reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I went to cover a protest in my neighborhood as a journalist, but Hamas activists claimed my presence was a disturbance because I’m Jewish. The police sided with them, which I found outrageous. I refused to leave the sidewalk, asserting my rights as a citizen. While I was arrested, no charges were filed against me. This incident reflects a broader issue where peaceful citizens face harsh treatment while extremists are tolerated. The current climate is reminiscent of historical persecution, and it’s alarming to see free speech under attack. We must fight for our freedoms before it’s too late, as the erosion of rights is happening globally. The situation in Canada and the UK is dire, and we must remain vigilant against censorship and oppression.

Last year, 3,300 people were arrested in Britain for what they said on social media. One example is a young woman named Chelsea Russell from Liverpool. She posted the lyrics of her friend's favorite rap song on Instagram, which included the n-word. As a result, she was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty, and given 500 hours of community service. She was also under a curfew from 8 PM to 8 AM for a year. This incident highlights the increasing number of people being visited by the police for their social media posts in Britain.

The UK is allegedly criminalizing free speech, with pro-Palestinian activism highlighting authoritarianism. People are being arrested for protesting, raising concerns about free speech, regardless of the issue. The Terrorism Act 2000 is being leveraged, potentially leading to 14-year jail terms for expressing support of Palestine. George Monbiot warned in 2001 that the act could be used to ban nonviolent protest groups. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who once admired the suffragettes, is now using the act, possibly influenced by pro-Israel lobbyists. The UK is becoming increasingly repressive, augmenting anti-protest laws, granting police greater powers to stifle dissent. Autonomous weapon systems and facial recognition technology are increasing the power imbalance between the state and citizens. The speaker advocates for decentralization, mass localization, and new political alliances, suggesting a third party funded by Elon Musk. He envisions parallel economies and urges people to prioritize fundamental agreements and consider living more independently.

An individual was arrested for mentioning Palestine on Facebook. The arrest occurred because of a comment about Hamas, which is considered a terrorist group. The speaker expressed dismay at the heavy police presence involved in the arrest. The speaker stated that they are against terrorist organizations and do not want terrorists in the country. The speaker also mentioned Palestinian refugees and questioned whether they are receiving medication.

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.

Jim Fergus hosts a conversation with Hayden Appleby, a young British journalist based in Essex who runs a channel that started as a podcast and now shares social-media clips. Appleby describes his work as discussing issues facing the UK, the US, and Europe, and he emphasizes attacks on freedom by “collective governments” and the need for free debate. He says freedom was brought into sharp relief during COVID, notably bodily autonomy, movement, and free expression, and that the education system functions as a propaganda machine with set topics and messages that push one side of an argument and stigmatize dissent. He contends English, math, and science curricula are infused with messaging, including a portrayal of capitalism as negative, and he argues that younger people should speak up and engage in debate rather than simply follow established views. Fergus notes his recent activities in Europe, including Berlin’s Corona Symposium and a brief speech in the EU Parliament, and he encourages viewers to follow Appleby on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok, with Appleby highlighting Instagram for clips and X for thoughts. A central theme of the discussion is freedom and censorship. Appleby asserts that the UK currently faces a global standing where independent journalists and ordinary people risk arrest for online statements, contrasting that with the past, when cancel culture led to job or funding losses, whereas the present era sees people jailed for online expressions that are not incitements to violence. He argues that freedom of expression should be protected “under all circumstances besides the direct incitement of violence,” criticizing the notion that indirect or contextual statements can be punished and pointing to authorities such as the CPS, police, and councils acting in concert to target journalists and ordinary citizens. He cites incidents of a comedian being confronted by armed officers and suggests a broader trend of suppressing dissent. When discussing political leadership, both speakers critique the Labour government and the Conservative Party as beholden to a globalist agenda, arguing that leadership has betrayed British citizens by redirecting resources abroad and away from domestic priorities. They criticize “globalist governments” for prioritizing others over British citizens, and they condemn increasing taxation and policies perceived as punitive toward those who work hard, including high taxes and policies affecting home ownership. Appleby argues that rising costs, inflation, and taxation, including a proposed “leveling up tax,” threaten households and small businesses, and he contends that millions of high-net-worth individuals have emigrated in response to policy changes. The conversation touches on media bias, with Appleby decrying the BBC as biased and unethical, citing past instances of manipulation and alleged corruption, including the organization’s treatment of Trump. They discuss the potential removal of trial by jury, as proposed by Deputy Prime Minister David Lamy, and the concern that politically appointed judges could replace juries, eroding private citizens’ rights and sovereignty. In the US context, Marco Rubio and President Trump designated Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, and Rubio and Trump also labeled the Muslim Brotherhood as a prescribed terrorist organization. Appleby supports designating Antifa due to its violence and intimidation, and he condemns mass illegal immigration as a perceived threat to Western civilization, arguing it compromises safety and national cohesion. He condemns “catch and release” immigration policies and advocates for stronger border controls to protect citizens. The dialogue explores concerns about civil conflict, drawing on Professor David Betts’s warning that demographic shifts and rising crime could lead toward intergroup conflict or civil war within a few years. Appleby agrees that while he does not want conflict, persistent crime and division could heighten tensions, urging peaceful political solutions and unity. Towards the end, Appleby urges continued public discourse and unity in defending freedom, warning that elites inside the establishment are not representative of the majority, and he emphasizes that “more speech is what is needed, not less.” He thanks Jim Fergus for the interview and invites audiences to stay engaged and keep talking.

The speaker presents a question about arrests for speech violations in the United Kingdom in 2023, noting that police handcuffed and brought people to jail for such offenses. The stated answer is that there were more than 12,000 arrests in the UK, i.e., “More than 12,000.” The speaker then contemplates whether this number is large and proceeds to compare it to Russia, described with highly negative terms. Russia is labeled “the most totalitarian country in the world,” “lacking in basic freedom,” “run by a madman,” and “so evil we’re literally at war with that country right now just on principle.” The speaker provides the arrest figure for Russia: 3,319 arrests, in a country with twice the population of the UK. From these figures, the speaker poses the conclusion that the idea of totalitarianism not appearing in the Anglosphere is challenged by the comparison. The speaker ends with the assertion that totalitarianism has already arrived in the Anglosphere.

UK creates an elite unit, the National Internet Intelligence Investigations Team, to monitor anti-migrant social posts, claiming it detects early signs of potential unrest. A protest followed after a 38-year-old asylum-seeking migrant was charged with sexual assault for attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl. Prime Minister says he still believes in free speech. Michael Schellenberger argues there’s story after story about people being thrown behind bars in The UK even for tweets that they have deleted with longer prison sentences than people who've committed physical violent crimes. He cites a woman imprisoned for 31 months for a four-hour tweet and notes a police task force to monitor social media, can stop content based on age verification and block content. He says they will not allow criticism of mass migration and will call it Islamophobia and a hate crime. Orwell’s 1984 is cited; Europe’s crackdown, including the EU Digital Services Act.

The number of people arrested in the UK for social media posts is astonishing, with thousands receiving prison sentences despite no direct link to violence. Authorities claim these posts encourage violence, yet no actual incidents have resulted from them. Meanwhile, the UK faces prison overcrowding, leading to the release of convicted pedophiles while individuals are jailed for their Facebook posts. This situation raises serious concerns about the justice system and its priorities.

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.

We are arresting a man for a Facebook post without caution or legal advice, breaching the law. You are not Meghan Markle, unable to manipulate reality. You are under arrest. The man protests, claiming his freedom of speech as a British army veteran. The situation escalates as the man accuses the officers of acting like the Gestapo.

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 UK has created the National Internet Intelligence Investigations Team to monitor anti-migrant social media posts, purportedly to detect unrest. Critics argue this is a crackdown on free speech, citing instances of individuals receiving lengthy prison sentences for online activity. One example given is a woman imprisoned for 31 months for a tweet, longer than a child rapist's sentence. The EU's Digital Services Act and similar efforts in Canada, Brazil, and Ireland are also mentioned as part of a broader strategy to pressure social media companies into censoring content globally. These measures are seen as targeting populist movements critical of mass migration. Concerns are raised about Americans facing potential arrest in Europe for expressing controversial opinions online. Trump has imposed tariffs on Brazil because of their censorship. The goal, it's claimed, is to instill fear and self-censorship, mirroring the dystopian world of George Orwell's 1984.

In Russia, 400 people were arrested for social media posts last year. In contrast, 3,300 people were arrested in Britain for similar offenses. An example is Chelsea Russell, who posted rap lyrics with the n-word after her friend's death. She was convicted, fined, given community service, and put under a curfew for a year. This incident occurred in Britain in 2018.

Looking at Europe today, I'm concerned about the erosion of freedoms. In Brussels, there's talk of shutting down social media during civil unrest to combat hateful content. In another country, police have raided homes over anti-feminist comments. Sweden convicted a Christian activist for Quran burnings after his friend's murder, with a judge stating free expression doesn't allow offending any group's beliefs. Most concerning is the UK, where conscience rights are threatened. Adam Smith Connor was charged for silently praying near an abortion clinic. He was found guilty under a new law criminalizing silent prayer within 200 meters of such facilities. Recently, the Scottish government warned citizens that even private prayer at home could be illegal, urging them to report suspected thought crimes. Free speech is in retreat across Europe.

A speaker claims that in Britain, over a quarter of a million people have been issued non-crime hate incidents, and people are imprisoned for reposting memes and social media posts. They ask if the Trump administration would consider political asylum for British citizens in this situation. Speaker 1 responds that they have not heard this proposal or discussed it with the president, but they will speak to the national security team to see if the administration would entertain it.

In Russia, 400 people were arrested for social media posts last year. Surprisingly, in Britain, the number was much higher at 3,300. One example of an arrest in Britain was the case of Chelsea Russell, who posted rap lyrics containing the n-word on Instagram as a tribute to her deceased friend. She was found guilty, given community service, a fine, and a curfew for a year. This incident highlights the strict consequences for online speech in Britain in 2018.

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.

In this video, the speaker, a journalist reporting on an anti-Semitism rally in London, shares their personal experience of being arrested and violently attacked by the police. They raise concerns about the state of freedom of the press, assembly, and speech in the UK, suggesting that the country is heading towards becoming a totalitarian state. The speaker highlights instances of biased policing, politicized judiciary, state control of media, and surveillance of citizens. They argue that the government and security services are manipulating the public through fear and propaganda. The importance of independent journalism and the need to protect freedom of expression is emphasized. Additionally, the speaker discusses their concerns about the government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, terrorism, immigration, and societal changes. They believe that dissenting voices are being silenced and call for accountability and transparency from the government. The rise of progressive ideologies and the potential loss of freedom of speech are also discussed, with a call to action for people to stand up, speak out, and demand the resignation of Mark Rowley. The audience is encouraged to visit resignmarkrowley.com and join an event in London on July 27th to support the cause of protecting freedom of speech.

The UK, the country of the Magna Carta, is allegedly sentencing people to jail for disagreeing with the government online or protesting against open border policies and mass immigration. People are reportedly being tried and jailed for months or years for disagreeing with the government. The speaker questions what options remain for UK citizens to disagree with their government without facing imprisonment. They cite the case of David Springer, a 61-year-old train driver caring for his sick wife, who was allegedly sentenced to jail for attending a protest, possibly shouting at the police. The speaker argues that the UK has a two-tiered justice system and is no longer a free nation because citizens lack democratic options to express disagreement. They cite the case of a mother of five sentenced to 26 months for throwing a can at the police and a man jailed for a Facebook post inciting racial hatred. The speaker concludes that the message is clear: disagreeing with the government results in imprisonment.

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.

In Russia, 400 people were arrested for social media posts last year. In Britain, the number was 3,300. An example is Chelsea Russell from Liverpool, who posted rap lyrics with the n-word after her friend's death. She was arrested, fined, and given community service and a curfew in 2018.

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.