September 11, 2026

Censorship

Source Link
Excerpt:

Perhaps no words in recent political history have so rapidly proven correct as Vice President J.D. Vance’s warning that European religious liberty faces a toxic and growing “threat from within,” according to a new expert analysis of government infringements on Christians.

In his Valentine’s Day address to the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Vance cited a crackdown on free speech and conscience rights to conclude that Europe’s “backslide away from conscience rights” and “deterioration of fundamental freedoms” has “placed the basic liberties of religious [believers] in the crosshairs.”

 

 

Source Link
Excerpt:

Democrats looked like they were stifling a visceral rage during Tuesday’s Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia House Subcommittee hearing titled, “The Censorship-Industrial Complex: The Need for First Amendment Safeguards at the State Department.”

None more so than Nina Jankowicz, who led the short-lived, now dead Disinformation Governance Board for former President Joe Biden. Today, she is the CEO of the American Sunlight Project and considers herself an “expert on disinformation and democratization.”

Jankowicz refused to answer when Rep. Michael Baumgartner, R-Wash., asked her to disclose the name of donors for the American Sunlight Project.

“So, sunlight for other people but not for your donors,” he said. Baumgartner also asked if there was a loss of trust with the American people when the Biden White House called videos of Biden acting disorientated “cheap fakes.”

“I think in those cases, there were nefarious editing techniques being used to make the effects seem worse than it actually was,” Jankowicz said. We now know that internally, the White House was worried about Biden’s cheese was falling off his cracker.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance stood before world leaders in a Munich, Germany speech in which he challenged Europe’s resistance to free speech. He highlighted the arrest of a British citizen for silently praying outside an abortion clinic.

Vance stated, “I can tell you plainly: There can be no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions, and the conscience that guide your own people. What I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.”

JD Vance rebukes anti-free speech, anti-Christian discrimination in Munich speech – The Christian Post
Source Link
Excerpt:

Delivering a speech in Germany, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance criticized European governments for suppressing free speech and discriminating against Christians. He urged leaders across Europe to reverse the ongoing crackdown on conservative voices and religious freedoms.

In his address at the Munich Security Conference in Munich on Friday, Vance noted that conservatives have been investigated, arrested, prosecuted or fined for protesting abortion and posting views on social media.

He also criticized attempts to exclude populist parties from political collaboration, saying they pose a threat to democracy.

Last month, the European Union introduced fresh measures to enforce the Digital Services Act, which limits American speech on social media platforms. While EU lawmakers claimed the initiative was to target “foreign interference” and “illegal content,” it raised concerns among free speech advocates in the U.S. The Act compels social media companies to remove “illegal content” or face penalties of up to 6% of their global annual turnover.

Paul Coleman, executive director of the legal advocacy group ADF International, warned at the time that a “new bipolar order of speech” was unfolding. “On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the U.S. is recommitting to its free speech heritage.”

“I can tell you plainly: There can be no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions, and the conscience that guide your own people,” Vance said in Munich. “What I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.”

?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.sketchfab.com%2Fmodels%2Ff279521dfe2e4f0b9b5006eb9092c7c3%2Fthumbnails%2F903ec9a2b05c42b8b1d595a2892bd9d5%2Ff7741f845bec4c19a599e76f3e9d37c0.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=9d23e879e70f608a55e21f7cb97e94a17c4dca57a7093b21daf1f685aa67e01b&ipo=images

In what could be seen as a symbol of the death of cancel culture, former DOGE staffer Marko Elez saw his promising career cut short because of racist tweets from the past, only to be restored by two acts that could serve to blunt the social power of “cancellation.” First, Vice President VD Vance called for Elez to be restored, then Musk vowed to bring him back.

Elon Musk shows us how to kill cancel culture once and for all– www.theblaze.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

Elon Musk knows how to end cancel culture.

Earlier this month, a member of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency team, Marko Elez, resigned after the Wall Street Journal reported that the young DOGE staffer once posted “to a deleted social-media account that advocated racism and eugenics.” The story primarily focused on the DOGE’s efforts and offered little evidence to support the serious accusation, giving readers only two examples.

For liberals angry over the DOGE’s mission to uncover and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars, the story proved to be confirmation that Musk is operating a rogue campaign with immature and inexperienced loyalists.

A watershed moment?

What happened after Elez’s resignation may prove to be a turning point that erodes cancel culture.

It began when Vice President JD Vance spoke up.

“Here’s my view: I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life,” Vance said. “We shouldn’t reward journalists who try to destroy people. Ever. So I say bring him back. If he’s a bad dude or a terrible member of the team, fire him for that.”

That prompted Musk to promise Elez’s return — for an important reason.

“He will be brought back,” Musk vowed. “To err is human, to forgive divine.”

 

?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanyawp.com%2Ftext%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2F01_52-151.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=cbdd552871e47bfbbdba65d1e14375ceb6c92e6788e58f3d35353354e61c7d59&ipo=images

CBS News saw the anchor of its show “Face the Nation” espouse the assumption that free speech is what gave rise to Nazism. The counter is that Nazis did NOT, in fact, allow free speech, but she MIGHT BE claiming free speech BEFORE Hitler gave rise to Hitler. However, while the Weimer republic ended a lot of press censorship, they still had many anti-free-speech laws, including hate speech laws.

The host, Margaret Brennan, made this claim to Secretary of State Rubio: “Well, (Vice President Vance) was standing in (Germany) where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that.”

Nazis ‘Weaponized’ Free Speech to Conduct the Holocaust– www.breitbart.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

CBS’s “Face the Nation” anchor Margaret Brennan said Sunday on “Face the Nation” that Nazis “weaponized” free speech to conduct the Holocaust during an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about what happened in Munich, Germany, at the Security Conference. Vice President Vance gave a speech, and he told U.S. allies that the threat he worries about the most is not Russia, it is not China. He called it the “threat from within,” and he lectured about what he described as censorship, mainly focusing, though, on including more views from the right. He also met with the leader of a far-right party known as the AfD, which, as you know, is under investigation and monitoring by German intelligence because of extremism. What did all of this accomplish, other than irritating our allies?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion? We are, after all, democracies. The Munich- Munich Security Conference is largely a conference of democracies in which one of the things that we cherish and value is the ability to speak freely and provide your opinions. And so, I think if anyone’s angry about his words, they don’t have to agree with him, but to be angry about it, I think actually makes his point. I thought it was actually a pretty historic speech, whether you agree with him or not. I think the valid points he’s making to Europe is, we are concerned that the true values that we share, the values that bind us together with Europe, are things like free speech and democracy and our shared history in winning two world wars and defeating Soviet communism and the like.

These are the values that we shared in common, and in that cold war we fought against things like censorship and oppression and so forth, and when you see backsliding, and you raise that, that’s a very valid concern. We can’t tell them how to run their countries. We are- he simply expressed in a speech his view of it, which a lot of people, frankly, share. And I thought he said a lot of things in that speech that needed to be said. And honestly, I don’t know why anybody would be upset about it. People are- you know, you don’t have to agree on someone’s speech. I happen to agree with a lot of what he said, but you don’t have to agree with someone’s speech to- to at least appreciate the fact they have a right to say it and that you should listen to it and see whether those criticisms are valid. I assure you, the United States has come under withering criticism on many occasions from many leaders in Europe, and we don’t go around throwing temper tantrums about it.

BRENNAN: Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that. That the censorship was specifically about the right–

RUBIO: — Well I have to disagree with you. No- I have- I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they- they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany, they were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that’s not an accurate reflection of history. I also think it’s wrong- again, I go back to the point of his speech. The point of his speech was basically that there is an erosion in free speech and intolerance or opposing points of view within Europe, and that’s of concern because that is eroding.

That’s not an erosion of your military capabilities, that’s not an erosion of your economic standing, that’s an erosion of the actual values that bind us together in this transatlantic union that everybody talks about, and I think allies and friends and partners that have worked together now for 80 years, should be able to speak frankly to one another in open forums without being offended, insulted, or upset. And I spoke to Foreign Ministers from multiple countries throughout Europe. Many of them probably didn’t like the speech or didn’t agree with it, but they were continuing to engage with us on all sorts of issues that unite us. So again, at the end of the day, I think that, you know, people give all- that is a forum in which you’re supposed to be inviting people to give speeches, not basically a chorus where everyone is saying the exact same thing. That’s not always going to be the case when it’s a collection of democracies where leaders have the right and the privilege to speak their minds in forums such as these.

?u=https%3A%2F%2Flive.staticflickr.com%2F4007%2F4568072674_0eb19c6e29.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=48019f70b8fb8034522264e35c5461f6ba03cf0f3189de868b83414325563a38&ipo=images

Germany is prosecuting online trolls. Here’s how the country is fighting hate speech on the internet. – CBS News
Source Link
Excerpt:

Dozens of police teams across Germany raided homes before dawn in a coordinated crackdown on a recent Tuesday. The state police weren’t looking for drugs or guns, they were looking for people suspected of posting hate speech online.

As prosecutors explain it, the German constitution protects free speech, but not hate speech. And here’s where it gets tricky: German law prohibits speech that could incite hatred or is deemed insulting. Perpetrators are sometimes surprised to learn that what they post online is illegal, according to Dr. Matthäus Fink, one of the state prosecutors tasked with policing Germany’s robust hate speech laws.

“They don’t think it was illegal. And they say, ‘No, that’s my free speech,'” Fink said. “And we say, ‘No, you have free speech as well, but it is also has its limits.'”

Germany’s laws around speech

In the U.S., most of what gets posted online, even if it’s hate-filled, is protected by the First Amendment as free speech. But in Germany, authorities are prosecuting online trolls in an effort to protect discourse and democracy.

It can be a crime to publicly insult someone in Germany, and the punishment can be even worse if the insult is shared online because that content sticks around forever, Fink said.

Meta Settles $25 Million in Censorship Case – Vanguard
Source Link
Excerpt:

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta and President Donald Trump have reached a $25 million settlement in a lawsuit alleging censorship following the suspension of his accounts after the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The litigation sparked an intense debate over big tech companies using their authority to suspend or ban accounts for posted content. Meta’s legal team justified the two-year suspension of Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, stating that he violated the platform’s terms of service by “inciting violence.”

At the time of his suspension, CEO Mark Zuckerberg released a statement that read, “We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great.”

In January 2023, the company restored Trump’s accounts on both platforms following his reelection campaign announcement. This came with new guidelines put in place by the corporation that addressed repeat offenders of the site’s regulations.

NICE: Trump Administration Fires Biden’s Porn Czar and Ends His ‘Book Ban’ Office– lidblog.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

 

Want another reason that Trump 2.0 is the best thing to happen to the U.S. in decades? Check out the latest Biden abomination he nuked.

Back in 2023, when the left was racing to protect kiddy porn in school libraries and keep these books on the shelves, Biden set up the office of “book ban coordinator” and installed Matt Nosanchuk, a radical, leftist, gay activist, loon to run it.

But last Friday, the newly ensconced Trump administration fired Nosanchuk and ended his dangerous, porn-pushing department.

Per the Department of Education:

U.S. Department of Education Ends Biden’s Book Ban Hoax

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) today announced that it has dismissed 11 complaints related to so-called “book bans.” The complaints alleged that local school districts’ removal of age-inappropriate, sexually explicit, or obscene materials from their school libraries created a hostile environment for students – a meritless claim premised upon a dubious legal theory. Effective Jan. 24, 2025, OCR has rescinded all department guidance issued under the theory that a school district’s removal of age-inappropriate books from its libraries may violate civil rights laws. OCR is also dismissing six additional pending allegations of book banning and will no longer employ a “book ban coordinator” to investigate local school districts and parents working to protect students from obscene content.

“By dismissing these complaints and eliminating the position and authorities of a so-called ‘book ban coordinator,’ the department is beginning the process of restoring the fundamental rights of parents to direct their children’s education,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. “The department adheres to the deeply rooted American principle that local control over public education best allows parents and teachers alike to assess the educational needs of their children and communities. Parents and school boards have broad discretion to fulfill that important responsibility. These decisions will no longer be second-guessed by the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education.”

 

Trump signs order to end ‘government censorship’ of social media – The Washington Post
Source Link
Excerpt:

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order intended to “immediately stop all government censorship,” a sweeping action that could chill years of efforts to combat the proliferation of false information online.

The order bans federal officials from any conduct that “would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” It also prohibits taxpayer resources from being used to “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech” of Americans.

Conservatives have argued in multiple lawsuits that efforts to limit the spread of false information online about public health and elections amount to illegal censorship. The order will create legal uncertainty for government officials who communicate with tech companies.

“Under the guise of combating ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate,” the order said.

Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, is accusing the U.S. Supreme Court of ignoring clear evidence the Federal government was directly censoring Americans through social media platforms like Facebook. Zuckerberg told podcaster and MMA fight analyst Joe Rogan “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal.”

The Supreme Court had an opportunity to do its constitutional duty in the Murthy v. Missouri case but punted its responsibility. Now, President Donald J Trump has ended the threat to the American republic from within its own institutions in the guise of “protecting” Americans from “misinformation” through his executive order ending all government censorship media programs.

Zuckerberg Confirms SCOTUS Ignored Proof Of Fed Censorship– thefederalist.com
Source Link
Excerpt:

Following Mark Zuckerberg’s putative mea culpa for having made Meta complicit in the largest censorship regime in American history, and his vow to restore free expression on his platforms, the CEO made perhaps his most consequential statement of all in an interview with Joe Rogan.

There, after describing the pressure campaign the Biden administration waged against his company to suppress disfavored speech, primarily regarding Covid-19, Zuckerberg told Rogan: “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal.”

The Meta CEO’s silence as this very issue was being litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court was as deafening then as it is maddening now. But in making this assertion, he has inadvertently highlighted one of the Roberts Court’s gravest derelictions of duty — one that emphasizes the necessity of vigorous executive and legislative actions in defense of our rights, actions like those promised by the Trump administration and some in Congress.

The dereliction of duty came in the Supreme Court’s punting of the case of Murthy v. Missouri, previously known as Missouri v. Biden.

Google reportedly rejects European Union fact-checking law – Fox Business
Source Link
Excerpt:

Google has told the European Union (EU) it will not comply with its new fact-checking law, according to a new report saying the massive search engine will not incorporate the measures into its search function nor YouTube video results.

Axios pointed out that this is not a practice that Google has ever engaged in and reported that the company had previously signaled to the international body that it would unlikely be integrating its new fact-checking practices.

Fox News Digital could not immediately reach Google to confirm what steps it takes to ensure the most legitimate posts are found through its search engine, given previous concerns over the effects of disinformation campaigns.