Mexico Bill Proposes Prison for AI Memes Mocking Public Figures
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | October 6, 2025
Mexico’s Congress is once again at the center of a free speech storm.
This time, Deputy Armando Corona Arvizu from the ruling Morena party is proposing to make it a crime to create or share AI-generated memes or digital images that make fun of someone without their consent.
His initiative, filed in the Chamber of Deputies, sets out prison terms of three to six years and fines for anyone who “create, manipulate, transform, reproduce or disseminate images, videos, audios or digital representations” made with artificial intelligence for the purpose of “ridiculing, harassing, impersonating or damaging” a person’s “reputation or dignity.”
Read the bill here.
The punishment would increase by half if the person targeted is a public official, minor, or person with a disability, or if the content spreads widely online or causes personal, psychological, or professional harm.
The bill presents itself as protection against digital abuse but is, as always, a new attempt at censorship.
The initiative would insert Articles 211 Bis 8 and 211 Bis 9 into the Federal Penal Code, written in vague and sweeping terms that could cover almost any form of online expression.
It makes no distinction between a malicious deepfake and a harmless meme.
By criminalizing content intended to “ridicule,” the bill allows courts or public figures to decide what counts as ridicule. That opens the door to arbitrary enforcement.
There are no explicit protections for parody, satire, or public-interest criticism, all of which are essential to a free society.
Even more troubling, the law increases penalties when the alleged victim is a public servant.
That provision could turn the law into a tool for politicians to insulate themselves from criticism, since any joke, meme, or cartoon could be claimed to harm their “dignity.”
Mexico has long relied on humor as a form of political expression.
Memes, cartoons, and viral jokes often serve as the public’s way of questioning authority. Turning that humor into a potential crime would be a serious step backward.
Instead of making the internet safer, this measure could create a chilling effect that discourages users from speaking or joking freely for fear of prison time.
This is not the first time Morena has tried to police online humor. Former Puebla governor Alejandro Armenta introduced what became known as the Censorship Law, which sought to punish people for “insulting or offending” others online.
The watchdog group Article 19 warned that its broad language could easily be used against journalists or ordinary citizens.
Earlier this year, Ricardo Monreal suggested an Anti-Memes Law that would have required humorous posts to be labeled as “memes” to avoid penalties. Public outrage forced him to abandon the idea.
Corona’s proposal follows the same path under a new label. While it claims to address the dangers of AI manipulation, its vague wording threatens free expression instead of safeguarding it.
FBI Breakup Ends SPLC and ADL Direct Influence
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 5, 2025
The FBI has officially ended its partnership with both the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), following years of mounting concern over the influence of partisan organizations in shaping federal intelligence and domestic “extremism” policy, which has resulted in online censorship.
FBI Director Kash Patel condemned the SPLC’s direction, describing it as a “partisan smear machine” and calling its involvement in federal intelligence work unacceptable.
He pointed specifically to the group’s so-called “hate map,” which has long been used to label mainstream conservative and Christian organizations as equivalent to violent hate groups.
“Their so-called hate map has been used to defame mainstream Americans and even inspired violence,” Patel stated. “That disgraceful record makes them unfit for any FBI partnership.”
The bureau confirmed it no longer shares information or maintains any intelligence products from the SPLC.
It has also cut off contact with the ADL, a group that, while ostensibly focused on combating antisemitism, has frequently advocated for censorship of speech it deems problematic, particularly online.
Both organizations were previously consulted by the FBI in identifying and monitoring alleged extremist threats.
That practice came under fire after the bureau’s Richmond office cited the SPLC in a controversial 2023 memo suggesting that traditional Catholics could be tied to radical activity.
The document called for agents to cultivate informants within Catholic churches.
The backlash led Patel to publicly reject the use of ideologically driven outside groups in FBI operations.
“I made it clear that the FBI will never rely on politicized or agenda-driven intelligence from outside groups—and certainly not from the SPLC,” Patel said. “All ties with the SPLC have officially been terminated.”
Originally known for battling white supremacist groups through litigation, the SPLC has since shifted its focus toward labeling conservative advocacy organizations as dangerous.
Over time, its “hate map” has become a blacklist used by corporations, financial services, and online platforms to restrict access and support for those groups.
More recently, the group listed Turning Point USA shortly before the assassination of its founder, free speech advocate Charlie Kirk.
The SPLC has maintained that not all Christian groups are included in its listings. For years, it pointed to Focus on the Family as an example of one that was not. That changed in 2024 when Focus was added to the map.
The ADL supported the STOP HATE Act, which seeks to pressure online platforms to remove “disinformation” and what it calls “hate speech.” The bill’s language raises obvious concerns about vague definitions and potential abuse.
Both organizations have held sway not just over federal agencies, but also over powerful private institutions.
Amazon, Eventbrite, Hyatt Hotels, and PayPal have all relied on the SPLC’s hate designations to determine which groups can use their services.
The now-discontinued AmazonSmile program excluded organizations listed by the SPLC, while major charitable foundations have blocked funding to those targeted by the group.
Federal agencies under the Biden administration have also shown a willingness to coordinate with the SPLC.
In a 2021 donor meeting, the group’s then-president said that many agencies had proactively reached out to solicit its input on shaping domestic terrorism policy.
That cooperation continued even after the SPLC labeled the parental rights group Moms for Liberty a hate group in 2023, followed by a briefing with the Department of Justice.
Ukraine’s SBU Abducted Kharkov Residents Who Criticized Regime Online
Sputnik – 05.10.2025
People who made critical posts related to the Ukraine’s authorities are being abducted, Anastasiya Bykova, the administrator of a closed chat for the city’s residents, told Sputnik. These people had posted photos in the chat that could reveal their location, she added.
The chat admin also described an incident in which the SBU contacted her and asked her to pass along a “hello” to one of the chat members, who was being held in a pretrial detention facility.
Besides, she revealed that the SBU spent about an hour and a half exhibiting her father’s beating on a video call and demanded that she hand over her Telegram account, which had admin access to the Kharkov chat, and collect information on the movement of Russian military equipment.
Bykova, who lives in Russia’s Shebekino, claims her Telegram account was repeatedly accessed from devices in Kiev and Odessa.
The Met police chief proves he’s as dishonest and racist as the force he leads
By Jonathan Cook | October 4, 2025
Sir Mark Rowley claims he is worried about rising ‘community tensions’. But the only tensions he cares about are those belonging to an imaginary community he has created of a Jewish hive mind
Once again, the BBC laps up outright disinformation from Sir Mark Rowley, police commissioner of the institutionally racist and corrupt Met. Watch this short clip from the BBC News at Ten last night:
1. Rowley demands supporters of Palestine Action cancel or delay their protest today, after the Manchester synagogue attack, because the timing appears “antisemitic”.
How to untangle this nonsense?
a) The only possible way to interpret Rowley’s argument is that he believes every British Jew identifies and supports Israel’s mass slaughter of children in Gaza and therefore, out of respect for their grief at the Manchester attack, we ought not to protest against the slaughter in Gaza. That undoubtedly makes Rowley the antisemitic one.
b) Even were his deeply antisemitic idea true – that British Jews are an unthinking herd of genocidal monsters – Rowley assumes that we ought to be okay with this: we should just keep quiet about Israel murdering 100 or so Palestinians every day in Gaza, and starving and ethnically cleansing the rest of the population, because it would supposedly offend Britain’s Jewish community to do otherwise.
c) Rowley wants the protesters to take a time-out of a few weeks, even while Israel refuses to take any time-out on murdering Palestinians. Nor is the British government taking a time-out in arming Israel and providing it with intelligence to carry out the genocide. Rowley is suggesting we should simply quieten down for the next few weeks, even as 100 Palestinians are killed each day, before heading back to the streets. He thereby sends an unequivocal message that Palestinian life is worthless – and he does it while claiming we are the racist ones.
2. Rowley claims he wants this weekend’s protests stopped because of the danger they will raise “community tensions, which is my concern”.
And yet from everything he says, the only community’s “tensions” he appears to care about are those of an imaginary one he has created of a Jewish hive mind.
What about the tensions of Palestinian communities, of wider Muslim and Arab communities, of human communities, of those parts of the Jewish community opposed to Israel’s slaughter in Gaza, produced by watching children being torn to shreds by bombs Britain is helping to supply to Israel, by seeing world citizens – including British citizens – being abducted in international waters by Israel as they try to break Israel’s illegal starvation-siege of Gaza?
Does Rowley care about these communities and their tensions, tensions that will only heighten if they are denied their long-established democratic rights to go out on to the streets to protest – rights that have already been aggressively whittled away by successive British governments?
3. Rowley says he finds it “bewildering” why more than 1,000 people would want to get arrested for “supporting a terrorist organisation” – and berates them for taking up police resources at a time when those resources are needed elsewhere.
And yet, Rowley knows there is nothing “bewildering” about their protests. These thousands of British citizens, and millions behind them who are less courageous, are prepared to risk jail, and damage their careers and their futures, with a “terrorism” conviction. They are prepared to do so because they believe the proscription of Palestine Action – the first such proscription in British history for a direct-action group following in the tradition of the Suffragettes – is an assault on our fundamental right to protest, and to protest against the criminality of our own institutions, in this case institutions actively supporting a genocide in Gaza.
If Rowley does not believe he has the resources to arrest the 1,000-plus people who will be sitting quietly in Parliament Square today holding placards opposing the genocide, then he can simply let them be. The sky will not fall in. No one will get hurt. There will be no threat to either public or national security.
The true danger – the danger that Rowley and the government of Sir Keir Starmer really worry about – is that ever more people are beginning to understand that we are ruled by a gang of authoritarian, genocide-assisting criminals.
Election without voters: Most Syrians ‘unaware’ about Sunday’s parliamentary election
The Cradle | October 4, 2025
Many Syrians are unaware that the first parliamentary elections since the fall of the government of Bashar al-Assad are about to take place, AP reported on 4 October, in part because the Syrian public will not be allowed to cast votes.
“There were no candidate posters on the main streets and squares, no rallies, or public debates. In the days leading up to the polling, some residents of the Syrian capital had no idea a vote was hours away,” AP reported on Saturday.
“I didn’t know — now by chance I found out that there are elections of the People’s Assembly,” said Elias al-Qudsi, a shopkeeper in the famed markets of old Damascus.
“But I don’t know if we are supposed to vote or who is voting,” he added.
The US, Israel, and allied powers succeeded in December 2024 in toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after a decade of war under the pretext of replacing his authoritarian rule with a “democratic system.”
The multi-billion-dollar regime change operation, known as Timber Sycamore, installed former Al-Qaeda and Islamic State commander Ahmad al-Sharaa in power in Damascus as Assad fled to Moscow.
After appointing himself president, Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Julani) began to establish an informal extremist Islamic regime in Syria, in which a religious sheikh leads each ministry, government department, and military unit.
Rather than allow the Syrian public to vote in Sunday’s election to form a new parliament, Sharaa himself will appoint 70 of the 210 parliament members.
The remaining 140 will be elected by subcommittees of Syria’s Supreme Committee for People’s Assembly Elections, which Sharaa also appointed in June.
A subcommittee was established for each governorate. However, Syrian authorities say that no vote for parliament will take place in Suwayda Governorate, which is under Druze control, and Raqqa and Hasakah Governorates, which are under Kurdish control, citing “security reasons.”
The lack of a popular vote has been overshadowed in the western media by the candidacy of Henry Hamra, a Jewish former resident of the neighborhood who emigrated to the US as a teenager and only returned after Assad’s fall.
Nawar Nejmeh, spokesperson for the committee overseeing the elections, claimed a popular vote was “impossible” because large numbers of Syrians were displaced or lost their personal documentation during the NATO-backed war.
But Syrian activists who opposed Assad have criticized Sharaa for organizing the parliamentary vote in this way, forbidding the formation of political parties, and consolidating his own authoritarian and extremist religious rule indefinitely into the future.
“Are we going through a credible transition, an inclusive transition that represents all of Syria?” asked Mutasem Syoufi, executive director of US-funded The Day After project.
“I think we’re not there, and I think we have to take serious and brave steps to correct all the mistakes that we’ve committed over the last nine months,” since Assad’s fall, he stated.
UK Digital ID Scheme Faces Backlash Over Surveillance Fears — Is a Similar Plan Coming to the U.S.?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender |October 2, 2025
The U.K. plans to introduce a nationwide digital ID scheme that will require citizens and non-citizens to obtain a “BritCard” to work in the U.K., which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Government officials say the plan, to take effect no later than August 2029, will help combat illegal immigration.
But critics like U.K. activist and campaigner Montgomery Toms said the scheme, “far from being a tool for progress,” is instead a “gateway to mass surveillance, control and ultimately the rollout of a centralised social credit system.”
The plan faces broad opposition in the U.K., according to Nigel Utton, a U.K.-based board member of the World Freedom Alliance, who said, “the feeling against the government here is enormous.”
A poll last week found that 47% of respondents opposed digital ID, while 27% supported the ID system and 26% were neutral. The poll was conducted by Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now, on behalf of GB News.
A petition on the U.K. Parliament’s website opposing plans to introduce digital ID may force a parliamentary debate. As of today, the petition has over 2.73 million signatures.
According to The Guardian, petitions with 100,000 signatures or more are considered for debate in the U.K. parliament.
As opposition mounts, there are signs the BritCard may not be a done deal. According to the BBC, a three-month consultation will take place, and legislation will likely be introduced to Parliament in early 2026.
However, U.K. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said the government may push through its digital ID plans without going through the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
Protesters plan to gather Oct. 18 in central London.
Digital ID will ‘offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,’ U.K. officials say
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the digital ID scheme last week in a speech at the Global Progress Action Summit in London.
“A secure border and controlled migration are reasonable demands, and this government is listening and delivering,” Starmer said. “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the U.K. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.
The plan “will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly,” Starmer said.
According to The Guardian, digital ID eventually may be used for driver’s licenses, welfare benefits, access to tax records, and the provision of childcare and other public services.
Darren Jones, chief secretary to Starmer, suggested it may become “the bedrock of the modern state,” the BBC reported.
Supporters of the plan include the Labour Together think tank, which is closely aligned with the Labour Party and which published a report in June calling for the introduction of the BritCard.
Two days before Starmer’s announcement, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, led by Labour Party member and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, published a report, “Time for Digital ID: A New Consensus for a State That Works.”
Blair tried to introduce digital ID two decades ago as a means of fighting terrorism and fraud, but the plan failed amid public opposition. According to the BBC, Starmer recently claimed the world has “moved on in the last 20 years,” as “we all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did.”
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Blair endorsed a global digital vaccine passport, the Good Health Pass, launched by ID2020 with the support of Facebook, Mastercard and the World Economic Forum.
According to Sky News, French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the BritCard for its ability to help fight illegal immigration into the U.K., much of which originates from France.
Critics: Digital ID marks ‘gateway to mass surveillance’
The BritCard, which would live on people’s phones, will use technology similar to digital wallets. People will not be required to carry their digital ID or be asked to produce it, except for employment purposes, the government said.
According to the BBC, BritCard will likely include a person’s name, photo, date of birth and nationality or residency status.
Digital wallets, which include documents such as driver’s licenses and health certificates, have been introduced in several countries, including the U.S.
Nandy said the U.K. government has “no intention of pursuing a dystopian mess” with its introduction of digital ID.
However, the plan has opened up a “civil liberties row” in the U.K., according to The Guardian, with critics warning it will lead to unprecedented surveillance and control over citizens.
“Digital ID systems are not designed to secure borders,” said Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life” and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute. “They’re designed to expand bureaucratic control of the masses.”
Bruner told The Defender :
“All attempts to roll out digital ID follow a familiar pattern: corporate and political elites wield crises — such as mass migration, crime, or tech disruptions — as a pretext to expand their control … over private citizens’ identities, finances and movements into a suffocating regime.
“Once rolled out, these systems expand quietly, shifting from access tools to enforcement mechanisms. Yesterday it was vaccine passports and lockdowns; tomorrow it is 15-minute cities and the ‘universal basic income’ dependency trap. ‘Voluntary’ today becomes mandatory tomorrow.”
Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, said digital ID is “not about tackling illegal immigration, it has nothing to do with job security and it definitely won’t protect young people online. Digital ID is all about surveillance and control through coercion and force.”
Hinchliffe said:
“Illegal immigration is just one excuse to bring it all online. Be vigilant for other excuses like climate change, cybersecurity, convenience, conflict, refugees, healthcare, war, famine, poverty, welfare benefits. Anything can be used to usher in digital ID.”
Twila Brase, co-founder and president of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, said governments favor digital ID because it allows unprecedented surveillance.
The ID system “notifies the government every time an identity card is used, giving it a bird’s-eye view of where, when and to whom people are showing their identity,” she said.
According to Toms, “A digital ID system gives governments the ability to monitor, restrict, and ultimately punish citizens who do not comply with state directives. It centralises power in a way that is extremely dangerous to liberty.”
Experts disputed claims that digital ID is necessary to improve public services.
“The ‘improved efficiency’ argument is a technocratic fantasy used to seduce a public obsessed with convenience,” said attorney Greg Glaser. “Governments have managed to provide services for centuries without a digital panopticon. This is not about efficiency. It is about creating an immutable, unforgeable link between every individual and the state.”
Digital ID technology may create ‘an enormous hacking target’
London-based author and political analyst Evans Agelissopoulos said major global investment firms, including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, could combine their financial might with the power of digital ID.
“BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are on a mission to buy properties to rent to people. Digital ID could be used against people they deem unfit to rent to,” he said.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the same firms supported digital vaccine passports in major corporations in which they are among the top shareholders. Some experts suggested digital ID may institutionalize a vaccine passport regime and central bank digital currencies.
“Digital identity is the linchpin to every dystopian nightmare under the sun,” Hinchliffe said. “Without it, there can be no programmable digital currencies, there can be no carbon footprint trackers, no social credit system.”
Other experts suggested that a centralized database containing the data of all citizens could be monetized. “By centralizing everything, they will have access to health, criminal, financial records. This data can be sold,” Agelissopoulos said.
According to Brase, those who will benefit from the centralization of this data include:
“Anybody who’s going to be the third-party administrator, academia and companies who are building biometric systems and what they call ‘augmented authentication systems’ that provide the cameras, the back system operations for biometric identification and for digital systems.”
Several major information technology (IT), defense and accounting firms, including Deloitte and BAE Systems, have received U.K. government contracts totaling 100 million British pounds ($134.7 million) for the development and rollout of BritCard.
U.S. tech companies, including Palantir, Nvidia and OpenAI, “have also been circling the UK government,” The Guardian reported.
Digital ID also raises security concerns, with IT experts describing the U.K.’s plan as “an enormous hacking target,” citing recent large-scale breaches involving digital ID databases in some countries, including Estonia.
“Government databases are frequently hacked — from healthcare systems to tax records,” Toms said. “Centralizing sensitive personal data into a single mandatory digital ID is a disaster waiting to happen.”
The public may also directly bear the cost of these systems. Italy’s largest digital ID provider, Poste Italiane, recently floated plans to levy a 5 euro ($5.87) annual fee for users.
Switzerland to roll out digital ID next year, amid controversy
In a referendum held on Sunday, voters in Switzerland narrowly approved the introduction of a voluntary national digital ID in their country.
According to the BBC, 50.4% of voters approved the proposal. Biometric Update noted that the proposal received a majority in only eight of the country’s 26 cantons, though the country’s government campaigned in favor of the proposal.
Digital ID in Switzerland is expected to be rolled out next year.
Swiss health professional George Deliyanidis said he “does not see any benefits for the public” from the plan. Instead, he sees “a loss of personal freedom.”
“There are suspicions of election fraud,” he added.
In a letter sent Tuesday to the Swiss government, a copy of which was reviewed by The Defender, the Mouvement Fédératif Romand cited “significant statistical disparities” in the referendum’s results and called for a recount.
In 2021, Swiss voters rejected a proposal on digital ID under which data would have been held by private providers, the BBC reported. Under the current proposal, data will remain with the state.
According to the Manchester Evening News, countries that have introduced nationwide digital ID include Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, India, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates. Other countries with similar systems include France, Finland and Norway.
In July, Vietnam introduced digital ID for foreigners living in the country. In August, the Vietnamese government helped neighboring Laos launch digital ID.
The New York Times reported that, in 2024, China added an “internet ID” to its digital ID system, “to track citizens’ online usage.”
Bill Gates has supported the rollout of digital ID in several countries, including India.
The European Union plans to launch its Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026.
“When you see a nearly simultaneous worldwide push, like this digital ID agenda, people in all nations need to expect to be impacted to some extent,” said James F. Holderman III, director of special investigations for Stand for Health Freedom.
Is national digital ID coming to the U.S.?
Although the U.S. does not have a national identification card, the U.K. did not have one either — until digital ID was introduced. The U.K. scrapped national ID in 1952.
In May, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began Real ID enforcement for domestic air travelers in the U.S. In the months before, TSA engaged in a push to encourage U.S. citizens to acquire Real ID-compliant documents, such as driver’s licenses. Full enforcement will begin in 2027.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 established security standards for state-issued ID cards in response to the 9/11 attacks and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the intervening years, its implementation was repeatedly delayed.
Last year, then-President Joe Biden issued an executive order for federal and state governments to speed up the adoption of digital ID.
Brase said Real ID “is really a national ID system for America, currently disguised as a state driver’s license with a star. The American people really have no idea that what’s in their pocket is a national ID and they have no idea that the [Department of Motor Vehicles offices] are planning to digitize them.”
Hinchliffe said 193 countries, including the U.S., accepted digital ID last year when they approved the United Nations’ Pact for the Future.
Earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Safeguarding Personal Information Act of 2025 (S 2769), a bill to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005.
“If digital ID is allowed to spread globally, future generations will never know freedom,” Hinchliffe said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Australia’s “eSafety” Commissioner Holds 2,600+ Records Tracking Christian Media Outlet
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 3, 2025
Australia’s online safety regulator is refusing to process a Freedom of Information request that would expose how it has tracked the activity of a prominent Christian media outlet and its leaders, citing excessive workload as the reason for denial.
The office of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has confirmed it is holding more than 2,600 records connected to The Daily Declaration, its founding body The Canberra Declaration, and three of its editorial figures: Warwick Marsh, Samuel Hartwich, and Kurt Mahlburg.
Despite admitting the existence of these records, the agency says reviewing them would take more than 100 hours and would therefore unreasonably impact its operations.
In a formal response dated 29 September, the regulator explained that it had identified thousands of documents referencing the group and its members. “Processing a request of this size would substantially impact eSafety’s operations,” the notice read.
The documents include media monitoring reports automatically generated whenever The Daily Declaration or its editors have posted online about the regulator or been tagged in relevant conversations.
Every mention gets captured by automated tracking tools, creating a growing pile of files that the agency now claims is too large to review.
After filtering for duplicates, around 650 documents were considered potentially relevant.
Yet the agency still refused, estimating that sorting and redacting them would consume over 100 hours. That figure triggers what the law defines as a “practical refusal,” giving agencies legal cover to reject the request altogether.
Government departments are allowed to deny FOI requests if they consider them too broad or resource-heavy.
But in this case, the regulator’s own mass monitoring appears to be the reason it can now avoid public scrutiny.
A system that routinely generates digital records of online commentary is then used to block access to those very records, effectively protecting the agency from oversight.
Mahlburg, senior editor at The Daily Declaration, called out the move, saying, “The very mechanism designed to protect Australians ends up shielding the government from scrutiny.”
The Commissioner’s office has given a deadline of 13 October for the request to be narrowed.
If that does not happen, it will be treated as withdrawn, and none of the 2,600 documents will be released.
Suggested limitations include trimming the date range, excluding auto-generated reports, or focusing only on specific individuals.
Although The Daily Declaration has said it will resubmit the FOI request with a more restricted scope, the case raises broader concerns. The regulator has amassed a significant database tracking Christian organizations and individuals who speak on topics such as faith, freedom, and family.
By leaning on its own volume of monitoring data to block transparency, the agency sets a dangerous precedent.
While the public is told this is a matter of efficiency, the reality is that routine surveillance of dissenting voices is being shielded from exposure. The more the agency monitors, the easier it becomes to deny public access.
New York Imposes Law Forcing Social Media to Justify Speech Policies to State Authorities
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 3, 2025
Social media companies operating in New York are now under fresh legal obligations as the state enforces the so-called “Stop Hiding Hate Act,” a new compelled speech law that forces platforms with annual revenues exceeding $100 million to hand over detailed reports on how they handle various forms of speech, including speech that is legally protected under the First Amendment.
The legislation went into effect on October 1 and has already triggered a constitutional showdown in court.
The law, officially Senate Bill S895B, demands biannual disclosures to the state Attorney General’s office.
These reports must outline how platforms define terms such as “hate speech,” “misinformation,” “harassment,” “disinformation,” and “extremism.”
Companies are also required to explain what moderation practices they apply to those categories and to provide specifics about actions taken against users and content.
Platforms that fail to comply face penalties of up to $15,000 per violation, per day. Injunctive action can also be taken against non-compliant entities.
Attorney General Letitia James declared that the law is about transparency and oversight.
“With violence and polarization on the rise, social media companies must ensure that their platforms don’t fuel hateful rhetoric and disinformation,” she said in a public statement, reinforcing her view that private companies should be accountable to the state for how they manage user expression.
“The Stop Hiding Hate Act requires social media companies to share their content moderation policies publicly and with my office to ensure that these companies are more transparent about how they are addressing harmful content on their platforms.”
Governor Kathy Hochul voiced similar sentiments, saying the legislation “builds on our efforts to improve safety online and marks an important step to increase transparency and accountability.”
The reporting rules, however, do not simply demand that companies disclose general moderation policies. They compel platforms to state clearly how they define some of the most politically charged and subjective categories of online content. These include terms that do not have universally accepted definitions and that often serve as the basis for viewpoint discrimination.
This government demand for compelled speech is at the heart of a legal battle now playing out in federal court.
In June 2025, X Corp., the company behind the X platform, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law.
The company’s complaint argues that Senate Bill S895B is a direct assault on editorial discretion and a violation of free speech rights enshrined in both the US and New York Constitutions.
According to the complaint, the law imposes “an impermissible attempt by the State to inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process.” X warns that the statute operates as a tool to pressure platforms into adopting government-favored positions on disputed topics.
Key to X’s legal objection is what it refers to as the “Content Category Report Provisions.” These provisions, the company argues, effectively force platforms to accept the state’s framing of controversial topics, including “foreign political interference” and “hate speech,” regardless of how a private entity might choose to treat or define such categories independently.
The lawsuit also highlights the heavy financial threat tied to non-compliance, noting that fines can reach $15,000 per day for every violation. In addition, platforms could face legal action from the Attorney General’s office.
In defending its position, X Corp. references a victory it recently secured in a separate First Amendment case involving a similar law in California. There, the Ninth Circuit ruled that forced reporting of this nature likely constitutes compelled non-commercial speech and does not hold up under strict scrutiny.
The court concluded that forcing platforms to adopt state-defined language “amounts to compelled speech,” a stance X Corp. is urging the Southern District of New York to follow.
The company’s lawsuit goes a step further, pointing to legislative bias as motivation for the law’s passage.
According to the complaint, New York lawmakers refused to engage with X’s representatives in the wake of the California ruling, explicitly citing their disapproval of Elon Musk’s public statements and use of the platform.
In correspondence included in the court filing, lawmakers dismissed the company’s concerns because, in their words, Musk had used X to promote content that “threatens the foundations of our democracy.”
That remark, X argues, reveals a plainly unconstitutional motive rooted in viewpoint discrimination. “The government cannot do indirectly what [it] is barred from doing directly,” the complaint states, referencing controlling Supreme Court precedent.
Despite the ongoing litigation, New York officials are moving forward with the law’s enforcement.
Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, one of the bill’s sponsors, defended the policy as a necessary countermeasure to what he described as real and potential violence driven by online speech. “The Stop Hiding Hate Act will ensure that New Yorkers are able to know what social media companies are doing (or not doing) to stop the spread of hatred and misinformation on their platforms,” he said.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have wide-reaching implications not only for companies operating in New York but also for how much power states can exert over online speech. For now, platforms face a stark choice: speak as the state demands or risk steep penalties for silence.
Will California Zionise K-12 Education?
By Rick Sterling | Global Research | October 2, 2025
Factual information about Israel and Palestine may soon be outlawed in the California K-12 school system. Assembly Bill 715 is currently on Governor Newsom’s desk. The legislation was recently rushed through the California legislature, amended just days before passage, and voted on at 1 a.m. with almost no time for public comment.
The hurry is intentional because opposition grows whenever people learn about it. AB715 is opposed by educators across the spectrum, including the California Teachers Association, California Faculty Association, Association of School Board Administrators, California School Boards Association, and Council of UC Faculty Associations. Civil rights organizations, such as ACLU Action, also oppose the legislation.
What It Purports to Do
Assembly Bill 715 aims to “prevent antisemitism.” It asserts, “Jewish and Israeli pupils are facing a widespread surge in antisemitic discrimination, harassment, and bullying. In many cases, such discrimination, harassment, and bullying has been so severe and pervasive that it has placed Jewish pupils at risk, or completely impeded their ability to learn or engage in school programs or activities.”
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is the main source for the claim that there is a “widespread surge” in antisemitism. Their accuracy is widely disputed. As the Jewish Currents publication reports, “A line-by-line reassessment of the organization’s data illuminates the flaws in its methodology.”
There is already protection in the California Education Code for genuine cases of discrimination or bullying. Section 220 of the code specifies that “No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes.” Through their ethnicity and religion, Jewish students are clearly a protected group. So are Israeli students. They can file claims of discrimination under existing legislation.
What It Will Actually Do
AB715 aims to expand the definition of “discrimination” and outlaw any textbook, instructional material, or course content that “would subject a pupil to unlawful discrimination.”
But what is “unlawful discrimination”? AB715 specifies that the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism is the basis for identifying antisemitism. That report asserts, “Jewish students and educators are targeted for derision and exclusion on college campuses, often because of their real or perceived views about the State of Israel. When Jews are targeted because of their beliefs or their identity, when Israel is singled out because of anti-Jewish hatred, that is antisemitism.” The document claims, “an unshakeable commitment to the State of Israel’s right to exist, its legitimacy, and its security. In addition, we recognize and celebrate the deep historical, religious, cultural, and other ties many American Jews and other Americans have to Israel.”
The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism embraces the controversial “working definition” of antisemitism advanced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). This definition has been widely criticized for its conflation of antisemitism with anti-zionism and criticism of the State of Israel. Over 100 human rights and civil society organizations reject the IHRA definition. Yet this is the definition which AB715 is based on.
If passed, AB715 will result in strict regulation of education and educational material that might subject Jewish students to “unlawful discrimination”. Facts and informed opinions about the reality in Israel and Palestine may be considered “antisemitic” or likely to cause discomfort. For example, students will not learn:
- The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli PM Netanyahu charging him with crimes against humanity.
- The International Association of Genocide Scholars determined that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
- Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Israel’s B’Tselem have ALL independently investigated and determined that Israel is an apartheid state.
- The greatest scientist of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, was against the creation a Jewish state and sought a binational Arab Jewish state in Palestine.
- In 1948, Einstein, Hanna Arendt, and other Jewish leaders denounced Menachim Begin as a Nazi and fascist.
- The Israeli newspaper Haaretz documents a Jewish scholar who was zionist but now supports Hamas and considers their armed resistance legitimate and legal.
All of the above are facts and assessments by credible organizations and individuals. AB715 is so vague yet sweeping that such education about Israel and Palestine may be considered “unlawful discrimination” against a pro-Israel student and therefore prohibited.
The Costs of AB715
If passed, AB715 will cost Californians dearly. It mandates the creation of a new Office of Civil Rights with an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator and staff producing regular reports, investigations, etc. Incredibly, AB715 allows any member of the public to file a complaint, even anonymously. These complaints must be investigated and responded to within time requirements. School boards and superintendents, already busy, will have to spend precious time and resources investigating each and every complaint in a timely manner. The predictable result will be fear or prohibition on saying anything about Israel or Palestine. The Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator is also mandated to provide antisemitism education to teachers, administrators, and school boards.
Under California’s “Golden State Plan to Counter Antisemitism,” millions of dollars are appropriated for education about the genocide which ended 80 years ago. Meanwhile, there is no funding and it appears the California legislature seeks to prevent education about the genocide happening today in Gaza.
Making it even worse, AB715 invites lawsuits which will further burden the education system. The legislation says, “Civil law remedies, including but not limited to injunctions, restraining orders, or other remedies, may also be available to complainants.” Under AB715, as a gift for zionist activists, any member of the public can be a complainant.
AB715 Should Not Be Signed into Law
The organizations representing California teachers, adminstrators, school superintendents and school boards are ALL against this legislation. AB715 will be costly, wasteful, and damaging to K-12 education in California. Where there are genuine cases of discrimination or bullying, existing legislation is adequate. All students are protected against discrimination or bullying under section 220 of the California Education Code. Where Jewish or Israeli students have been victimized, they have the same recourse as all students. They do not need preferential treatment.
Teaching facts and expert opinions about Israel and Palestine is not antisemitic. It is history and current events.
Feeling uncomfortable when learning some facts or opinions is not being a victim; it is being educated. People can disagree and have different perceptions; they should not be prevented from hearing facts and different perspectives.
The intent of AB715 is clear: to restrict factual information about an important region of the world and to punish educators who present the Palestinian and anti-zionist Jewish perspective. Governor Newsom should not sign the legislation. To encourage him to make the right decision, contact him via this link.
This legislation does not prevent antisemitism; it actually promotes it by demonstrating that major Jewish organizations and the Jewish Legislative Caucus have the power to push this legislation which will deny the history and current reality of the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, Jewish Voice for Peace and organizations across the education profession are working hard to stop this assault on the California education system.
US deploys abortion law against Israel critics who picketed synagogue
RT | October 1, 2025
The US Justice Department has filed a civil lawsuit against several anti-Israeli protesters, using a law historically applied to protect women entering abortion clinics from pro-life demonstrators.
The complaint, filed on Monday by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, could mark the first of more cases to come, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said at a press conference. She argued that the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) was previously “weaponized” against pro-life activists, while those disrupting religious practices were not targeted.
The case stems from a November 2024 incident in West Orange, New Jersey. Congregation Ohr Torah synagogue was hosting a real estate fair promoting the sale of homes in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. The DOJ maintains that it was “a religious event centered on the Jewish obligation to live in the Land of Israel.”
Around 50 pro-Palestinian demonstrators staged a protest outside, which Dhillon characterized as a “mob.” An altercation broke out involving organizer Moshe Glick and his associate, David Silberberg. The complaint claims that one protester blasted a vuvuzela horn inches from Glick’s ear, an action prosecutors say amounted to a “physical attack” due to potential hearing damage.
Local media reported in February that Glick and Silberberg were charged in connection with the brawl after Glick allegedly pepper-sprayed a protester and struck his head with a metal flashlight. The DOJ complaint, however, described these actions as self-defense. One of the named defendants is accused of choking Silberberg and tackling him to the ground.
The fair was one of several US events promoting settlement property sales that drew pro-Palestinian protests as Israel pressed its military operation in Gaza. Jewish settlements in occupied territories are considered illegal under international law and remain a flashpoint in the broader Middle East conflict.
Enforcement of the FACE Act was reportedly scaled back early in US President Donald Trump’s term in office. In June, the House Judiciary Committee considered a bill introduced this year by Representative Chip Roy to repeal the measure entirely.
The Real Jan. 6th Coup
By Ron Paul | September 29, 2025
In my first column after the events of Jan. 6th, 2021, I criticized those who called the protest a “coup,” pointing out that, “Some of the same politicians and bureaucrats denouncing the ridiculous farce at the Capitol as if it were the equivalent of 9/11 have been involved for decades in planning and executing real coups overseas. In their real coups, many thousands of civilians have died.”
The media at the time played up the violence committed by a relative few at the protest to stoke a national outcry and demands for “justice.” More than 1,500 Americans were charged over the incident and nearly 500 were imprisoned, including outrageous prison sentences for relatively minor crimes like entering the Capitol building through doors opened by the police, and filming the event.
While most Democrats and Republicans in Congress harshly denounced the January 6th “insurrectionists,” a few Members displayed the appropriate skepticism over accepted government narratives. Rep. Thomas Massie, for example, was relentless in his search for answers to a simple but critically important question: How many of the “insurrectionists” were actually undercover FBI agents and other law enforcement officers and what role might they have played in inciting the violence.
Massie grilled then-Attorney General Merrick Garland several times, but Garland would not budge. He refused to say whether there had been any undercover federal agents in the crowd, though of course he must have known.
Last week we learned a little more of the truth. With the release of the FBI’s long lost “after action” report, we now know that more than 250 undercover agents were in the crowd. According to the report, they were given roles including crowd control that they were not suited for. Some agents cited in the report complained of political biases in the Bureau against conservatives. What other tasks might have been given to a “politicized” FBI undercover team?
In addition to the undercover agents, there were more than two dozen paid informants in the Jan. 6th crowd. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the subcommittee investigating the matter, asks an important question: “With that many paid informants being in the crowd, we want to know how many were in the crowd, how many were in the building, but I also want to know, were they paid to inform or instigate?”
Were they paid to inform, or to instigate? That is a good question. We do know that the event was used by the incoming Biden Administration to demonize and persecute the political opposition. There is no telling how many Americans would have liked to use their First Amendment guarantee of free speech to criticize the Biden Administration but were silenced by fear of persecution, or worse. It’s easy to conclude, seeing so many arrested and handed long sentences for non-violent “crimes,” that it’s better to keep quiet. At the time, the US was still in the grip of Covid tyranny, where speaking out against “the Science” could get you “cancelled” or worse. This was another way to silence people who were not “going along with the program.”
In the end, January 6th, 2021, was a coup of sorts. It was a coup against the First Amendment. The lesson for all of us is that if we do not regularly but peacefully exercise our First Amendment guarantees we will definitely lose them, regardless of who is in power.
Brussels finds a way to bypass Orbán’s veto on initiation of EU accession talks
Remix News | September 30, 2025
European Council President António Costa has proposed how to bypass Hungary’s veto and advance EU accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova.
Current rules mandate that all 27 EU member states approve each stage of the accession process. Costa’s proposal would allow a qualified majority vote to open so-called negotiating clusters for the two countries, notes Hirado, citing an article by Politico.
However, despite this move speeding up the accession process, final accession approval would still require unanimity.
Guillaume Mercier, the European Commission’s spokesperson for enlargement, said on Monday: “The possibility of the Council deciding by qualified majority on certain intermediate steps in the enlargement process would be worth exploring.”
This would help candidate countries, such as Ukraine and Moldova, to start the necessary reforms to align with EU standards, even if one or two member states officially oppose the start of negotiations.
EU diplomats say Costa’s proposal would offer a way to overcome Viktor Orbán’s repeated vetoes. “When a country is obstructed without any objective reason, despite fulfilling the criteria, the credibility of the entire enlargement process is at risk,” Mercier said.
Regarding “no objective reason,” however, is questionable, as Orbán has offered plenty of reasons. Notably, Ukraine is still at war, and even if the war should end, may be threatened with war once again in the future. Furthermore, Ukraine, even before the war, was rated as the most corrupt country in Europe, and since the war, corruption has only grown worse. Rebuilding the country is also expected to take hundreds of billions of euros, which EU taxpayers will increasingly be on the hook for if Ukraine joins the EU.
Costa nevertheless added, “It is really up to the Member States to decide on the next steps and we hope to open the first cluster soon.”
As Hirado notes, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also strongly supported extending qualified majority voting in certain areas such as foreign policy, but she has also clearly indicated that it could benefit other areas as well.
Asked whether EU enlargement could fall into this category, Paula Pinho, the Commission’s senior spokeswoman, responded on Monday: “That could indeed be examined.”
Featured Video
Col Doug Macgregor: America’s Back to ENDLESS WARS
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Excerpt
Leslie Wexner’s Inner Demon
BY WHITNEY WEBB |
UNLIMITED HANGOUT| JUNE 10, 2022
This short excerpt from Whitney Webb’s upcoming book “One Nation Under Blackmail” examines an obscure media profile of Leslie Wexner, Jeffrey Epstein’s mentor, from the 1980s that contains disconcerting revelations about Wexner’s personality and his inner world. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Coronistan on Why can’t western leaders acce… John Edward Kendrick on German government ‘embezzling’… loongtip on Von der Leyen to have new secu… papasha408 on First Gaza, then the world: Th… papasha408 on Is Nixing Aid to Israel a Pois… papasha408 on Japan to Sign Up For NATO’s Uk… Redracam on Iran Willing to Dilute Enriche… loongtip on When Threats Replace Evid… loongtip on Zelensky tried to kill the cha… eddieb on I might get killed for posting… Bill Francis on I might get killed for posting… loongtip on Beijing cancels Panama deals a…
Aletho News- Col Doug Macgregor: America’s Back to ENDLESS WARS
- Villains of Judea: Haim Saban
- Germany demands UN Rapporteur Albanese resign, joining France
- Hamas official says Netanyahu joining ‘peace council’ is a farce
- Israel Demanding that Iran Limit the Range of Missiles to 300 Kilometers
- Why can’t western leaders accept that they have failed in Ukraine?
- German government ‘embezzling’ taxpayer money to fund Ukraine – veteran politician
- Russian Soldiers Tortured in Secret Ukrainian Prisons
- Tensions between Hungary and Ukraine could lead to a new regional conflict
- Russia preparing oil lifeline to Cuba – embassy
- If Americans Knew
- AZAPAC, the new PAC opposing Israeli domination of U.S policies
- Haim Saban: Billionaire for Israel
- Rafah e-wallet plan highlights Israel’s deepening financial occupation
- Viral post claims Netanyahu sought legal approval, igniting speculation about Israel’s organ harvesting
- AIPAC Has a New Opponent: PAL PAC
- Right-Wing Catholic Off Trump Religion Panel After Israel-Gaza Remarks at Antisemitism Event
- Jewish terrorism, apartheid rule the West Bank – Not a ceasefire Day 125
- Why Israel persecutes children like my son Shadi
- In Gaza, One Man Is Searching for the Remains of His Family With a Flour Sifter
- Horrific situation in Gaza, West Bank – Not a ceasefire Day 124
- No Tricks Zone
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
Aletho News 