reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Free speech isn't a free fall in Europe. There are two anti free speech movements that have coalesced. The U. S. Anti free speech movement began in higher education, then metastasized throughout the government. The Berlin World Forum followed the remarks of Vice President Vance on free speech, and the EU was red hot. Hillary Clinton was there, and she really fueled the anger. When Twitter was purchased by Elon Musk, she called on the EU to use the infamous Digital Services Act, which is one of the most anti free speech pieces of legislation in decades. And she called upon the EU to use the DSA to force the censorship of American citizens, force people like Musk to censor. After the World Forum, they further globalized this effort, threatening companies like ACTS with ruinous fines unless they resume censoring American citizens.

The Global Engagement Center, established by Rick Stengel, aimed to synchronize government narratives with mainstream media. Stengel, who previously argued against the First Amendment, initiated this center to combat perceived threats like ISIS by collaborating with tech platforms to censor content. Following Trump's election, State Department officials pushed for censorship laws in Europe, leading to automated censorship mechanisms in the U.S. The Atlantic Council, with ties to the CIA and government funding, played a key role in promoting these laws. They developed AI tools to monitor and censor online speech, particularly around controversial topics like COVID-19 and the 2020 election, effectively suppressing dissenting narratives.

The speaker claims Germany has a profitable "hate speech persecution" industry targeting citizens for online posts. Police raids occur for minor offenses, like a €600 fine for a poop emoji. Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck has filed over 800 criminal reports. Germany makes the most legal demands for user data from X within the EU. The German justice system uses AI surveillance to prosecute benign offenses. A law change in 2021 allows harsher punishment for insulting politicians. The company Soldan, described as a "hate crime persecution mafia," scans posts using AI, files thousands of criminal complaints monthly, and shares profits with politicians, with legal costs borne by taxpayers. Hate Aid, funded by the German government, also works to criminalize hate speech and wants to sue X to allow doxxing. The speaker urges support for free speech and fighting against tyranny.

Governments are increasingly collaborating to suppress free speech, particularly in the US and UK, as revealed by new documents. This global effort involves over 20 countries and organizations like the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which are working to label and criminalize dissent. Legal frameworks such as the UK Online Safety Act and proposed US legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act (COSA) aim to regulate online content under the guise of protecting children, potentially infringing on free speech rights. These measures may require age verification, threatening online anonymity. The involvement of intelligence agencies and the push for digital IDs raise concerns about surveillance and censorship. Critics argue that these laws violate the First Amendment and question the effectiveness of such regulations in genuinely protecting vulnerable populations.

Foreign governments are using their own laws to censor information for Americans, like the EU's Digital Services Act, which threatens companies with fines if they don't comply. We've requested communications between these foreign entities and tech companies to reveal this pressure. We're also sending letters to the UK, EU, and Brazil to put them on notice that we're watching their actions. It's unacceptable for foreign governments to undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans. We saw this with the Biden administration pressuring companies to censor, which thankfully has been stopped. Free speech is a core value of Western civilization, and we must protect it. We're aiming to safeguard the rights of Americans and help companies resist these shakedowns.

Europe has changed dramatically, and there is no freedom of speech anymore. Pavlov, the head of Telegram, was removed from his airplane in France. Thierry Breton, chairman of the European Commission, allegedly threatened Elon Musk with criminal and civil prosecution if he interviewed Donald Trump live on X spaces. Brazil censored Twitter and other social media sites three weeks ago. This rise of censorship and totalitarianism is occurring worldwide. The only hope to prevent that in the U.S. is Donald Trump; otherwise, this is what will happen if Kamala gets in.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that free speech is not a free fall in Europe, contending that two anti free speech movements have coalesced. One movement is in Europe, which has “laid waste to free speech” in countries such as Germany, France, and England, and also in places like Canada. The other movement is described as the US anti-free-speech movement, which began in higher education and then metastasized throughout the government, but which has “all reached our shores now.” The speaker notes that the Berlin World Forum followed remarks on free speech by Vice President Vance, and that the EU was “red hot.” They describe the forum as “the most anti free speech gathering I’ve ever been part of,” with only two attendees from the free speech community, but those present are “committed.” Hillary Clinton is identified as being there and said to have fueled the anger. A key claim is that when Twitter was purchased by Elon Musk, Clinton called on the EU to use the Digital Services Act, described as “one of the most anti free speech pieces of decades,” to force censorship of American citizens and to compel people like Musk to censor. The speaker characterizes this as “an extraordinary act by someone who was once a presidential candidate in The United States,” and asserts that Clinton’s position reflects a commitment to censorship. The speaker further claims that after the World Forum, this effort was globalized, and that they are “threatening companies like ACTS with ruinous fines unless they resume censoring American citizens.” The overall message emphasizes a belief that anti free speech forces are expanding globally, using regulatory tools such as the Digital Services Act to compel censorship and penalize platforms that do not comply, with the World Forum acting as a catalyst for broader international pressure.

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.

The censorship industrial complex persists in Europe, Australia, Britain, and Brazil, pushing for digital identification linked to social media. I faced a criminal investigation in Brazil after publishing the Twitter files. The European Commission is using the Digital Services Act to pressure platforms like X and Facebook to censor speech, threatening massive fines for non-compliance. Despite some victories for free speech, global elites see online censorship as crucial for global governance. NATO, the European Commission, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, the UN, WHO, WEF, and various US agencies have all advocated for censorship. US deep state agencies have been manipulating global news for two decades, using counterterrorism tactics against Americans post-2016. I urge Congress to defund the censorship industrial complex and investigate its funding, including through shell organizations. Congress should also protect American social media users from censorship demands by Europe, Britain, and Brazil.

Governments worldwide are using hate speech and misinformation as excuses to censor and control their political opponents. In Ireland, proposed hate speech laws could allow police to invade homes and seize electronics. In Canada, Trudeau's legislation could lead to life imprisonment for speech deemed offensive. The Biden administration is working with groups to censor content and individuals on social media. This focus on labeling content as extremist is dangerous, as it criminalizes speech and can lead to unjust suppression of protests. This trend towards censorship is totalitarian and reminiscent of the dystopian concept of precrime. The reasons behind these actions remain unclear. Translated: Governments globally are using hate speech and misinformation to justify censoring political opponents. Proposed laws in Ireland and Canada could lead to invasive measures and harsh penalties for speech. The Biden administration is collaborating with groups to censor content and individuals on social media. This trend is dangerous and can suppress protests unfairly. The motives behind these actions are uncertain.

The speaker expresses concern over three recent developments: the Global Compact for Migration, the international pandemic treaty by the WHO, and the EU Digital Services Act. They argue that these initiatives aim to disempower national parliaments, suspend fundamental rights, and concentrate power in the hands of the UN, WHO, and EU. The speaker specifically highlights the Digital Services Act, which introduces a digital state of emergency allowing platforms like Facebook to be completely shut down at the EU's discretion. They criticize the law for obligating platforms to prioritize government propaganda and censor content deemed harmful or critical of the EU. The speaker accuses the EU of attacking freedom of speech and democracy.

Censorship is rising globally, with governments aiming to control the entire Internet, not just within their borders. Recent victories for free speech advocates include the rejection of censorship legislation in Ireland and Australia, and the resignation of a top EU censor. However, the EU's censorship framework remains intact, with organizations designated to identify and demand censorship from major tech companies. Despite these challenges, public opposition to government censorship is significant, with many recognizing it as a threat to free speech. Efforts to combat this censorship complex will require ongoing dedication, as influential figures continue to push for stricter controls. The focus on misinformation as a global risk by organizations like the World Economic Forum and the UN highlights the urgency of this issue.

The EU aims to classify hate speech as an EU crime, making it enforceable continent-wide, similar to human trafficking and terrorism. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), representing 57 Islamic countries, significantly influences global censorship by advocating for blasphemy laws under the guise of combating religious hatred. The UN system, with its vast and well-funded bureaucracies, including the WHO, generates numerous reports and studies that contribute to a censorship industrial complex. The initial draft of the WHO Pandemic Treaty aimed to combat false information and addressed "infodemics," or too much information. The UN Global Digital Compact, to be negotiated in September, seeks to prohibit hate speech and discrimination. The European Court has been weakening free speech protections. Judges believe historical experience shows that racist opinions cause more harm than restrictions on expression. They argue that hate propaganda always inflicts harm and that action is needed before hate speech becomes an imminent danger.

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.

The EU government determines what disinformation is and requires social media platforms to ban those who post views that deviate from EU policy. This approach is seen as dangerous, as it suppresses dissent on the internet in an authoritarian and totalitarian manner. Despite the perception of the EU as democratic, their actions in prosecuting the war on COVID and in general show an aggressive stance in preventing dissent online, which goes against the values we associate with our enemies.

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.

Foreign governments are using acts like the Digital Services Act to censor information globally, pressuring companies to take down content and threatening fines if they don't comply. We've requested communications between the EU, UK, and Brazil with these companies to see what pressure has been applied. We're sending letters to the UK, EU, and Brazilian Supreme Court, putting them on notice that we're monitoring their actions. It's one thing to censor their own citizens, but impacting the First Amendment rights of Americans is a problem, especially when companies are pressured with fines. We saw this when the Biden administration pressured companies to censor, which they later regretted. Free speech is essential, and we must protect it for Americans, especially against foreign interference.

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.

I wanted to quickly highlight the concerning connections between those challenging Kalin Georgescu's presidential candidacy in Romania and Avaz, a Soros-funded NGO known for censoring dissenting voices in the EU. This NGO proudly admits to suppressing right-wing groups and conservative viewpoints across Europe, even interfering in Spain's elections. A key figure in challenging Georgescu's candidacy is connected to the National School for Political Sciences and Administration in Romania and is a vocal advocate for online censorship, even quoting Avaz in support of their work. Shockingly, Avaz is responsible for creating the Digital Services Act in the EU, the very foundation for censorship policies across Europe, including the restrictive bills in Romania. This is alarming, especially considering previous threats to interfere with Romanian elections.

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.

The speaker discusses the current "transatlantic flank attack 2.0" strategy, where state department exiles are working with the EU to pass censorship laws. The EU Digital Services Act, crafted with input from figures like Michael Hayden and Tom Ridge, poses a major threat to freedom of speech. X faces the choice of forfeiting revenue or implementing internal censorship mechanisms to comply with the law. This battle against censorship from Europe is a significant challenge for X.

The UN aims to control the Internet under the guise of fighting misinformation, even citing conspiracy theories like "Michelle Obama is a lizard," according to a UNESCO report. The Internet Governance Forum in Norway revealed plans to govern the Internet based on UN human rights principles, not First Amendment rights. The goal is to connect everyone to the internet for data collection and manipulation. A larger World Summit on the Information of Society is planned, building on the Norway forum. Tech giants like TikTok and Meta are collaborating to ensure internet safety and combat AI misinformation. Concerns arise as Western democracies, like Norway, advocate for digital freedom while implementing the EU's Digital Service Act, which controls information and defines misinformation. An Iraqi Christian refugee in Sweden, Salma Mumika, who criticized Islam by burning the Quran, was murdered live on TikTok after being denied asylum in Norway and facing deportation from Sweden. Despite suspicions of Iranian involvement due to Iran's infiltration of Swedish criminal networks, the case remains unresolved, with little media coverage.

The speaker claims censorship and disinformation efforts are at another level, referencing a Department of Homeland Security initiative to destroy reputations, deplatform, and de-bank individuals. They assert global control of social media platforms is at risk from governments and the "deep state," jeopardizing free speech and democracy worldwide, specifically mentioning Australia, Brazil, Ireland, Scotland, Europe, Germany, France, Czech Republic, Britain, Canada, and the United States. They criticize Orwellian justifications like "countering disinformation" used to mask censorship, advocating for fighting misinformation with accurate information, not government-backed censorship. The speaker alleges Facebook was "captured" years ago and expresses concern over government-favored fact-checkers dictating censorship. They state there is a push for total control over platforms like X. The speaker also criticizes "media literacy" programs as brainwashing that replaces critical thinking with obedience and authoritarianism. They cite a military contractor handbook advocating information warfare tactics, including those used in the Arab Spring, now being deployed domestically. They suggest these efforts aim to program people before stories emerge, suppressing dissenting voices and undermining Western enlightenment values.