaining the use of end-to-end encryption for iCloud data. The UK government’s demand is just the latest chapter in the global war on encryption. Law enforcement agencies love to claim they need backdoors to stop criminals and terrorists. But here’s the problem: a backdoor for the “good guys” is a backdoor for everyone. Hackers, foreign spies, rogue governments — once you build the skeleton key, you can’t control who picks it up. So, who benefits from Apple kneecapping its own encryption? Certainly not the average British citizen, who now has weaker privacy protections. Certainly not journalists, activists, or anyone who has ever dared to challenge authority. The only real winners are intelligence agencies and bureaucrats who believe the solution to crime is universal surveillance. British Apple users who activated Advanced Data Protection (ADP) are now being shoved into an ultimatum straight out of a dystopian novel. Apple, for its part, has played the game with a stiff upper lip, carefully avoiding any public mention of the UK Home Office’s directive. That’s not because they’re being coy — it’s because acknowledging the order is literally a crime under British law. That’s right: even saying “Hey, the government told us to do this” could land Apple in legal hot water. But Apple saw this coming. The company had warned Parliament in advance that this exact scenario was likely to unfold. And now that it has, Apple isn’t bending. “As we have said many times before, we have never built a back door or master key to any of our products or services, and we never will,” the company reiterated in a statement Friday. That’s as close as you’ll get to a tech giant saying, “Get lost.” Naturally, the UK government has nothing meaningful to say about all this. When asked about the order, a Home Office spokesperson gave the standard, sterile response: “We do not comment on operational matters, including for example confirming or denying the existence of any such notices.” Apple has a long track record of resisting government attempts to weaken encryption, and this move lets it sidestep the demand without technically breaking the law. It’s a clever, if imperfect, workaround. Apple hasn’t outright complied with the UK order, but it also hasn’t directly defied it. The UK government is, of course, justifying its demands with the usual talking points: criminals, terrorists, child abusers—all the greatest hits. And sure, no one’s arguing that law enforcement shouldn’t go after criminals. The problem is that this strategy treats everyone like a suspect. Remember, this is the same government that plans to spy on everyone’s bank accounts. The United Kingdom’s latest assault on digital privacy is a national crisis — but it’s also a flashing red warning sign for the rest of the world. By forcing Apple to disable its strongest encryption feature, the UK government has cracked open the door for every surveillance-hungry state on the planet. And let’s be clear: if Britain, a country that still pretends to value democracy, can do this, then every other government with authoritarian tendencies is taking notes. A Playbook for Mass Surveillance This isn’t just about Apple or the UK. This is about setting a precedent. Britain has handed world governments a blueprint for coercing tech companies into submission—secret legal directives, gag orders, and the threat of criminal penalties for even acknowledging government interference. It’s a dream scenario for regimes that see encryption as an obstacle to control. Once Apple caves in the UK, what’s stopping other countries from making the same demands? The moment a company demonstrates that it will roll back security for one government, it becomes open season for every other government to demand the same—or worse. The Investigatory Powers Act, lovingly known as the “Snooper’s Charter,” was already one of the most extreme surveillance laws in the Western world. But British lawmakers didn’t stop there. They wanted more power, more access, more control—because in the minds of surveillance bureaucrats, there’s no such thing as too much spying. By forcing Apple to kneecap Advanced Data Protection, they’ve ensured that British citizens—regular, law-abiding people—are now more vulnerable than ever to cyber criminals, rogue states, and corporate data exploitation. Their personal lives, once protected by some of the strongest encryption available, are now open to abuse. The real tragedy here isn’t only the immediate impact on Apple users — it’s what this signals for the future. The UK is laying the groundwork for a world where privacy isn’t a right, but a privilege granted at the discretion of the overreaching state. And that’s the endgame of every surveillance regime. Once you normalize backdoors, once you force companies into secret compliance, once you criminalize even discussing government interference — you’re no longer living in a democracy. You’re living in a managed information state where privacy exists only when the government allows it. For now, Apple has resisted the worst-case scenario. They didn’t build a backdoor, and they didn’t weaken global encryption — as far as we know. But the moment they concede ground to any government, they’ve set the precedent that encryption is negotiable. And if encryption is negotiable, privacy itself is negotiable. The UK’s decision will embolden others. And unless users—especially those in so-called democratic nations—start demanding better, this is only the beginning. Because once you let governments dictate who deserves privacy, the answer will always be the same: Not you. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Apple Pulls Privacy Protections For UK Citizens After The UK Is the First Country to Demand a Backdoor Into Your Private Data appeared first on Reclaim The Net.