reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I find it insulting that someone like JD Vance would come to Europe and lecture us on our laws. He should run for office here if he wants to change things. It's outrageous, especially at a security conference focused on the real threat to Europe: Russia. To say the threat comes from within, from attacks on free speech, is completely wrong. We're a country that values women's rights and enforces laws to protect them. Vance's claim about eroded liberty, like private prayer being criminalized, is false. Our laws protect women from harassment when accessing abortion services, and buffer zones are in place for that reason. Praying silently within these zones is against the law. He is wrong to come here and say such insulting things, especially given the real security threats we face.

Just a few months ago, this past October, the Scottish government started sending letters to residents within certain "safe access zones." These letters warned that even praying privately at home could be seen as breaking the law. The government encouraged people to report anyone they suspected of "thought crime." I'm concerned that free speech is declining in Britain and throughout Europe.

Muslims in Britain and Western Europe have more rights, including freedom of worship, than in any Islamic country. However, problems arise when failures of Islamic societies, such as intolerance of freedom of conscience, apostates, expression, minorities, and women, are imported into Britain. The call for a parallel legal system is considered monstrous, as no other group demands such a thing. The speaker asserts that Western Europe's laws are based on reason, while Islam's are based on revelation, creating a fundamental conflict. It is the Muslims of Europe who have let down Europe. Muslims must understand they have no right not to be offended and cannot justify violence or censorship because they dislike something. They should not demand more hate laws to defend Islam. A society where even the deepest feelings can be challenged is the only one worth living in. Islam has failed Europe and its own Muslims.

In England, there is concern over government overreach with arrests for online speech, surpassing Russia. Thought crimes lead to arrests, even for retweeting. The definition of hate speech is subjective, leading to potential consequences. Calling someone by their former name can now result in a lifetime Twitter ban, showing a shift in what is considered hate speech. This trend raises concerns about potential jail time for violating hate speech laws.

Patrick Baab and the host discuss the perceived erosion of freedom of expression in Europe and the role of governments and institutions in pressuring speech. - Baab asserts that there is “no freedom of speech in the EU anymore,” citing a 160-page US Congress report published in February that allegedly finds the EU Commission created a system of complete censorship across the European Union. The report states the EU regime “pressured platforms in the Internet to suppress lawful speech, including speech that was true simply because it was politically inconvenient,” and that the Commission is transforming itself “into a censorship authority against democracy.” - The discussion moves to Jacques Baud (spelled Baud by Baab, sometimes Jacques Baud), a Swiss colonel and analyst who argued that the war in Ukraine had been provoked. Baab notes Baud was sanctioned by the EU, with consequences including travel bans, frozen assets, and limited monthly food funds (€500). Baud cannot travel to Switzerland; his bank accounts and property are frozen, and neighbors reportedly cook for him. Baab calls these measures extralegal, asserting they punish a person for an argument, not for crimes, and claims such sanctions illustrate a mechanism to suppress dissent. - Baab elaborates that Baud’s sanction is part of a broader pattern: “extralegal sanctions” against multiple individuals (Baud and 58 others) within and partly outside the EU, aimed at silencing those who challenge NATO or EU narratives. He argues this signals a “death of freedom” and a move to shut mouths through sanctions. - The host asks if the media’s shift toward propaganda is temporary or permanent. Baab responds that the transformation is structural: democracy in Europe is becoming anti-democratic and warmongering despotism. He cites Viktor Orban’s view that the EU intends to wage war against Russia, with propaganda and censorship as two sides of the same coin to close public debate. Baab says the war will be ugly, as Russia has warned it could escalate to nuclear conflict, and ties this to investments in Ukraine (Shell deal) that were lost when territories changed hands, implying economic motivations behind policy and casualties for profits. - The conversation turns to self-censorship. Baab describes widespread fear among journalists and academics; many refused to join a board intended to assist Baud, fearing repercussions. He cites a US Congress report alleging the EU manipulated eight elections, including Romania, Slovakia, and France. He also notes the EU Commission’s engagement with major platforms (Meta, Google, TikTok, X, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Rumble, Reddit, OpenAI) to enforce content management under EU rules, threatening sanctions if not compliant. - Reputational attacks against critics are discussed. Baab shares experiences of smear campaigns, such as being misrepresented as a “Putin poll watcher” in Germany, and notes that state- and EU-funded NGOs sometimes amplify misinformation. He argues mainstream media generally ignores these issues, turning to “new media” and independent outlets as alternatives for information. - On Germany specifically, Baab identifies EU-level figures (German-origin leaders) who drive censorship: Ursula von der Leyen as EU Commission President (authorized COVID-19 disinformation monitoring), Vera Jorova (values and transparency), Thierry Breton (pressures on platforms), Prabhat Agarwal (Digital Services Act enforcement), and Renate Künast (translating DSA into practice). He says national governments decide sanctions but pass the burden to Brussels, creating a “kickback game.” He notes the German Bundestag extended EU sanctions into national law, punishing any helper of a sanctioned person with up to ten years’ imprisonment. - For optimism, Baab says Europe needs external help, such as the US Congress report, and citizens must seek alternative information sources and organize to defend democratic rights, including voting for different parties. He suggests that without broad public pushback, the propaganda system will persist. - The discussion closes with reflections on broader geopolitical dynamics, warnings about a multipolar world, and a dystopian vision of a Europe dominated by conflict and state control, with elites colluding with Western powers at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Governments worldwide are imposing strict regulations on social media platforms, potentially ending freedom of speech. The European Union aims to give NGOs and state sponsors control over content moderation by requiring tech companies to share data with vetted researchers. In the US, the RESTRICT Act threatens severe penalties for accessing blacklisted websites through virtual private networks. Ireland may imprison citizens for possessing material deemed hateful, while Canada allows state agencies to filter online content. Australia grants government officials the power to compel social media companies to remove posts. These policies have been introduced quietly, with little media coverage or public outcry. This marks a significant moment in the history of the internet, as governments gain the ability to control the information people have access to.

It's great to be back in Germany, a place I've always loved. My heart goes out to Munich after yesterday's attack; we're thinking of you and praying for you. We're here to talk about security, but the biggest threat to Europe isn't external, it's internal. It's the retreat from our shared values. We see European courts canceling elections and officials threatening to do the same. We need to live our democratic values, not just talk about them. I worry when I see the EU wanting to shut down social media or countries like Sweden punishing people for offending religious groups, or the UK prosecuting silent prayer. The Trump administration will defend your right to speak your mind. Don't be afraid of your own voters. Listen to them, even when you disagree. That's the magic of democracy.

Bill C-63 in the speaker's country may allow individuals to be reported to a magistrate based on someone's fear of a potential hate speech event in the coming year, potentially leading to a year of house arrest with electronic monitoring. A similar bill was recently defeated in Ireland, and people in the UK are allegedly being persecuted for expressing offensive opinions. The speaker asserts that free speech that offends no one is pointless and requires no defense. According to the speaker, the United States has the most thoroughly enshrined and deeply entrenched protections for free speech on Earth, and they believe this right should not be taken for granted.

A group in Scotland protested a new hate speech law, criticizing it as draconian. The law criminalizes free speech, including misgendering, and can lead to arrests for insulting speech. This issue extends beyond Scotland, with censorship efforts in the US and EU. The focus on foreign manipulation is seen as a political tactic. The solution to hate speech is free speech, exemplified by Daryl Davis's approach to persuading KKK members. The fight against censorship and hate speech policies continues globally.

In England, there is concern over government overreach with arrests for online speech deemed hateful. Comparing to Russia, England has arrested 4,000 people for thought crimes, while Russia has only 200 arrests. Retweeting offensive content can lead to arrest under laws against incitement to racial hatred. The subjective nature of what constitutes hate speech raises concerns about freedom of expression. The evolving definition of hate speech, such as deadnaming, shows a shift towards stricter enforcement and potential criminalization.

The conversation focuses on Citizen Vigilante and why it received major attention after Elon Musk brought it up. Tommy Robinson is discussed as an example of a real-world figure the movie’s themes are perceived to align with, and the guest says he shares some of Musk’s concerns about illegal immigration while also identifying as an immigrant and legal beneficiary of Australia’s immigration system. Asked to explain the movie, the guest frames Citizen Vigilante as a vigilante-genre story meant to “correct errors” and respond to injustice, built on real crimes he says happen in Europe daily. He describes an escalation of scandals and violence he associates with immigration, and he says the story escalates further because officials and governments “lie to the population,” prompting people to vote for parties that “aren’t getting anything done.” He also criticizes streaming and TV writing for enforcing political correctness and demands for specific identities, saying he wanted the story to be told on its own terms with production based on qualification rather than identity categories. He calls the film “merciless” and depicts a vigilante targeting not only perpetrators but also corrupt judges. A plot summary read by the host describes Europe “choking on migrant-fueled rape and murder epidemics” while “gutless officials” look away. The key emphasized scene involves the vigilante killing a judge after the judge argues that victims are victimized but frames the offenders in a way the guest portrays as justifying or minimizing responsibility. The host says the movie links to real life feelings and emotions and notes speculation that the inspiration is a real case in the UK, and then asks about those connections. The guest says the gang rape case in the movie is “actually basically happened in Hamburg in Germany, 2020,” with the defendants reportedly getting released and later being treated in a way he presents as inadequate. He says press supported the judge’s view, and he claims the offenders were incarcerated briefly, evaluated, and received one to three year terms and probation, leading to release before the trial had fully played out. He also says the judge’s reasoning in the film matches what the judge allegedly said in real life, including claims that the perpetrators were not integrated properly. When discussing why the movie focuses on migrants and whether it implies perpetrators are only migrants, the host raises a concern that critics argue other forms of crime should also be considered. The guest responds that the point is the broader system failing to prosecute crime consistently and that the movie is a “catalyst” to address what he calls an imbalance in enforcement and prosecution. The host then recounts comments by Patrick Bet-David: he claims the movie could inspire vigilantes, predicts more dangerous escalation, and worries it could lead to a new wave of chaos similar to mob eras in New York. The host asks the guest whether he worries this could happen and whether he would feel responsibility if someone acted by referencing the movie. The guest rejects censorship as a filmmaker, comparing it to debates about violent video games and school shooters, and argues the “problem makes the violence.” He also references viral violent incidents and says police actions in at least one case included arresting a stabbing victim after the victim was labeled racist, which he presents as “insane.” The conversation highlights the film’s most viral scene where the vigilante kills a family, which the guest connects to separate events: he says another real incident involved migrant girls posting messages online that German girls “deserved to be raped” because of how they dressed. The host argues that immigrants should be treated as guests who contribute and that crimes and inflammatory social posts are treated as violations of the social contract; he asks how the director can be accused of endorsing what happens in the film. The guest emphasizes a concept he calls “suicidal empathy,” which he describes as a destructive form of empathy that places the “murder” inside one’s own home, and he links it to how countries and institutions allegedly excuse harm to avoid conflict. Religious and political themes also come up. The guest argues religion should remain personal but draws lines against political enforcement of religious views, giving examples such as people praying publicly in spaces and universities and insisting that political correctness allows it. He then ties these themes to anger in Europe and argues that escalating demographic and political pressures could lead to cultural and legal changes. He also claims Jewish people in Germany are scared, and says he has examples of people being attacked for visible religious symbols. In response to the host’s question about solutions, the guest argues for stopping future entry “at the border,” stopping housing and staying, and deporting offenders, emphasizing immediate removal of immigrants who commit crimes. He also proposes disrupting smuggling operations by turning back intercepted arrivals and bringing people back instead of allowing them to stay, aiming to destroy the smugglers’ business model. He adds a plan to support origin countries by helping develop industries locally, including manufacturing in Africa to create jobs and reduce incentives to migrate. He concludes by arguing that politics lacks long-term vision and focuses mainly on election cycles rather than long-term planning. The host closes by contrasting “empathy” with “suicidal empathy,” saying empathy is good if managed, while suicidal empathy is destructive, and thanks the guest.

It's great to be back in Germany. Our thoughts are with Munich after yesterday's attack. We're here to discuss security, but the biggest threat to Europe is internal: a retreat from shared values with the U.S. We see European courts canceling elections and officials threatening to do the same. We must live our democratic values, unlike those who censored dissidents during the Cold War. I see threats to free speech across Europe, including the UK, where silent prayer near abortion clinics is criminalized. The Trump administration will defend your right to speak freely. If your democracy can be destroyed by a few digital ads, it wasn't strong to begin with. We must engage in dialogue with all political leaders, even those with whom we disagree. Dismissing voters or shutting down media destroys democracy. We must address mass migration, a pressing challenge resulting from conscious political decisions. Don't be afraid to embrace what your people tell you, even when it's surprising.

Looking at Europe today, it's concerning to see potential setbacks for Cold War victories. In Brussels, there's talk of shutting down social media during civil unrest to combat "hateful content." In another country, police have raided citizens for posting anti-feminist comments. Sweden convicted a Christian activist for Quran burnings after his friend's murder, with the judge noting that free expression doesn't allow offending any group's beliefs. Most concerningly, in the UK, religious Britons' liberties are threatened. Adam Smith Connor was charged for silently praying near an abortion clinic. Despite not obstructing anyone, he was found guilty under a new law criminalizing actions influencing decisions near abortion facilities. The Scottish government even warned citizens that private prayer at home could break the law, urging them to report suspected "thought crimes." Free speech is indeed in retreat across Europe.

Should the Judiciary Committee be concerned if European law results in the censorship of Americans? Absolutely, especially after recent events. I shared information this morning on X about a judicial ruling in Europe asserting their right to censor. We're seeing similar trends in Australia, where authorities believe they should censor the entire global Internet of disfavored information. This is very disturbing and really makes you question our alliance with Europe.

Breaking news. Praying in public has been banned in Canada. The government of Quebec vows to ban public praying, and it's set to come in place this fall. They said that people praying in public is not something they want in Quebec. But if you wanna smoke in public, do drugs in public, or make love with your girlfriend in public, then that's not a problem. Share this video to spread awareness because this is absolutely ridiculous. Breaking news. Praying in public has been banned in Canada. The government of Quebec vows to ban public praying, and it's set to come in place this fall.

The Irish government is trying to pass a law allowing police to search homes and seize phones and computers. This threatens free speech and independent journalism. It's a global crackdown on thought control. We must stand up for Ireland to prevent this from spreading. Share this message and support a free speech fund. Act now to stop this from becoming reality.

In Europe, we lack the First Amendment, limiting our ability to freely criticize the government or certain groups. Tomorrow, my friend Raisa Blomestang stands trial in the Netherlands for allegedly offending a group while criticizing the government's mass migration policies. This reflects a politically motivated judiciary that targets right-wing politicians, as seen with others like Geert Wilders. I can't attend the trial due to health reasons, but I want to raise awareness about the situation in Europe. Raisa's case highlights the risks of expressing dissenting opinions, especially regarding immigration policies. I encourage everyone to support her and remember how fortunate those in America are to have the freedom of speech that we do not enjoy in Europe.

Innovation and creativity cannot be forced, much like thoughts and beliefs. Looking at Europe, it's concerning to see actions like EU commissars threatening to shut down social media for "hateful content," police raids for "anti-feminist" comments, and the conviction of a Christian activist for Quran burnings. Even more alarming is the UK, where a man was charged for silently praying near an abortion clinic, and Scotland warned citizens that private prayer within their homes could be illegal. Free speech is retreating across Europe. Ironically, the loudest voices for censorship sometimes come from my own country. The prior administration bullied social media companies to censor "misinformation," like the lab leak theory of the coronavirus. In Washington, under Donald Trump's leadership, we will defend your right to speak freely, even if we disagree with your views.

Looking at Europe today, it's concerning to see what's happened to some Cold War winners. In Brussels, EU commissars threaten to shut down social media for "hateful content." In this country, police raid citizens for anti-feminist comments online. Sweden convicted a Christian activist for Koran burnings after his friend's murder, with a judge stating free expression doesn't allow offending certain groups. Most concerning is the UK, where conscience rights are declining, endangering religious Britons' liberties. Adam Smith Conner, an army veteran, was charged for silently praying near an abortion clinic and was found guilty of breaking the government's buffer zones law, which criminalizes silent prayer near abortion facilities. In Scotland, letters were sent warning citizens that even private prayer at home could break the law. Free speech is in retreat across Europe.

Adam Smith Connor was criminally convicted and faces bankruptcy for praying outside an abortion clinic. On 10/08/2023, people outside the Israeli embassy in London prayed towards Mecca, but faced no consequences. Connor, a Christian, was convicted for praying, allegedly even silently. Richard Williams in Wales was sentenced to three months for a derogatory Facebook post. In 2021, a car convoy in North London shouted antisemitic slurs, but no punishment was given.

The UK plans to imprison citizens for up to 15 years for viewing what the government labels as far-right propaganda online. This raises significant questions about the control over online algorithms and the consequences of inadvertently encountering such content. Who defines what constitutes far-right propaganda? Given current standards, even posts by figures like JK Rowling could be classified this way. Concerns also arise about the enforcement of these laws, reminiscent of existing social media regulations on hate speech and misinformation. The situation seems to be escalating rapidly, prompting a call for awareness and support from those observing these developments.

Looking at Europe today, it's concerning to see potential reversals of Cold War victories. In Brussels, EU commissars threaten to shut down social media for "hateful content." In this very country, police are raiding citizens for anti-feminist comments online, supposedly combating misogyny. Sweden convicted a Christian activist for Quran burnings after his friend's murder, with the judge noting free expression doesn't allow offense to groups holding certain beliefs. Most concerningly, in the UK, conscience rights are eroding, endangering religious Britons' liberties. Adam Smith Connor, an army veteran, was charged for silently praying near an abortion clinic. Despite not obstructing or interacting with anyone, he was found guilty under a new law criminalizing silent prayer within 200 meters of such facilities. In Scotland, letters warned citizens that even private prayer at home might break the law, urging them to report suspected thought crimes. Free speech is in retreat across Europe.

Across Europe, free speech is in retreat. In Brussels, EU commissars intend to shut down social media during civil unrest if they spot hateful content. In this very country, police have raided citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online. Sweden convicted a Christian activist for participating in Quran burnings, noting free expression doesn't grant a free pass to offend any group. In the UK, the backslide away from conscience rights is concerning. Adam Smith Connor, an army veteran, was charged for silently praying 50 meters from an abortion clinic. He was found guilty and sentenced to pay thousands in legal costs. In Scotland, the government warned citizens that even private prayer within their own homes may break the law, urging them to report suspected thoughtcrimes.

Just a few months ago, in October, the Scottish government started sending letters to residents within designated "safe access zones." These letters cautioned that even private prayer inside their own homes could be construed as a violation of the law. The government encouraged people to report anyone suspected of engaging in such "thought crimes". I'm concerned that free speech is diminishing in Britain and throughout Europe.

A week ago, my lawyer informed me that two of my tweets are technically illegal, and I could face arrest upon returning home. This isn't a joke; prisons are being cleared to make room for people charged over social media posts. For instance, someone is currently serving three months for a Facebook meme, and a woman is facing two and a half years for a tweet. Free speech is in serious jeopardy, which is alarming not just in England but across Europe. This situation is incredibly concerning.