reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In Germany, insulting someone in public or online is a crime, with online insults potentially incurring higher fines due to their permanence. Even reposting untrue statements can be considered a crime. Authorities are actively curbing online hate speech, as demonstrated by coordinated raids targeting individuals posting racist content. Despite growing concerns over migration and related issues, there's a lack of political will to address these problems effectively. The focus seems to be on prosecuting opinion crimes rather than deporting criminals. My party, the AFD, faces persecution despite being a major opposition force. We're smeared as Nazis and right-wing extremists, but this isn't true. Free speech is eroding, with new laws targeting online expression. People risk punishment for criticizing mass migration. Even if the AFD performs well in elections, other parties may refuse to cooperate, maintaining a firewall against us. It is time to vote to make Germany great again.

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.

Germany labeled the AFD a far-right extremist threat and is moving to ban it, prompting criticism from figures like Marco Rubio. Similar actions have occurred elsewhere: Marine Le Pen in France has been barred from seeking office, Bolsonaro in Brazil was banned and silenced, and Donald Trump in the U.S. has faced indictments and media blackouts. The speaker claims this is a pattern of disqualifying opposition and criminalizing dissent, drawing a parallel to actions taken by Adolf Hitler. They assert that censorship and the arrest of political rivals are not about defending democracy, but about global control defending itself. The speaker urges listeners to recognize this pattern and resist division. They state that awareness is the most powerful act of resistance, and encourage listeners to unite and refuse to be branded by the established order.

The speaker discusses the Alternative for Germany (AFD) party's experiences, claiming the party has faced media labeling, social exclusion, and economic hardship for its members. They state that the AFD's rise in popularity has led to increased institutional measures against them, including being labeled as extremist by the intelligence service. The speaker claims that the EU is a Soviet-style bureaucratic system disturbing free markets and democratic processes. They thank Elon Musk for providing an alternative to mainstream media, which they allege is government-funded and biased. They believe Germany is on the wrong path, particularly regarding energy policy and its stance on the Ukraine conflict. The speaker worries about the possibility of the AFD being banned and its leaders imprisoned, but remains hopeful that the German people will see through what they describe as a facade. They express concern over the undermining of democratic processes and the exclusion of the AFD from parliamentary representation.

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.

Dr. Hassan Abusita was barred from entering Germany to speak at a conference on Palestine. He was questioned for 3.5 hours, had his passport confiscated, and was told to leave the country. He believes Germany is complicit in silencing witnesses of the genocide in Gaza. Abusita emphasizes the importance of speaking out against atrocities to uphold humanity. The crackdown on free speech in this case sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

A Jewish speaker opposes Zionism, stating that it is not anti-Semitism to be against it. They share personal experiences of facing backlash for their beliefs. They explain that Zionism is a movement that started 150 years ago by Jews who were not practicing their religion and wanted a homeland. However, Judaism forbids having their own state. They highlight the historical support and acceptance Jews received from Muslim countries. The speaker criticizes the Zionist movement for disregarding the rights of Palestinians and accuses them of using PR tactics and political pressure to silence opposition. They emphasize their belief in coexistence with Muslims and express empathy for Palestinian suffering.

We've seen police raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online, framed as combating misogyny. I must address the US Vice President's speech. Our motto in the Bundeswehr is "We fight for your right to be against us," and it represents our democracy. The Vice President questioned this democracy, not just in Germany, but across Europe, likening Europe's condition to authoritarian regimes. Early Tuesday morning, we accompanied state police as they raided an apartment in Northwest Germany. Six armed officers searched the suspect's home, seizing his laptop and cell phone. Prosecutors allege these electronics were used to post a racist cartoon online. Simultaneously, over 50 similar raids occurred across Germany, part of a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech.

I am Naomi Zeigt, a German political commentator. I exposed German comedian Al Hodso for wishing death upon Donald Trump, spreading toxic beliefs to his 700,000 followers. He is funded by taxpayer money and promotes anti-humanistic views. He should be banned from his main platform, x. Do you agree with me? Translation: I am Naomi Zeigt, a German political commentator. I exposed German comedian Al Hodso for wishing death upon Donald Trump, spreading toxic beliefs to his 700,000 followers. He is funded by taxpayer money and promotes anti-humanistic views. He should be banned from his main platform, x. Do you agree with me?

The speaker addresses the issue of being labeled as antisemitic and shares that the ADL called them an antisemite. They mention that three Israelis they have spoken to don't see a problem with what they said. The speaker clarifies their definition of antisemitism as hating someone based on their Jewish identity, and they express respect for a Jewish person they have collaborated with. They argue that the label of antisemitism is used to silence dissent and give examples of how the ADL has broadened the term. The speaker also mentions their personal experience of being banned from Twitter and accuses the ADL of interfering in democratic processes in Europe. Another speaker adds that they support the right to criticize any group and shares their negative experience with the ADL.

Hi, I'm Matt Goodwin reporting from Brussels where an event has been canceled by the left-wing mayor and activists. Attendees are trapped in a room with police outside preventing them from leaving and re-entering. The event was meant for discussions on identity, family, and European politics with elected officials present. This is seen as an attempt to silence democracy. Stay tuned for updates.

Dr. Hassan Abusita was barred from entering Germany to speak at a conference on Palestine and share his experiences working in Gaza hospitals. He was questioned for hours, told he couldn't enter Germany for a month, and warned against participating in the conference remotely. This crackdown on free speech is concerning, especially given the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Germany's actions in silencing witnesses of this genocide set a dangerous precedent for the future.

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.

Daysly's article in The Guardian calls for my arrest and praises Germany's media censorship, suggesting Britain should adopt similar measures. He cites examples of tweets being censored in Germany, including a comment by an American citizen about a Canadian tweet that shared a video of a Saudi refugee discussing her abuse in Germany. This refugee, Manahal Al Mokbel, escaped Saudi Arabia seeking asylum but faced sexual abuse and threats from a corrupt organization in Germany. Despite evidence and complaints, authorities failed to investigate. The censorship of these tweets aims to silence victims and protect the corrupt organization. Manahal shares her traumatic experiences, emphasizing the ongoing threats she faces for speaking out. The situation highlights the troubling intersection of censorship, abuse, and the treatment of refugees in Germany.

In the video, the speaker expresses concern about the West's increasing restrictions on freedom of expression for artists, writers, and intellectuals. They draw a parallel to their own experience growing up under heavy political censorship. The speaker highlights instances where even private opinions shared by NYU professors led to their dismissal, likening it to a cultural revolution aimed at silencing anyone with differing attitudes. They lament this trend occurring proudly in universities, media, and various sectors, where discussing the truth is no longer allowed.

I've traveled to over 60 countries in my life and have never incited violence or terrorism. I abhor violence and have no criminal record. It's absurd to hear a government representative claim I'm a threat to the Netherlands. I am banned from most of Europe for agreeing to speak at a peace rally two years ago. This situation raises questions about whether the judiciary protects citizens from government abuse or serves the government's interests. If it's the latter, the Netherlands is no longer a liberal democracy but a tyranny. I've been accused of threatening democracy, yet the current prime minister is unelected and has never faced a ballot. This entire situation is a farce. I have nothing more to add.

The speaker claims that no one in Germany knows where the alleged 6 million Jews were killed. After five years of questioning various German institutions, including Jewish centers and judges, about the location of the Holocaust and receiving no answers, the speaker wrote to the Minister of Justice requesting an open discussion. Receiving no response, the speaker concluded the Holocaust did not exist and published this conclusion online. The speaker believes that those imprisoned for Holocaust denial in Germany should be exonerated, as they were speaking the truth. The speaker highlights the large number of trials related to Holocaust denial in Germany, alleging that judges avoid engaging with evidence due to fear of Jewish reprisal, instead relying on the claim that the Holocaust is "obvious." The speaker equates their inquiries with the principle of press freedom.

The speaker discusses the concept of free speech, stating it is the essence of democracy, but claims it is often suppressed for those against the existing system. The speaker mentions a canceled debate at the London School of Economics, alleging they were denied a platform to speak. They express gratitude to the audience in East London for consistently providing them with freedom of speech. The speaker welcomes opponents to hold meetings and show themselves to the people, believing that the more people see them, the better. The speaker then asks what they are ready to debate.

The chief editor of Deutschland Kurier, David Bendelz, received a seven-month prison sentence for a meme posted by his team accusing Interior Minister Nancy Faeser of hating free speech. The speaker argues that the verdict proves Faeser hates free speech and questions if she is "retarded or just a power obsessed bitch." German defamation law, specifically paragraph 188, gives politicians special protection, making it illegal to insult them. The speaker claims the judiciary has criminalized speaking the truth if it damages a politician's reputation, calling it tyranny. The prosecutor in Bendelz's case, Alexander Baum, also initiated a house raid against Stefan Mihov for calling Minister Robert Habeck a "stupid head," traumatizing Mihov's daughter with Down syndrome. The speaker asserts that Faeser ordered the raid. They vow not to limit their free speech and accuse Faeser of being a fascist, while noting it is still legal to insult politicians from the AFD party.