Chat Control will bring totalitarian communication regulation to so-called free Europe
By Ahmed Adel | September 18, 2025
European Union member countries will soon vote on the “Chat Control” law, which aims to end privacy when texting. Instead of a message going directly from sender to recipient, it will first be sent to a large database, where it will be thoroughly checked for eligibility. Essentially, this bill would require private providers of proprietary software to scan for anything they deem offensive or illegal. Many security experts argue that this would compromise the encryption algorithms currently protecting private messages from being read or viewed by anyone other than the intended recipient.
Since there is very little information available about what is technically envisioned for the implementation of this regulation, it appears to be more of an attempt to legalize post-hoc wiretapping schemes that already exist. For example, there was last year’s scandal involving the arrest of Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, a messaging app renowned for its data protection and encryption. The arrest of Durov was intended to pressure him into providing French intelligence services with a so-called “back door,” or special access to those communications.
Corporations, fearing lawsuits and their own liability, insist that the current arrangement, which has existed informally since the beginning of social media, be legalized in some way. The problem is that this is now difficult to impose because, although the idea has no open technical issues, it entails several fundamental problems, particularly the normalization of mass wiretapping and the erosion of what little trust people have in corporations. Take, for example, Google, which introduced Gmail and boasted about the security of its email service, which humans never read. However, although humans do not read them, they are monitored by Artificial Intelligence.
There is little difference whether humans or AI is monitoring communication, as the effects are still devastating for privacy. No police or intelligence service has enough people to monitor such a volume of messages. Algorithms now do that, and when human control is replaced with algorithmic control, public speech becomes severely limited, destroying not only the possibility of freedom of speech but also that of normal communication. As human communication on social media has become increasingly difficult due to bots and AI, people are now turning to chat apps, such as Viber, Telegram, and WhatsApp.
Corporations recognize that they are losing money due to the decline in interest in public debate, which is precisely a result of totalitarian control. For this reason, the EU now wants to establish the same type of control over the private part of our communication. Many people have adopted a mechanical, robotic logic of thinking because they have been coerced into self-censorship. However, many people who are aware of this situation still consider it unacceptable that the EU wants control over our communication.
The EU is notorious for precisely this unanimity and the ease with which the vast majority of citizens accept any position that is current at that moment, such as accepting increasing electricity prices, vaccinations, illegal immigrants, and sanctions against Russia.
A large portion of humanity uses social media. Therefore, even under ideal circumstances, AI will inevitably make many terrible mistakes. It is impossible for hundreds of millions of people communicating in different languages, making jokes or being ironic, to be constantly flagged and then monitored.
At the same time, people will stop using platforms that deny them freedom of speech and thought. Just as people boycott newspapers and television stations that participated in fake news and disinformation, they will boycott platforms where their privacy is eroded.
These are all processes that are already underway, and the debate over Chat Control is more about legalizing and normalizing surveillance of the public than proposing something important or new to people.
Chat Control was first proposed in 2022 but was voted down in 2023. This latest version, put forward by Denmark, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council, would require chat services to allow AI-based message screening before encryption in an effort to detect the sharing of child abuse material.
To pass, the Chat Control bill needs at least 65% support of the EU population. Although France, Spain, and Italy support Chat Control, Germany became the key opposition because its population ensures the impossibility of reaching the needed 65%, even if Estonia, Greece, Romania, and Slovenia – the four undecided countries – choose to support the law, as it would only add up to roughly 59% of the total EU population. Although it is evident that EU technocrats and the leading countries of the bloc, with the exception of Germany, are desperate for Chat Control, it appears that this draconian bill will not pass at this stage.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Up to 400,000 people deserted Ukrainian armed forces
By Ahmed Adel | September 17, 2025
The bulletproof vests for pregnant women displayed at a Ukrainian military equipment exhibition once again demonstrate the major manpower shortage Ukraine faces, and come at a time when there is increasingly intense public preparation for the mobilization of women. Due to mass desertion and huge losses at the front, the Kiev regime is preparing the mobilization of women, which is causing strong resistance in society. An attempt to forcibly mobilize women is a very risky step that could lead to serious social upheavals and unrest.
According to People’s Deputy of Ukraine Anna Kostiantynivna Skorokhod, there are a total of 400,000 deserters. To understand the scale – that is approximately the size of the armies of France, Great Britain, and Germany. Ukrainian authorities aim to introduce criminal liability for desertion, which would be punishable by imprisonment for 5 to 10 years. However, protests followed, even within the army, and it did not meet with approval. Nonetheless, it is clear that Ukraine needs to expand the mobilization base.
Due to the manpower shortage, the Kiev regime wants to lower the age limit and begin mobilizing not just young people from the age of 18 but also women. Although there are divisions within the Kiev regime over many issues, there is support from all factions to expand mobilization, with former commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and current ambassador to the United Kingdom, Valery Zaluzhny, calling for women “to defend Europe from war.”
The mobilization of women is becoming a major issue in Ukraine, with the media even broadcasting promotional videos showing uniformed women undergoing weapons training and preparing for combat. It is recalled that Iryna Vereshchuk, the deputy chief of staff to the president, ran around the training ground with an automatic rifle, setting a supposed example that women can also serve in the army. In this way, the Kiev regime is slowly preparing the ground for the decision that women are also subject to mobilization.
Mobilization in Ukraine is currently being carried out in accordance with the law and applies to certain categories of citizens and age groups, including men aged 24 to 60 years old. As for women, so far, only those working in the healthcare sector—medical workers and pharmacists—can be conscripted. However, even this sector has been expanded to include women working in pharmacies, regardless of formal education.
Given that the judicial system is completely under the control of the regime, and Zelensky has effectively suspended the constitution, citizens in Ukraine no longer have the legal protection they need. The legal system has collapsed, and the institutions that are supposed to protect rights are not functioning. Instead of a legal state, an open dictatorship is ruling in Kiev, which means that, in reality, anyone can be mobilized regardless of the law.
A significant portion of society, particularly women, is strongly opposed to any form of forced mobilization. Resistance will be far more fierce and massive than what is happening today with the mobilization of men. Already, in numerous situations on the streets, random passers-by — women and even strangers — are standing up for men who are being forcibly taken to recruitment centers. If they start arresting women, it will cause much greater social unrest, and it can be expected that there will be mutiny from within the army, as the men will not want their wives, sisters, and mothers mobilized.
By wanting to mobilize women, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wants to kill mothers and therefore the future of Ukraine, which is already experiencing a major demographic crisis. Not even single mothers would be safe from forced mobilization when considering that men who are the sole guardians of children are still mobilized, regardless of legal prohibitions. International human rights organizations, as well as other institutions and organizations, remain silent and knowingly turn a blind eye to such violations of the law and basic human rights, highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards of the international community.
The deep crisis of statehood and the legal order in Ukraine, where there are no longer any institutions that would protect citizens, is only an apparatus of repression. People are forcibly arrested on the streets, beaten for no reason, and when they try to contact the police, they not only do not react, but often the police join the violence.
The solution exists only in democratic institutions—namely, an independent judiciary, fair elections, and a change of government. But since the courts are not operating within the law and the regime is prohibiting elections, Ukrainian citizens will have no choice but to defend themselves, even with weapons, from those who have turned them into hostages of the repressive system.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Pam Bondi Says Government Will “Go After” Hate Speech, Drawing First Amendment Criticism
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 16, 2025
US Attorney General Pam Bondi has stirred controversy with recent comments seeming to suggest that certain forms of speech could fall outside First Amendment protections, a stance that is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution.
During an appearance on The Katie Miller Podcast, Bondi stated, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society…” She added, “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
Her remarks immediately drew sharp responses from across the political spectrum, with many warning that her approach opens the door to dangerous government overreach.
Bondi later attempted to narrow the scope of her original statements in a post on X, writing, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”
She continued, “For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE), a civil liberties group focused on free speech, fired back, stating, “There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.”
The Supreme Court has long protected even offensive or unpopular speech, with the Court’s view being that the “proudest boast” of America’s free speech legacy is “freedom for the thought that we hate.”
Conservatives who typically align with Bondi’s broader political positions also voiced concern.
Megyn Kelly, responding on X, wrote, “Hate speech is not prosecutable in America (which is good). Pam Bondi knows this.”
She suggested Bondi may have been referencing those plotting violence rather than those merely speaking in offensive terms. “Which would not be about the speech but the conspiracy,” Kelly added.
Britt Hume of Fox News was more direct. “Someone needs to explain to Ms. Bondi that so-called ‘hate speech,’ repulsive though it may be, is protected by the First Amendment. She should know this.”
Despite the wave of criticism, Bondi stuck to her position, reiterating her message in another post: “Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence. It is clear this violent rhetoric is designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals.”
However, Bondi had stated that, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.”
What Bondi described, true threats of violence, is already illegal under federal and state law. Invoking the term “hate speech” in this context is misleading. The constitution does not recognize “hate speech.”
By framing criminal threats as “hate speech,” Bondi moves the public conversation away from clearly defined, prosecutable offenses and into territory where legal protections still apply.
The First Amendment does not carve out exceptions for offensive or disturbing language, and attempts to categorize speech as criminal based solely on its content or tone run into immediate constitutional limits.
The concern is that rebranding existing crimes with emotionally charged labels like “hate speech” creates confusion about what the law actually allows.
It suggests there is a separate, punishable category of expression based on viewpoint or perceived offensiveness, something the US legal system has thankfully repeatedly rejected.
For a state’s top law enforcement official to advance that view undermines public understanding of both free speech protections and the scope of legitimate criminal enforcement.
Charlie Kirk has been one of the most vocal opponents of these censorship regimes. In a 2024 post on X, he made his position plain: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
ACMA Pressures Tech Giants to Maintain State-Backed Fact-Checking in Australia
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 16, 2025
Australia’s communications regulator is once again pushing for tighter control over online speech, using the language of “misinformation” as justification for expanding censorship.
In its latest report on the voluntary Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) criticizes major platforms for stepping away from state-aligned fact-checking programs and chastises others for refusing to sign up to the code at all.
The regulator insists that “support for independent fact-checking in Australia appears to be stalling” and warns of “the potential impact of pulling away from, or limiting support for, independent fact-checking by signatories in Australia.”
This complaint exposes the real agenda: keeping tech companies tethered to outside arbiters of truth rather than trusting users to decide for themselves.
ACMA singles out Google, noting: “In July 2025, it was reported that Google would not renew its partnership with the Australian Associated Press’s fact-checking team.”
Meta is also put on notice after adopting a more open model in the United States, moving away from contracted fact-checkers in favor of community-driven notes.
Even though no such shift has been formally announced in Australia, ACMA underlines that Meta admits “4 of its 2025 commitments are contingent on it engaging third-party fact-checking organizations to fact-check content on their services.”
The report further scolds companies that never joined the code, declaring:
“It is disappointing that several major platforms have not signed up to the code. By electing not to submit their systems and processes to the same scrutiny as signatories, these platforms are sending a strong message to Australians that they are not supporting a coordinated industry-led approach to combatting disinformation and misinformation.”
ACMA then issues a direct demand: “We call on major non-signatories to sign up to the code to provide greater transparency to Australians about what they are doing to address disinformation and misinformation.”
What the regulator portrays as “voluntary” is in reality a pressure campaign: comply with outside “fact-checking” oversight or be publicly shamed as irresponsible.
By holding up third-party fact-checkers as the only credible safeguard, ACMA is endorsing a censorship regime where a handful of organizations act as gatekeepers of truth.
Community-led models that allow citizens to challenge and contextualize claims are sidelined, while central authorities are favored.
To those paying attention, ACMA’s report reads like an attempt to lock platforms into a system that elevates government-aligned “fact-checkers” above open discussion.
Australians have a right to free expression without bureaucrats or their preferred partners deciding what information is fit to see.
The louder ACMA complains about companies moving away from fact-checking, the clearer it becomes that the real “harm” being prevented is not misinformation itself, but the risk of ordinary people making up their own minds.
Parliamentary elections begin in Syria with citizens barred from voting
The Cradle | September 15, 2025
Syria is set to hold parliamentary elections on 15 September, its first since the fall of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government to extremist forces late last year.
The process will continue until Saturday, with the possibility of extension if deemed necessary.
Regional electoral committees will select 140 seats out of Syria’s 210-seat parliament, rather than citizens directly voting for members of parliament. The committees have been appointed by the Supreme Election Committee.
The other 70 MPs are set to be selected personally by Syria’s interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, the former Al-Qaeda chief known previously as Abu Mohammad al-Julani.
The Syrian government recently announced that the elections will not include Suwayda Governorate, where thousands of Druze civilians were massacred by government forces during heavy fighting in the area in July.
It also said the Kurdish-controlled governorates of Hasakah and Raqqa will not be included, stressing that this was for “security concerns.” Kurdish authorities have denounced the decision.
Tensions have escalated recently between Damascus and the US-backed Kurdish militia, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which is closely linked to the de facto autonomous administration that governs parts of north and east Syria.
The SDF had signed an agreement in March to integrate its forces into Syria’s extremist-dominated military. However, it has demanded that it remain under Kurdish command and enter the army as a bloc, rather than dissolve and be conscripted regularly.
No SDF members were included when Damascus announced the formation of the Syrian government in March.
Monday’s election process has reinforced concerns about the lack of inclusivity in post-Assad Syria.
Khaled Jabr, a lawyer and legal expert from Hasakah, told North Press Agency on 11 September that the elections “do not reflect the people’s will” and instead represent “another form of dictatorship under a different guise.”
“The Damascus government monopolizes decision-making, excluding the people from every process – whether drafting a transitional constitution, forming transitional justice bodies, or even appointing the president. All these measures constitute clear violations of the law,” he added.
Jabr went on to say that people in north and east Syria “are not at all concerned with this electoral mechanism imposed by Damascus, as there is ongoing pressure to exclude them from participation.”
“Essentially, the government seeks to reinforce authoritarianism, far removed from democracy and human rights.”
Months before the massacres of the Druze in July, Syrian government troops killed thousands of Alawite civilians during a brutal and indiscriminate military operation on the country’s coast.
Syria has enjoyed sanctions relief from Europe, and will also soon be relieved of US Caesar Act sanctions despite failing to form an inclusive government and persecuting minorities.
Political corruption has also emerged as a concern in the current Syrian government. A Reuters investigation from July revealed that Syrian leadership has quietly taken control of over $1.6 billion in assets formerly held by businessmen linked to the Assad government.
The asset takeover, conducted outside public view, is part of an economic overhaul directed by Hazem al-Sharaa, the older brother of the self-appointed interim president. Sources told Reuters the committee has negotiated directly with sanctioned and unsanctioned tycoons, demanding that they hand over substantial parts of their wealth in exchange for immunity and permission to resume operations.
Syria’s president formerly led Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front and was personally involved in war crimes against civilians in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. The Nusra Front was later rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
Alongside a long list of other crimes, HTS would steal humanitarian aid bound for civilians during the Syrian war and resell it for exorbitant prices on the black market.
Brazilian Judge Orders Global Deletion of X Posts in Civil Defamation Cases, Rejects Geoblocking as Insufficient
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2025
A Brazilian judge’s order demanding that posts on X be erased not just within Brazil but across the entire globe has caused concerns over national courts asserting control over international online speech.
The ruling, handed down by Judge Jeferson Isidoro Mafra in Blumenau, Santa Catarina, orders the platform to delete specific content worldwide, regardless of whether it violates laws in other countries.
The platform’s Global Government Affairs team publicly criticized the decision, calling it a direct threat to global freedom of expression.
“This means that even if the content is not unlawful in other countries, the Brazilian judiciary believes it has the power to issue orders that extend beyond its own jurisdiction and reach the entire world,” the statement read.
X also pointed out that the ruling runs counter to international law, which restricts a nation’s legal reach to its own territory. “This contradicts a basic principle of international law that limits jurisdiction to national territory and puts global freedom of expression at risk,” the platform added.
The ruling stems from two lawsuits filed by Leonardo Wagenknecht Utech, a business administrator, who accused other users of insulting him on the platform.
One of the disputes began after Utech mocked a pro-amnesty demonstration related to the January 8 riots.
His sarcastic comment drew a harsh reply from another user, which Judge Mafra determined was offensive and unlawful.
The judge ordered the response removed and instructed X to provide the IP address of the user in question, an order the platform followed.
But the most controversial element wasn’t the content of the posts. It was the court’s insistence that the deletion must apply globally.
X argued that enforcing Brazilian laws beyond Brazil’s borders sets a dangerous precedent, but Judge Mafra dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, declaring that full removal was non-negotiable.
He also claimed that there was no issue of overreach, saying the court’s order “removes Brazilian interest and is based on Brazilian standards.”
In a second case brought by Utech, the pattern repeated. After he made a comment critical of Pope Leo XIV’s alleged political leanings, another user responded with an insult.
Once again, the judge ruled in Utech’s favor and again imposed a global takedown order.
Mafra maintained that such posts exceeded the bounds of lawful expression, asserting that “freedom of expression is not unlimited” and must conform to notions of “honor, good faith, good customs.”
The judge imposed financial penalties for noncompliance, including a daily fine of one thousand reais ($183) capped at twenty thousand.
Two separate injunctions have been granted so far, both ordering global deletion of user posts.
Isabella Cêpa Wins Landmark Free Speech Case After Brazil Sought 25-Year Sentence for “Misgendering”
Courts forced to choose between identity politics and the constitution
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2025
Isabella Cêpa, a Brazilian feminist and outspoken women’s rights advocate, has defeated a legal campaign that once threatened her with up to 25 years in prison.
Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court issued a final, non-appealable ruling in her favor, concluding a high-profile case that began with a brief social media video and evolved into one of the most significant free speech battles in Brazil’s modern history.
After years of legal pressure and public silence from Brazilian institutions, Cêpa has not only escaped prosecution but has been granted full refugee protections in Europe.
The move marks the first time a Brazilian citizen has received asylum abroad for being persecuted over gender-critical beliefs. Her case has now become a legal precedent, one that free speech advocates say could help protect others facing similar repression.
The conflict began in 2020 when Erika Hilton, a politician who identifies as a woman, won a city council seat in São Paulo. The media widely described Hilton as “the most voted woman” in the city. This caught Cêpa’s attention and led to her making a video that she posted online.
“At the time I didn’t even know who this person was. I just saw a headline on an Instagram page celebrating that ‘the most voted woman in São Paulo is a transwoman,’” Cêpa said.
“Then, I shared a video with my followers saying I was disappointed to hear that the most voted-for woman in São Paulo, later found out that it was in the entire country, was a man.”
That single statement triggered a criminal complaint. Hilton reported her to police, which led to an investigation. In early 2022, authorities summoned Cêpa for questioning.
She was unaware of the extent of the charges until a major newspaper contacted her for comment.
It was only through that journalist that she learned prosecutors had charged her with five counts of “social racism,” a category invented by the Supreme Federal Court in 2019 to criminalize discrimination against the “LGBTQ community” under Brazil’s race-based hate crime laws.
Investigators reportedly combed through Cêpa’s social media history to gather posts that might be labeled “transphobic.” These were used to build a case portraying her as a repeat offender. The potential sentence added up to 25 years in prison.
While her legal fight in Brazil is now over, her victory has implications far beyond her personal safety. Cêpa’s successful asylum application may now serve as a blueprint for others whose gender-critical views place them at odds with increasingly aggressive speech laws.
Ireland’s Communications Minister Stands by “Disinformation” Plan, Citing Need to Tackle Online “Gossip”
Public consultation was billed as dialogue but ended up as window dressing
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2025
Despite overwhelming public resistance, Ireland’s government is pressing on with its national “disinformation” strategy.
Communications Minister Patrick O’Donovan has acknowledged that most responses to the public consultation opposed the plan, but said the State has a duty to tackle “gossip” circulating online.
The consultation, carried out ahead of the strategy’s launch, produced a clear result: approximately 83 percent of submissions were against the proposal, even objecting to the concept itself.
Still, the government moved ahead. When asked during a press conference what purpose the consultation served if the outcome was dismissed, O’Donovan avoided addressing the contradiction directly.
“Yeah, and we got responses from other people as well,” he said, adding: “What we have seen over the last number of years is that there has been, unfortunately, in some quarters, a move to believe gossip online as fact and run with gossip online as fact.”
The strategy, introduced earlier this year, outlines a range of state-backed efforts to counter what officials describe as disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.
O’Donovan emphasized the importance of “trusted sources,” claiming the initiative will help the public separate truth from fiction.
“So look, it’s very important from a government’s point of view, from a democracy point of view, and from basically being able to disseminate what’s news and what’s fiction to have a national counter-disinformation and malinformation, and misinformation strategy,” he said.
According to O’Donovan, the government plans to increase its support for traditional media, including print, broadcast, and commercial radio. He also highlighted measures to aid new journalists entering the field. “It sets out a number of different actions, including supports for young journalists that are emerging out of university, how we make sure that they actually have a pathway for careers,” he said.
Yet the core issue raised by the public, freedom of expression, remains ignored.
When pressed by a reporter, O’Donovan offered no explanation for why the department failed to examine how the strategy might affect free speech.
His own department later confirmed in writing that it had conducted no analysis on that issue, even though it dominated the consultation feedback.
The Minister instead reiterated the need to protect news integrity. “I think what’s very justifiable in Ireland in 2025 is that what passes for news is actually news. What passes for fiction is actually fiction,” he said. “Because unfortunately, we have, notwithstanding the importance of free speech, an awful lot of what’s passing off as news at the moment is just mere gossip.”
Far from responding to concerns, the government appears intent on pushing ahead regardless. O’Donovan framed the consultation as just one piece of the broader strategy, which will continue to receive State investment and institutional support.
In his view, ensuring that citizens receive information from approved sources outweighs objections raised about censorship. “That’s what our department is doing. That’s what the strategy sets out,” he said. “And that’s what the misinformation, malinformation and disinformation strategy seeks to be able to support.”
But for those who took part in the consultation, the government’s course of action suggests their input carried no real weight.
No adjustments were made to reflect public concerns, no assessment was done on the potential risks to civil liberties, and no justification has been offered for ignoring a process that was billed as public engagement.
If Ireland’s disinformation strategy is meant to reinforce democratic values, its rollout has done the opposite. It has shut out dissent, refused transparency, and treated public opinion as a formality rather than a foundation.
Von der Leyen Unveils New EU Censorship Push, Online Digital ID Plans, in 2025 State of the Union Speech
Von der Leyen casts online “misinformation” as a contagion, folding speech regulation into the language of safety.
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 11, 2025
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used her 2025 State of the Union speech to unveil a raft of new regulatory measures that introduce new challenges for digital rights and freedom of expression across the continent and the world.
Framed as measures for public health, democracy, and child protection, the Commission is pushing the EU deeper into institutionalized censorship and online regulation.
Addressing the European Parliament, von der Leyen declared she is “appalled by the disinformation that threatens global progress on everything from measles to polio.”
Citing fears of a global health crisis, she introduced a “Global Health Resilience Initiative,” which she said the EU would lead.
This initiative is expected to tie online speech more tightly to global health narratives, laying the groundwork for broader suppression of dissenting views under the label of medical misinformation.
Another centerpiece of her address was the so-called “European Democracy Shield,” a program that we’ve covered in great detail, intended to streamline and centralize the Commission’s censorship machinery under the banner of fighting “foreign information manipulation and interference.”
Framing the internet as a battlefield, she said: “Our democracy is under attack. The rise in information manipulation and disinformation is dividing our societies.”
Expanding on that framework, she announced the creation of a new institution, the European Centre for Democratic Resilience.
According to von der Leyen, this center will allow the EU to scale up its ability “to monitor and detect information manipulation and disinformation.”
But the agenda didn’t stop there. She introduced the Media Resilience Program, which she claimed would support “independent journalism and media literacy.”
In practice, however, such efforts often result in government-approved messaging being amplified, while dissenting outlets don’t get funded.
Von der Leyen pointed to declining local journalism in rural communities and claimed: “This has created many news deserts where disinformation thrives…This is why we will launch a new Media Resilience Program – it will support independent journalism and media literacy.”
Despite the existing Digital Services Act already mandating age verification (and therefore digital ID) online, von der Leyen floated a new, even more restrictive direction for internet access among young people.
Drawing inspiration from Australia’s controversial 2024 Online Safety Amendment, which includes a social media ban for those under 16, she suggested the EU could move toward similar rules.
“Just as in my days, we as a society taught our children that they could not smoke, drink, and watch adult content until a certain age. I believe it is time we consider doing the same for social media,” she said.
The entire speech signals a continued consolidation of control over digital spaces by EU institutions, with a heavy focus on regulating speech and tightening access restrictions.
Zionist lawfare operation facing collapse?
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | September 13, 2025
On September 7th, notorious Zionist lobby group UK Lawyers For Israel published a joint letter, triggered by 86% of International Association of Genocide Scholars members backing a resolution declaring “Israel” is committing genocide in Gaza days earlier. The lengthy screed blamed Hamas for Tel Aviv’s mass slaughter of Palestinians since October 7th, and charged the Resistance group itself was in fact guilty of genocide, on the risible, purported basis that Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, Jews and Israelis.”
UKLFI’s repulsive, inverted narrative of Tel Aviv’s 21st century Holocaust in Gaza was reportedly endorsed by close to 500 “legal, antisemitism, history, holocaust, and genocide scholars.” Yet, upon publication, multiple listed signatories angrily announced their names were included without consent, while denouncing the letter’s content in the strongest possible terms. Close inspection indicates several signatories are listed repeatedly, many are tied to Zionist lobby groups, and others – such as a professor of electrical engineering – are self-evidently not qualified to make any judgement on genocide whatsoever.
Such brazen fraud is par for the course for UKLFI. The group has a lengthy, deplorable history of targeting individuals and organisations via frivolous if not outright vexatious lawfare, falsely conflating criticism of the Zionist entity with antisemitism in order to neutralise Palestine solidarity in schools, universities, workplaces, hospitals, and elsewhere. UKLFI’s embarrassingly botched stunt is especially shameful this time round though, as the operation is presently embroiled in significant legal quandaries of its own. The situation is so dire that UKLFI could collapse.
As Al Mayadeen reported in August, a detailed complaint was filed against UKLFI by the Public Interest Law Centre and European Legal Support Center with Britain’s Solicitors Regulation Authority. The 114-page document accused the group of using the law for nakedly politicised intimidation purposes, and ostensibly operating as a legal body despite being unregulated and unaccountable. Adding to UKLFI’s woes, its charitable wing is concurrently under formal investigation by the Charity Commission For England and Wales, due to the pioneering research of advocacy group CAGE.
‘Validating Evidence’
Founded in 2010 – aptly following a “conference on lawfare” convened in an illegal Israeli settlement near Jerusalem [Al-Quds] – UKLFI quickly established itself at the forefront of a new, “more combative” strain of Tel Aviv’s lobbying in Britain. UKLFI’s website is entirely explicit about its rabid commitment to defending the Zionist entity by any means necessary. UKLFI avowedly provides “legal support including advocacy, research, advice and campaigning in combating attempts to undermine, attack and/or delegitimise Israel, Israeli organisations, Israelis and/or supporters of Israel.”
The organisation moreover aims “to contribute generally as lawyers to creating a supportive climate of opinion” in Britain towards the Zionist entity. CAGE forensically details how UKLFI’s stances are not only “fringe” within the legal profession, but reflect Zionism at its most extreme. For instance, the organisation’s representatives fervently argue the Occupied Palestinian Territories aren’t in fact in breach of international law. The UN has consistently found over many years these Israeli settlements are flagrantly illegal, and displaced Palestinians must be permitted to return home.
CAGE traces in forensic detail UKLFI’s intimate yet opaque ties with the Israeli government. In 2012, UKLFI jointly hosted a two-day seminar alongside the Zionist entity’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and London’s Israeli embassy on lawfare strategies. This included presentations on strategies to cripple the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and how British laws – including the Public Order Act, legislation on Hate Speech, and civil suits for defamation – could be used to the detriment of Palestine solidarity.
In 2019, UKLFI chiefs consulted senior Israeli Ministry of Justice officials, seeking “assistance in finding or validating evidence to help” the organisation in “potential legal actions” brought against it by two pro-Palestine charities, after UKLFI libelously charged the pair were linked directly to proscribed terrorist groups. The Zionist lobby group has lodged bogus complaints against countless organisations, including leading Palestinian aid organisations, to the Charity Commission, and other authorities since birth. This includes Amnesty International, for accusing “Israel” of practicing apartheid. None have been upheld.
In 2016, UKLFI established a charitable wing – the pair are effectively indivisible, sharing patrons and personnel. The charity claims to offer pro bono education and training services, but CAGE notes this invariably amounts to “apologia for racial segregation and apartheid.” Its events routinely host Zionist Occupation Force representatives, and hardline Zionist figures and groups. Some speakers deny uncontroversially proven historic Israeli atrocities and massacres against Palestinians. Others offer advice to audiences on how to weaponise the law to further Tel Aviv’s interests locally and globally.
In 2019, UKLFI’s charitable wing hosted Regavim, an Israeli NGO that actively advocates for the destruction of Palestinian homes in the West Bank. The organisation itself employs lawfare, and via regulatory loopholes, facilitates the destruction and dismantling of Palestinian homes and infrastructure. In the process, per CAGE, “entire communities” are left “without proper roads, houses, or even water systems.” Regavim was founded by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and is Zionist entity-funded. Even liberal Israeli lobby groups harshly condemned the event.
A common UKLFI tactic is to bombard British regulatory bodies and private entities “to disrupt any public displays of solidarity for Palestine” in any context, problematising even the most basic expressions of support as somehow antisemitic. This has prompted numerous organisations to ban wearing Palestine badges or other paraphernalia by staff or students, and in extreme instances, led to employees losing their jobs. CAGE records:
“There are manifold cases in both the public and private sector of UKLFI writing to organisations and attempting to ensure staff of those organisations do not wear anything that might indicate support for Palestine… [UKLFI] doesn’t appear to have any cogent case for why expressing solidarity for Palestine necessitates Jewish people to feel unsafe – especially when considering the widespread support that the Palestinian cause has among Jewish groups in the UK.”
‘Encouraging Hamas’
UKLFI’s noxious activities have become turbocharged since the Gaza genocide’s eruption. Along the way, it has taken credit for the suspension of pro-Palestine NHS doctors, among other things. Meanwhile, in April 2024, UKLFI charity wing chief Natasha Hausdorff – formerly an Israeli Supreme Court clerk – testified to parliament’s Business and Trade Committee on British arms exports to the Zionist entity. She argued the flow of weapons should continue, dismissed confirmed Palestinian death tolls as fraudulent, and unbelievably praised Tel Aviv’s “consistent upholding of international humanitarian law.”
The next month, UKLFI deployed perverse arguments to deny the Zionist entity was deliberately starving Gazans. In a letter to the Co-operative Group opposing a motion to boycott Israeli products, UKLFI chief Jonathan Turner condemned a Lancet estimate of 186,000 Palestinians murdered by Tel Aviv during the genocide to date. He sickeningly suggested “Israel’s” unconscionable assault in fact delivered health benefits that could increase local life expectancy, such as a reduction in obesity, due to constricted access to unhealthy food and cigarettes.
In September that year, UKLFI dispatched a formal letter to the British government threatening legal action in the form of a judicial review unless a partial, token suspension of 30 arms export licences to “Israel” was reversed. Three months later, the lobby group submitted complaints to the Bar Standards Board and International Criminal Court against ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan for seeking arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. UKLFI alleged Khan had breached professional conduct rules, by making false statements and misleading the ICC.
The Court responded by warning UKLFI to be “alive to their own ethical responsibilities and their duty not to mislead.” Clearly undeterred, in April 2025, Hausdorff testified to Parliament’s Foreign Affairs committee. She used the opportunity to dodge charges that “Israel” was deliberately starving Palestinians, repeatedly dismiss Palestinian statehood as a “fantasy”, and accuse Western governments – including Britain’s own – of somehow “encouraging Hamas”. Her comments elicited audible objections of “delusional” from committee chair Emily Thornberry, not recorded in official transcripts.
The next month, Hausdorff led a counter-protest in London against a public commemoration of Palestine’s 1948 ethnic cleansing – known as the Nakba – declaring the event an antisemitic blood libel, and saying that “the lie of the Nakba” was part of a wider attack on Jews. This was despite the commemoration’s sizeable Jewish presence. Hausdorff published her address on social media – one of “innumerable” examples of public statements contrary to international law she has made collated by CAGE, which triggered the Charity Commission probe.
None of UKLFI’s work could plausibly be characterised as fulfilling legitimate charitable or legal objectives. It’s a bitter irony indeed that the organisation, which has for a decade-and-a-half sought to corrupt and distort British law in service of Tel Aviv’s repugnant settler colonial project, and ruined countless careers and lives in the process, now finds itself effectively in the dock. UKLFI’s latest faux pas, like “Israel’s” recent failed attempt at regime change in Iran, is unambiguously indicative of a flailing entity on the verge of extinction.
US lawmakers introduce ‘thought police’ bill to strip citizens of passports over Israel criticism
The Cradle | September 13, 2025
A US congressman is introducing a bill that could potentially be used to deny US citizens the right to travel based solely on their speech, including for criticism of Israel, the Intercept reported on 13 September.
Introduced by Florida Congressman Brian Mast, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the bill would grant Secretary of State Marco Rubio the power to revoke the passports of US citizens in the same way he has revoked the green cards and visas of foreign nationals in the US for criticizing Israel.
In March, Secretary of State Rubio revoked the visa of Turkish doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk after she wrote an opinion piece critical of Israel in the Tufts University student newspaper in 2024.
The op-ed did not mention Hamas, but called for boycotting and divesting from Israel.
One section of the bill grants the Secretary of State the ability to deny passports to people determined to have “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”
The reference to “material support” disturbs civil liberties advocates because it is vague and can be interpreted to include speech and anti-war activism.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which functions as a front for Israeli intelligence in the US, and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law suggested in a letter last year that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) was providing “material support” for Hamas by organizing campus protests against Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
The provision regarding material support to terrorism poses a threat specifically to journalists, The Intercept noted.
In 2023, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas demanded a Justice Department “national security investigation” of AP, CNN, The New York Times, and Reuters after they published photos taken by freelance photographers during the Hamas attack on Israeli settlements and military bases on 7 October 2023.
All messenger apps are ‘transparent’ to spy agencies – Kremlin
RT | September 7, 2025
Messaging apps are “absolutely transparent” to intelligence agencies and security services, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. People who use them to share sensitive information should be aware of the risks, he added.
“All messengers are absolutely transparent systems, and people who use them should understand that they are transparent… to the security services,” Peskov told journalists on Friday at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia.
He added that it is particularly important to consider the risks when sensitive government or commercial data is shared through these apps, which can be accessed by foreign intelligence services.
Peskov was commenting on Telegram and WhatsApp in Russia, as well as the Russian government’s support for developing a domestic messaging platform.
Russian security services have accused Telegram and WhatsApp of using double standards for refusing to share data with the Russian authorities about fraud and terrorist plots while complying with similar requests from other countries.
In July, a member of the State Duma’s committee on information policy and technology, Anton Nemkin, called WhatsApp’s continued presence in Russia a “legalized breach of national security.”
Russian law enforcement officials have said that Ukrainian intelligence, along with other malicious actors such as swindlers and con artists, often relies on databases containing personal data obtained through WhatsApp and Telegram to recruit agents or identify targets inside Russia.
In December 2024, the US government also warned senior officials to switch to encrypted communications after a security breach in which a group of hackers stole data, including information stored under US government surveillance protocols as part of “legal” wiretapping of American suspects.
Featured Video
The Most Important Bet You’ve Never Heard Of
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Wars for Israel: A reminder of who’s giving the marching orders
By Damian Lataan | February 7, 2012
As the West prepares to march off to yet another war in the Middle East, we should perhaps remind ourselves of who is giving the West their marching orders.
In February 2003, just weeks before the US and their allies launched their attack on Iraq and her peoples, a delegation of US congressmen, together with the US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, a well known pro-Zionist and neoconservative war-hawk, were in Israel at the invitation of the Israeli government then led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Addressing the congressmen, Sharon told them ‘that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq’. Later, Sharon told John Bolton ‘that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq’. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- UAE rejects report claiming it is ready to join war on Iran to reopen Hormuz
- A New Resistance Front: How Does Syria Factor into the Regional War?
- Gulf states weigh pipeline expansion plans, hoping to bypass Hormuz
- Iran sets up ‘tollbooth’ system in Strait of Hormuz
- Wave 90: IRGC strikes US-linked industrial sites in Gulf
- Iran Says US-Israeli Claims of Its Military Strength Are Wrong
- Trump’s April Fools’ Address to the nation
- The Most Important Bet You’ve Never Heard Of
- The killing of three Indonesian soldiers in Lebanon should remind Jakarta that Israel does not want peace
- Defeated and delusional: Netanyahu’s remarks reveal $80bn war failure, says analyst
- If Americans Knew
- ‘War crime’: Global condemnation as Israeli ministers celebrate death penalty law targeting Palestinian prisoners
- 7 Ways Israel Is Turning Lebanon Into Gaza
- World’s Leading Football Bodies Under Fire Over Israel Policies
- Experts warn of possible use of nukes against Iran
- Israeli invasion of Lebanon could be worse than 1982, warn European officials
- Passover: Liberation and collective punishment
- Trump says the quiet part out loud: (Israel’s) war on Iran > Americans’ health – Daily Update
- Gaza families reunite years after babies evacuated amid Israel’s war
- International Rescue Committee warns Gaza’s children face grave protection risks
- Iran’s Alleged 47-Year War on America: Debunking the 1,050 American Deaths Canard
- No Tricks Zone
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
Aletho News 