en 
The conundrum for free and open societies has always been the same: How to protect human rights and democracy from hate speech and disinformation without destroying human rights and democracy in the process. The answer embodied in the recent coordinated enactment of global censorship laws is not encouraging for the future of free and open societies.
Internet Censorship, Everywhere All at Once Read Journal Article
Those who have grounded themselves in politics rather than principles have created a great unmooring that has left us vulnerable to the latest political huckster and led us down a dark, dark, path. Is the speed and force of this shift enough to convince those who had abandoned free speech to renormalise it as a principle? The shoe is now on the other foot.
The Post-Cold War Origins of the Surveillance State Read Journal Article
The $365 million referendum, backed almost unanimously by the governing, educational, financial, media, and sporting institutions and funded generously by them using shareholder and public monies rather than their own, confirmed an alarming gap between the elites and the vast majority. It should but is unlikely to lead to any serious introspection by members of the elite.
The Nays Have It, and That’s Great for Australia Read Journal Article
Senior officials and high-level specialists may have been more likely to secure exemptions, leading to the public perception that ‘elite’ workers were protected from mandates, while ‘replaceable’ workers were refused exemptions.
Rebuilding from the wreckage of Covid will require reclaiming those fundamental pillars of American society. The freedom to speak was not the first right earned by a people in revolt against ancient-world forms of statism but it might be the most essential. That’s why it is instantiated in the very first amendment to the Bill of Rights. If the regime can control the public mind, they can control everything else too. A loss here is a loss everywhere.
The High Stakes in the Legal Battle for Free Speech Read Journal Article
Government censorship reduces our society to just two groups of people: the censors and the censored. While it remains in place, the ranks of the censored will be ever-expanding as the censors require ever more censorship to ensure people continue to disbelieve their lying eyes.
The Costs and Casualties of Government’s Information Total War Read Journal Article
The Supreme Court is waiting to see what the circuit court does in this regard before hearing the government’s appeal. Regardless of whether the circuit court expands the scope of the injunction or leaves the current injunction intact, the Supreme Court will then rule on the government’s appeal of the injunction.
Why are they backtracking now? Easy answers: 1) they didn’t have the authority to do any of it (all of it was unconstitutional) so they can’t justify and defend it now, and 2) if they can convince you they didn’t do it before, then you won’t mind as much when they do it again.
Recent attempts to rebrand the work of the censorship-industrial complex with more anodyne euphemisms—”information integrity” or “civic participation online”—don’t change the fact that this is not disinterested academic research, but cooperation in state-sponsored suppression of constitutionally protected speech, always in favor of the government’s preferred narratives.
The White House’s ‘Misinformation’ Pressure Campaign Was Unconstitutional Read Journal Article
Price is a threat to the city-based power structures because she rejects the moral foundations on which the existing Aboriginal industry has been created. She is prepared to articulate an alternative moral framework as the pathway to genuine reconciliation and eventual union. This is why veteran Australian journalist Paul Kelly’s takeaway from the NPC address was: “Australia’s elites are in the process of being administered a huge shock.”
On September 13th, over 400 of you showed up at the courthouse. Afterwards, I was told by many that they had driven several hours to get there… 5, 6, 7 hours! One woman I met said she had come all the way from Michigan to support me in court! Many people came the night before and stayed in a hotel, while others got up well before dawn so they could arrive at the courthouse first thing in the morning – even before I got there. And that they did…
What is the rational basis for saying that a vaccine mandated three years ago continues to work today? What if LAUSD is still requiring the shot twenty years from now, when there is no emergency? How did the school district come up with the premise that it doesn’t matter whether the shot is effective or not?
Deutsch
Français
Italiano
Español
Português
Català
Nederlands
Dansk
Norsk bokmål
Svenska
Suomi
Eesti
Latviešu valoda
Lietuvių kalba
Polski
Čeština
Magyar
Հայերեն
ქართული
Русский
Română
Українська
Hrvatski
Slovenščina
Ελληνικά
Türkçe
日本語
한국어
简体中文
हिन्दी
Harshen Hausa
Kiswahili
አማርኛ
Yorùbá
