Alarming news from Finland

The Supreme Court of Finland on Thursday (March 26) found a former government minister guilty of “hate speech” for her biblical views on marriage following two prior acquittals by lower courts.

In a 3-2 decision, the court ruled against Päivi Räsänen for expressing her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 20-year-old church pamphlet. The court also criminally convicted Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola for publishing the 2004 pamphlet, according to legal rights group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International.

The court levied fines of several thousand euros on both Räsänen and Pohjola and ordered the removal and destruction of the impugned statements. Räsänen has been sentenced to a fine equivalent to 20 days’ wages (in her case, 1,800 euros) and she will also have to pay her own legal costs, according to Evangelical Focus. Pohjola was also given a 20-day fine, and his publishing house, Finnish Lutheran Foundation, must pay a fine of 5,000 euros.

The convictions were based on “making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group,” the court ruled.

Read the rest here.

cf: This

Two from CATO

5 Reasons the US Should Not Spend Another Penny on the War with Iran

FCC Threats and the Fog of War: The Government Cannot Be the Arbiter of Truth

The Decline of Liberal Policing in Britain and its Former Empire

The concept of classical liberal policing (henceforth “liberal policing”) has taken a beating in recent years, nowhere more so than in Britain and its former dominions. When Sir Robert Peel established the London Metropolitan Police in 1829, the flagship of Britain’s modern police forces, he envisioned it as a people’s police. Officers would defend British liberties on behalf of the public, not because the common people were incapable, but because it was more efficient to delegate the task to full-time professionals. To reduce undue political influence, officers swore an oath of allegiance to the Crown and to the law, not to the government of the day. They were unarmed and dressed in blue, as opposed to military scarlet, to emphasize their civilian status. The liberal image of British “bobbies,” as they were affectionately nicknamed, was immortalized in the television show Dixon of Dock Green (1955–1976). The main character, Police Constable George Dixon, lived among the community he served and upheld the law through routine foot patrols. His knack for subduing wrongdoers through words of wisdom meant that he rarely used violence.

Even as this television show was being aired, however, British police forces were discarding the liberal policing model. Constables have become increasingly militarized, politicized, and distant from the citizens they are supposed to serve. Nowadays, they appear more likely to violate civil liberties than to safeguard them. Two examples will suffice to show this fact. In 2002, the police arrested Harry Hammond, a British evangelical Christian, for exercising his right to protest. Hammond held up a placard in public criticizing homosexuality. When offended hecklers began verbally and physically harassing Hammond, the police were called. In the old days, they would have protected Hammond because freedom of speech is a central pillar of British justice. Instead, an officer arrested Hammond for hate speech. Even influential figures find themselves targeted. In September 2025, counter-terrorism police detained George Galloway and his wife. Galloway is a former member of parliament who leads the far-left Workers Party of Britain. Many of Galloway’s political opinions are anathema to liberalism. Nevertheless, he has a right to freedom of speech, and he is a brave critic of British imperialism. Counter terrorism officers informed Galloway and his wife that they were being detained without charge and that they had no right to silence. The elderly couple were grilled for several hours about their views on Palestine, Russia, China, and other areas of the world. Their devices and documents were confiscated. Galloway, who is in his seventies, says the stress of the ordeal has left him with heart problems.

How could the British police have degenerated so quickly from Dixon of Dock Green into an overbearing state gendarmerie? This article argues that there was always an illiberal streak in Peel’s model of policing. Like many British liberals, Peel supported the British Empire, which used repression to keep subject peoples in check. From the outset, this concession to imperialism left the door open to police authoritarianism. This threshold was crossed irrevocably in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as colonialism reached its apex and the First World War militarized the country. This tendency compromised the British police by the 1920s, though it preserved some liberal aspects until the 1960s, and one could find a liberal-minded remnant well into the early 2000s.

Read the rest here.

The Second Amendment Is Meaningless If the Government Can Kill You for Exercising It

What a difference four days can make. Last Tuesday, a top DOJ lawyer argued in the Supreme Court that people have a right to carry guns in public. By Saturday, another DOJ official warned: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.” The government went from championing gun rights to defending ICE agents’ fatal shooting of Alex Pretti. Only restraints on the use of force can stop officials from turning the Second Amendment into an excuse to kill civilians.

Read the rest here.

See also: License to Kill? The Legal Black Hole of Federal Misconduct

Hawaii’s Shocking Legal Argument Against the Second Amendment

This past Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, the Second Amendment case out of Hawaii in which the Aloha State is defying the Constitution and claiming it can ban concealed carry holders from all private property that is open to the public unless they have the explicit permission of the owner. Thus, you can spend a year in jail if you carry a gun that you have a license to carry onto private property that is open to the public such as a mall or a gas station where the owner is completely silent on the issue.

In other words, silence equals prison in Hawaii.

The oral arguments were full of questions, debates, and discussion of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s prior holdings on this very important provision of the Bill of Rights. But what was shocking was the reliance by Hawaii’s lawyer, Neal Katyal, a distinguished Supreme Court advocate, on blatantly bigoted state laws — the infamous Black Codes — to justify Hawaii’s defiance of the Second Amendment rights of its residents.

The Black Codes were some of the first laws passed in the United States to restrict gun ownership — and they were implemented in segregationist states like Louisiana after the end of the Civil War. They had one purpose, and one purpose only: to prevent newly freed black Americans from being able to defend themselves from the threats, assaults, intimidation, and killings perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan and other white, racist segregationists.

Justice Neil Gorsuch said he was “astonished” that Hawaii would “rely very heavily on an 1865 black code law in Louisiana,” with Katyal seemingly claiming that Hawaii’s law is “a dead ringer and reason alone to affirm the judgment.” Gorsuch said he really wanted “to understand how that could be,” that Hawaii is relying on a racist, historical outlier to support its argument that its law ought to be upheld.

Katyal didn’t seem to want to answer the question, referring to a California law instead, and Gorsuch chided him saying, “Why don’t you answer the question posed? I want to understand how you think black codes should inform this Court’s decision making.” Katyal admitted, “The black codes are undoubtedly a shameful part of our history,” but then made the astounding claim, “That doesn’t at all mean that this particular [Louisiana] law is irrelevant to Second Amendment analysis.”

Gorsuch’s response to Katyal’s rambling explanation of why Hawaii was embracing the racist black codes to try to uphold Hawaii’s firearms restrictions was akin to a vampire embracing garlic. In short, suggesting that such reasoning was unfathomable, inexplicable, and harmful to Hawaii’s argument.

Read the rest here.

Hegseth pushes legal boundaries in feud with Kelly

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is forgoing a promised court-martialing and taking a behind-closed-doors track to attempt to punish Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

The administrative move — which seeks to reduce Kelly’s retirement rank and military pension — is the latest in the bitter back-and-forth between the Trump administration and the retired Navy captain after he joined five other Democratic lawmakers in a November video reminding service members that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders.

While Hegseth is taking Kelly into uncharted legal waters, using an action typically meant to scrutinize service members’ active-duty conduct, a Pentagon packed with President Trump loyalists could unfairly tip the scales against the Arizona Democrat, according to military law experts.  

“The bottom line is, this is not lawful,” Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former judge advocate, said of Hegseth’s bid to reduce Kelly’s rank under the military code. “It’s just never been done.”

Hegseth on Monday issued a letter of censure to Kelly, claiming the senator’s actions were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The letter kicks off the proceedings against Kelly, with Navy Secretary John Phelan to make a recommendation to Hegseth within 45 days as to whether a reduction in retired grade is warranted. Hegseth will then decide if he will reduce Kelly’s grade.

Hegseth is basing the proceedings under 10 U.S. Code § 1370(f), which determines when a reduction in retirement grade is allowed. Under such law, Phelan is solely responsible for the grade reduction recommendation, with no board involved, according to Todd Huntley, a retired Navy captain and former judge advocate.

That gives the relatively new Navy secretary, a Trump loyalist, an oversized influence on how the saga may play out. The founder of the private investment firm Rugger Management LLC, Phelan was a major contributor to Trump’s presidential campaign in 2024, giving more than $800,000 to the then-candidate’s joint fundraising committee in April that year. 

Read the rest here.

In the News

Hegseth boat strike fallout, war crime allegations: What to know 

Pete Hegseth ‘pushed top Navy admiral who questioned boat strikes to resign’

Trump pardons former top entertainment executive who was charged by his own Justice Department

Trump pardons Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar

Trump 'garbage' rhetoric about Somalis draws cheers from administration, silence from Republicans and alarm from critics

Poll: Trump's own voters begin blaming him for affordability crisis

Trump's current poll numbers

New York Times sues over Pentagon press access rules

Oklahoma university instructor on leave after failing Bible-based essay on gender

America’s Magical Thinking About Ukraine

Putin authorised 2018 Novichok poisoning of ex-Russian spy Skripal, UK inquiry says

U.S. Institute of Peace renamed for Trump

Von der Leyen pushes ahead with reparations loan for Ukraine as Belgium maintains its opposition

Analysis Kicking the Corpse: Netanyahu's Pardon Request Caps the Slow Death of Law in Israel

Crisis looms in Israel over ultra-Orthodox conscription bill

CDC Panel Meets to Vote On Hepatitis B Vaccine Amid Anti-Vax Push

Military Restricts Press Reporting

Wednesday was a major moment for the coverage of the United States military. Scores of journalists with access to the Pentagon handed in their press passes rather than sign on to new rules laid out by Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense.

The news organizations that have refused to agree to the rules include large organizations such as The New York Times, NBC News and Fox News, as well as many smaller publications that focus entirely on the military. At least one news organization, the conservative cable network One America News, has agreed to the new terms.

The new rules codify sharp limitations on access and raise the prospect of punishment — including revocation of credentials — for simply requesting information on matters of public interest. Lawyers representing national news organizations have been negotiating for weeks with Pentagon officials over the strictures.

Read the rest here.

The Attack on Freedom of Speech

I just had a disturbing conversation with a green card holder—a legal permanent resident of the United States. He had asked if he thought traveling internationally was wise for him as someone who has criticized President Trump and Israel and whether he should avoid any further criticism and/​or remove any past criticism from his social media before he travels.

In a free society, the answer would be: “You should say whatever you want, criticize whoever you want, and not worry about traveling because the government cannot punish you for what you say.” But until the Supreme Court reaffirms that the First Amendment protects noncitizens in the United States from banishment for their speech—and until President Trump obeys the Supreme Court—we do not live in a free country.

The Trump administration is revoking green cards and visas solely based on speech. Individuals are explicitly being targeted based on “beliefs, statements, or associations” that are “lawful within the United States” but which Secretary of State Marco Rubio has deemed “adverse to the foreign policy of the United States.” Even authoring an op-ed criticizing a foreign government’s foreign policy can now trigger visa revocation. The administration is also searching electronic devices at ports of entry for evidence of “adverse” views.

Read the rest here.

See also this on Trump's orders targeting law firms that have crossed him in the past.

The Systematic Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law

In his first hours back as president, Donald J. Trump did an extraordinary thing: He made a direct assault on the Constitution. He declared that his government would no longer treat U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants or children of lawful, temporary immigrants as citizens, as the 14th Amendment commands.

You can draw a straight line from that executive order on birthright citizenship to his administration’s revocation of visas, the detention of foreign students and the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident, to a Salvadoran prison and the subsequent refusal to try to extricate him in spite of court orders. Mr. Trump is claiming far-reaching but dubious powers, pushing or exceeding legal limits without first bothering to determine if they were permissible, as past presidents generally did.

Times Opinion recently reached out to dozens of legal scholars and asked them to identify the most significant unconstitutional or unlawful actions by Mr. Trump and his administration in the first 100 days of his second presidency and to assess the damage. We also asked them to separate actions that might draw legal challenges but are, in fact, within the powers of the president. And we asked them to connect the dots on where they thought Mr. Trump was heading.

We heard back from 35 scholars — a group full of diverse viewpoints and experiences, including liberals like U.C. Berkeley’s Erwin Chemerinsky and Harvard’s Jody Freeman; the conservatives Adrian Vermeule at Harvard and Michael McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge who directs Stanford’s Constitutional Law Center and is a member of the Federalist Society; and the libertarians Ilya Somin at George Mason University and Evan Bernick at Northern Illinois University. Many are among the nation’s most cited scholars by their colleagues in law review articles.

From all of their responses, we constructed a road map through Mr. Trump’s first 100 days of lawlessness, including his defiance of our judiciary and constitutional system; the undermining of First Amendment freedoms and targeting of law firms, universities, the press and other parts of civil society; the impoundment of federal funds authorized by Congress; the erosion of immigrant rights; and the drive to consolidate power.

This road map largely draws on the scholars’ words, which serve as bright red warning lights about the future of America:

Read the rest here.

Trump is Going After Wikipedia

..As you know, Section 501(c)(3) requires that organizations receiving tax-exempt status operate exclusively for “religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes. . . [.]” It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation, through its wholly owned subsidiary Wikipedia, is allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public. Wikipedia is permitting information manipulation on its platform, including the rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security and the interests of the United States. Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia’s “educational” mission. 

In addition, Wikipedia’s operations are directed by its board that is composed primarily of foreign nationals, subverting the interests of American taxpayers. Again, educational content is directionally neutral; but information received by my Office demonstrates that Wikipedia’s informational management policies benefit foreign powers....

Read the rest here.

I saw this coming from the moment he won the election. The language is straight out of every tyrant's playbook. Attack any source of information you can't control. Start by accusing it of being a foreign propaganda entity, cut off its funding, and then shut it down. 

In Trump’s Washington, a Moscow-Like Chill Takes Hold

She asked too many questions that the president didn’t like. She reported too much about criticism of his administration. And so, before long, Yelena Tregubova was pushed out of the Kremlin press pool that covered President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

In the scheme of things, it was a small moment, all but forgotten nearly 25 years later. But it was also a telling one. Mr. Putin did not care for challenges. The rest of the press pool got the message and eventually became what the Kremlin wanted it to be: a collection of compliant reporters who knew to toe the line or else they would pay a price.

The decision by President Trump’s team to handpick which news organizations can participate in the White House press pool that questions him in the Oval Office or travels with him on Air Force One is a step in a direction that no modern American president of either party has ever taken. The White House said it was a privilege, not a right, to have such access, and that it wanted to open space for “new media” outlets, including those that just so happen to support Mr. Trump.

But after the White House’s decision to bar the venerable Associated Press as punishment for its coverage, the message is clear: Any journalist can be expelled from the pool at any time for any reason. There are worse penalties, as Ms. Tregubova would later discover, but in Moscow, at least, her eviction was an early step down a very slippery slope.

The United States is not Russia by any means, and any comparisons risk going too far. Russia barely had any history with democracy then, while American institutions have endured for nearly 250 years. But for those of us who reported there a quarter century ago, Mr. Trump’s Washington is bringing back memories of Mr. Putin’s Moscow in the early days.

The news media is being pressured. Lawmakers have been tamed. Career officials deemed disloyal are being fired. Prosecutors named by a president who promised “retribution” are targeting perceived adversaries and dropping cases against allies or others who do his bidding. Billionaire tycoons who once considered themselves masters of the universe are prostrating themselves before him.

Judges who temporarily block administration decisions that they believe may be illegal are being threatened with impeachment. The uniformed military, which resisted being used as a political instrument in Mr. Trump’s first term, has now been purged of its highest-ranking officers and lawyers. And a president who calls himself “the king,” ostensibly in jest, is teasing that he may try to stay in power beyond the limits of the Constitution.

Some versions of this are not new, of course. Other presidents have taken actions that looked heavy-handed or put pressure on opponents. No president in my experience at the White House, which goes back to 1996, particularly liked news coverage of him, and certainly there have been times when journalists were penalized for their reporting.

After an article on whether Vice President Dick Cheney might be dropped from the re-election ticket in 2004, The New York Times found it no longer had a seat on Air Force Two. President Barack Obama’s team tried to exclude Fox News from a briefing offered to other networks, only to back down when the rest of the press corps stood up for Fox.

But those relatively contained disputes were nothing like what is happening now. The White House takeover of the pool — a rotating group of about 13 correspondents, photographers and technicians given close access to the president so they can report back to their colleagues — upends the way the president has been covered for generations.

The alarm has been felt by media outlets across the spectrum. Just as the other networks backed Fox against the Obama administration, Fox has backed The Associated Press against the Trump White House and its senior White House correspondent criticized the pool takeover. The precedent being set now, certainly, could be used by a future Democratic administration against media that it disfavored.

Read the rest here. 

Elon Musk Sues His Critics into Silence. So Much for ‘Free Speech.’

Despite his posturing as a defender of free expression, Musk is one of the nation’s most vexatious litigants against anybody who exercises their First Amendment rights in a way he doesn’t like. His latest target is GARM, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, an industry association of advertisers on online platforms of which X, formerly known as Twitter, is still a member. The lawsuit also targets several of GARM’s members for the supposed crime of declining to purchase ads on Musk’s website.

X’s CEO, Linda Yaccarino, posted a video on Tuesday explaining that the suit is part of the company’s noble pursuit of preserving “the global town square … the one place that you can express yourself freely and openly.” Yaccarino wore a pendant around her neck that read “FREE SPEECH.”

On Thursday, GARM, citing its inability to handle legal fees that would likely run into the seven figures, simply shut its doors, ending all operations. Musk’s censorial bullying worked — abusing the legal system to shut down his critics.

Musk’s argument against GARM fits a long-running pattern for him: attacks on free speech wrapped in the rhetoric of defending free speech.

Major corporations generally do not want to pay for ads running next to posts praising Adolf Hitler, among other noxious content that has flourished on X under Musk’s ownership. It’s hardly an unreasonable position, and GARM worked to promulgate shared standards companies can adopt for this type of brand safety. This, Musk alleges, amounted to a violation of antitrust laws.

Read the rest here.

Religious Liberty in the States

Read the report here. 

Civil Asset Forfeiture is legalized theft

It's been a while since I've posted on this subject.

A pair of New Mexico businessmen were driving along Interstate 40 in Oklahoma late one night in April when a sheriff’s deputy flipped on his lights and sirens and pulled over their BMW sedan.

The two men, Nang Thai and Weichuan Liu, were on their way to a hotel in Oklahoma City. They planned to catch some sleep before heading out in the morning to close on a 10-acre plot of farmland they’d agreed to buy for $100,000.

But now, at about 2 a.m. on April 19, a Canadian County sheriff’s deputy was peering into their car.

“We didn’t understand why he pulled us over,” said Thai, 51, a Vietnamese immigrant and father of two from Albuquerque. “I was driving under the speed limit.”

They had no way of knowing at the time but Thai and Liu were about to begin an hourslong ordeal that would leave them stripped of all their cash and searching for answers. Their experience highlights the controversial law enforcement practice known as civil asset forfeiture, in which police can confiscate a person’s cash or other property even without bringing criminal charges.

The deputy asked the two men for their licenses, where they were going and whether they were carrying any money, according to Thai.

They had a large amount of cash in the vehicle: more than $100,000, which Thai says they brought to pay for the property. Thai — who speaks English with a heavy accent (Liu speaks very little English at all) — told the officer they were headed to a hotel and, yes, had cash on them.

The deputy said he suspected they were involved in “illegal activity,” according to Thai. A criminal background search would have turned up a 2017 conviction against Liu for growing marijuana in California.

After a second officer arrived at the scene, the men were driven to a police station and interrogated for hours. Deputies emptied a backpack and suitcase full of cash, then pulled apart the inside of the BMW but apparently turned up no guns, drugs or any other illicit items.

Thai said he told his interrogators they had saved up the money for years and were planning to use the land for farming but hadn’t yet determined which crops to raise.

“They kept saying, ‘This is illegal money,’” Thai said. “I said, ‘Okay, prove it. We didn't do anything illegal.’”

The two men were released without being charged or even issued a traffic ticket, but the Canadian County Sheriff’s Office did not return their cash. Court papers filed by District Attorney Michael Fields say the money was seized because it was intended to be used to violate drug laws or resulted from illegal drug transactions.

The men are now fighting to get it back. Adding insult to injury, they contend that the amount the sheriff’s office says it confiscated – $131,500 – is actually $10,000 short of the total they had in their car that day.

“Now I have to prove I’m innocent, and they are the ones who illegally took my money and basically stole some of my money, too,” said Thai.

Read the rest here.

The ACLU's drift from champion of civil liberties to champion of the left

It was supposed to be the celebration of a grand career, as the American Civil Liberties Union presented a prestigious award to the longtime lawyer David Goldberger. He had argued one of its most famous cases, defending the free speech rights of Nazis in the 1970s tIt was supposed to be the celebration of a grand career, as the American Civil Liberties Union presented a prestigious award to the longtime lawyer David Goldberger. He had argued one of its most famous cases, defending the free speech rights of Nazis in the 1970s to march in Skokie, Ill., home to many Holocaust survivors.

Mr. Goldberger, now 79, adored the A.C.L.U. But at his celebratory luncheon in 2017, he listened to one speaker after another and felt a growing unease.

A law professor argued that the free speech rights of the far right were not worthy of defense by the A.C.L.U. and that Black people experienced offensive speech far more viscerally than white allies. In the hallway outside, an A.C.L.U. official argued it was perfectly legitimate for his lawyers to decline to defend hate speech.

Mr. Goldberger, a Jew who defended the free speech of those whose views he found repugnant, felt profoundly discouraged.

“I got the sense it was more important for A.C.L.U. staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle,” he said in a recent interview. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.”

The A.C.L.U., America’s high temple of free speech and civil liberties, has emerged as a muscular and richly funded progressive powerhouse in recent years, taking on the Trump administration in more than 400 lawsuits. But the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment.o march in Skokie, Ill., home to many Holocaust survivors. Mr. Goldberger, now 79, adored the A.C.L.U. But at his celebratory luncheon in 2017, he listened to one speaker after another and felt a growing unease. A law professor argued that the free speech rights of the far right were not worthy of defense by the A.C.L.U. and that Black people experienced offensive speech far more viscerally than white allies. In the hallway outside, an A.C.L.U. official argued it was perfectly legitimate for his lawyers to decline to defend hate speech. Mr. Goldberger, a Jew who defended the free speech of those whose views he found repugnant, felt profoundly discouraged. “I got the sense it was more important for A.C.L.U. staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle,” he said in a recent interview. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.” The A.C.L.U., America’s high temple of free speech and civil liberties, has emerged as a muscular and richly funded progressive powerhouse in recent years, taking on the Trump administration in more than 400 lawsuits. But the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment.

Read the rest here.

LA launches retaliatory eviction against church lead by John MacArthur

 Outrageous. The church should sue LA and seek punitive damages for what is a naked abuse of power.

The dangerous liberal ideas for censorship in the United States

Almost everywhere you turn today, politicians are telling the public to “get used to the new normal” after the pandemic. For some people, this means public health precautions from social distancing to banning handshakes. Others have quickly added long standing dreams for everything from the guaranteed basic income advocated by Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, which was also recently raised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to mailed voting elections advocated by many Democrats.

The most chilling suggestion, however, comes from the politicians and academics who have called for the censorship of social media and the internet. The only thing spreading faster than the coronavirus has been censorship and the loud calls for greater restrictions on free speech. The Atlantic published an article last week by Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods calling for Chinese style censorship of the internet.

They declared that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong” and “significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with society norms and values.”

The justification for that is the danger of “fake news” about coronavirus risks and cures. Yet this is only the latest rationalization for rolling back free speech rights. For years, Democratic leaders in Congress called for censorship of “fake news” on social media sites. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have all engaged in increasing levels of censorship and have a well known reputation for targeting conservative speech.

Read the rest here.

France is Sinking into Chaos and Authoritarianism

• President Macron never says he is sorry for those who have lost an eye or a hand... from extreme police brutality. Instead, he asked the French parliament to pass a law that almost completely abolishes the right to protest and the presumption of innocence, and that allows the arrest of anyone, anywhere, even without cause. The law was passed.
• In June, the French parliament passed another law, severely punishing anyone who says or writes something that might contain "hate speech". The law is so vague that an American legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, felt compelled to react. "France", he wrote, "has now become one of the biggest international threats to freedom of speech".
• The main concern of Macron and the French government seems not to be the risk of riots, the public's discontent, the disappearance of Christianity, the disastrous economic situation, or Islamization and its consequences. Instead, it is climate change.
• "The West no longer knows what it is, because it does not know and does not want to know what shaped it, what constituted it, what it was and what it is. (...) This self-asphyxiation leads naturally to a decadence that opens the way to new barbaric civilizations." — Cardinal Robert Sarah, in Le soir approche et déjà le jour baisse ("The Evening Comes, and already the Light Darkens").

Read the rest here.

France outlaws pro-life websites

PARIS, December 2, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) --The socialist government of France passed a bill after one day's debate that criminalizes websites that might dissuade women from abortion.

The “digital interference” bill is aimed at cracking down on French websites that would, in the words of the bill, "deliberately mislead, intimidate and/or exert psychological or moral pressure to discourage recourse to abortion."

Convicted website owners could face two years in prison and fines up to 30,000 euros ($31,799 USD).

The majority left voted in a block for the bill while the minority right formed a block against it.

Bruno Retailleau, who heads the Republicans party group in the Senate, told French radio Thursday that the bill "is totally against freedom of expression,” adding that it contradicts the 1975 law that legalized abortion and which called for women to be informed of alternatives.

Christian Democratic Party member Jean-Frederic Poisson also blasted the bill  on Twitter for what he saw as the government's double standard in banning sites that propose “alternatives” to abortion but not “jihadist websites.”

Read the rest here.