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.

"Today's misinformation is always tomorrow's truth. It's always the government who wants to censor people who are critical of the government." "Europe is trying to police everyone and shake down American tech companies, which is exactly what the digital markets act looked like. That is what's at stake here, and that is not how our First Amendment works." "Everything our government here in The United States told us about COVID turned out to be false. If you criticize any of the things they initially told you, you had to be censored." "When Elon bought Twitter, now it's a place where the first amendment and free speech are right where they need to be." "The spillover effect it can have on, American content being seen by European users." "The answer to stupid speech, bad speech, and wrong speech is more speech." "the hallmark of Western culture is free expression." "There were 12,183 arrests for offensive post online." "Global Alliance for Responsible Media." "Disinformation governance board."

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.

It is illegal to display Nazi symbolism, like a swastika, or deny the Holocaust. Insulting someone in public or online is a crime, with online insults potentially leading to higher fines because they persist indefinitely. German law also prohibits malicious gossip, violent threats, and fake quotes. Reposting untrue statements is also a crime because the reader can't distinguish whether you just invented this or just reposted it. Punishments for hate speech can include jail time for repeat offenders, but often involve stiff fines and device confiscation. People are shocked when their phones are taken away, and they see it as a severe punishment, sometimes worse than a fine, because so much of their life is on their phone.

The speaker discusses the crackdown on journalists in Brazil, likening it to Gestapo tactics. They mention how people are being prosecuted for liking or sending emojis on messages. The need for independent channels like x is emphasized, as other platforms are complying with judicial intervention. The speaker highlights x as the only channel standing against violating the law amidst monitoring of social media.

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.

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.

The speaker claims AFD members have been victims of violence, including arson. They believe banning AFD is being considered despite it being the leading party in polls, which would set a dangerous precedent for Western democracies. The constitutional court would make the decision, potentially taking years unless they "overthrow everything." The speaker alleges the head of an agency admitted his duty was to diminish AFD's poll numbers, likening it to the Russiagate hoax. AFD was founded in 2014 advocating for direct democracy and opposed open border policies during the migrant crisis. The speaker states AFD members need police protection at conventions due to violence. They claim censorship is already happening, with politicians favoring censorship and individuals facing prison sentences for jokes about ministers.

Earlier this week, state police in Germany conducted raids, seizing electronics from individuals suspected of posting racist content online. Over 50 similar raids occurred across the country, targeting what prosecutors describe as coordinated online hate speech. It's absurd. They're modeling their laws after Europe's. Imagine armed agents raiding homes and seizing devices over internet posts? What if the content was Jewish, like menorahs? Suddenly, the anti-Nazi stance seems contradictory. The very principles they claim to uphold are being violated. It's nonsensical. Infowars tells you the truth about what's happening next. Go to the AlexJonesstore.com. Infowars is recognized as the tip of the spear in the fight against the globalists. We are now reaching the most people of any of the shows out there. These new viewers aren't getting product and it is the hardcore viewers and listeners like you that are keeping us on the air. Check out the AlexJonesstore.com today, and I thank you for keeping us on the air.

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 believes freedom of speech in the West is in a dire state, citing the UK's online hate speech arrests, Pavel Durov's arrest in France, and X's ban in Brazil. They claim the EU's Digital Service Act (DSA) grants the EU power to take down X for non-compliance, including removing "illegal hate speech." The DSA has supremacy over national law in EU member states. The speaker views Durov's arrest as a warning to Elon Musk. They believe EU leaders have an "inverted demonic view" of freedom of speech, limiting it to "protect democracy" by censoring content they dislike, labeling it as misinformation. The speaker will post weekly videos on X. They urge Europeans to dismantle the EU and Americans to make the "right decision" in the upcoming election.

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.

It is illegal to display Nazi symbolism, like a swastika, or deny the Holocaust. Insulting someone in public is a crime, and it is also a crime to insult someone online, with fines potentially higher due to the enduring nature of online content. German law prohibits malicious gossip, violent threats, and fake quotes. Reposting false information is also a crime, as it's treated the same as creating it. Punishments for hate speech can include jail time for repeat offenders, but typically involve hefty fines and device confiscation. People are often shocked when their phones are taken away, viewing it as a severe punishment, sometimes worse than the fine itself, because their entire lives are often on their phones.

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?

I've uncovered bombshell evidence that Travis Browne, the hacker who leaked a Doge employee's name to the Wall Street Journal, is funded by the German government. Browne, an ex-Twitter employee and Antifa supporter, runs the HateSpeech Tracker, which collects usernames of people he deems Nazis. Wall Street Journal journalist Catherine Long, who wrote the hit piece that led to the Doge employee's resignation, follows Browne on GitHub. Browne's HateSpeech Tracker was launched with help from Prototype Fund, which is funded by the German government. Browne is now suing X because he keeps getting banned for his doxing tactics. The media and government are endangering pro-freedom individuals. We must hold these people accountable.

The speaker discusses the Alternative for Germany (AFD) party's experience with media labeling them as right-wing extremists, leading to social exclusion and economic hardship for party members. Despite this, the AFD has grown in popularity, reaching 26% in polls and over 40% in Eastern Germany. The speaker criticizes Germany's intelligence service for labeling the AFD as extremist for holding conservative views. They also express concern over the EU's bureaucratic system and its impact on democratic processes. The speaker thanks Elon Musk for providing an alternative to mainstream media, which they claim is government-funded and biased. They lament Germany's energy policy, particularly the shutdown of nuclear power plants, and criticize Chancellor Merkel's green policies. The speaker believes the AFD represents normal conservative values and offers a perspective of freedom and wealth. They express worry about the possibility of the party being banned and its leaders imprisoned, drawing parallels to situations in Romania and the treatment of Donald Trump. They advocate for peace in Ukraine and criticize Germany's support for the war.

Yes, it is a crime to insult someone in public, and it's also a crime to insult them online, with potentially higher fines because it stays there. Even reposting untrue statements is a crime, as readers can't tell if you created or simply shared it. Punishments for hate speech can include jail time for repeat offenders, but often involve stiff fines and device confiscation, which shocks people. Recently, we accompanied state police during a raid in Northwest Germany. Six officers searched the suspect's home and seized his laptop and cell phone because prosecutors believed they were used to post a racist cartoon online. Simultaneously, over 50 similar raids occurred across Germany as part of a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech.

The speaker argues that the European Union, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization should be abolished. They claim there are numerous European “x” accounts aiming to provoke Western Europeans to go to war with Russia because Western funding for Ukraine is dwindling, and they say these actors want to attack Russia regardless of US backing. A self-proclaimed “Gunther” is featured as a controversial figure who says he’s part of NATO, but the speaker notes that NATO publicly denies knowing him and that Gunther formed his own NGOs without funding. The speaker highlights Gunther’s post: Europeans will never be slaves. In response, the speaker asks why Gunther would arrest people for telling the truth online and trying to enslave them in a digital prison; they claim Gunther is misrepresenting online repression and compare digital punishment to real torture. The speaker cites a German police investigation of a Gab user who called a female politician fat, emphasizing the use of the term fat as quoted in the post. They challenge Gunther by asking if the photo shows a Victoria’s Secret model, implying a discrepancy between appearances and claims, and label Gunther as aligning with “the EU’s bitches” and lacking sovereignty. They accuse Hungary of being fined a million dollars a day for not accepting “undesirables,” asserting EU law requires such intake and that white Europeans are urged to fight against Russia while others (described in demeaning terms) contribute less. The speaker argues that Western Europe is dependent on the United States, stating that the US is the biggest financier of NATO and possesses the most powerful military, and that Europeans would be abandoned without US support. They remark that Gunther’s post demonstrates this dependence, noting Gunther’s post about Trump wanting to win and withdraw the US Navy from European seas, which would leave Europe exposed to Russia and Iran. The speaker mocks Gunther’s attempt to lead a European naval force and requests continued US Navy presence for a decade to help. Overall, the speaker frames a narrative of European subservience to the United States, critiques of EU sovereignty, and hostility toward Western multinational institutions, while repeatedly referencing Gunther as a focal figure in these exchanges.

The European Union is pressuring tech companies to censor content secretly, with Elon Musk's x being the only one resisting. The EU is threatening x with fines for not complying. Governments and intelligence agencies are involved in demanding censorship, while spreading their own disinformation. X's community notes system allows for corrections to false information, unlike what the EU claims. Musk's refusal to censor is crucial for free speech. To fight back, share the video, join the email list, and support the free speech movement. Stand up against foreign interference in free speech.

It's early Tuesday morning, and we're with state police raiding an apartment in Northwest Germany. Six officers searched the suspect's home and seized his laptop and cell phone. Prosecutors believe these electronics were used to post a racist cartoon online, which constitutes a crime. Simultaneously, over 50 similar raids occurred across Germany. This is part of a coordinated effort by prosecutors to combat online hate speech throughout the country.

Earlier this week, state police raided an apartment in Northwest Germany, seizing a suspect's laptop and cell phone for allegedly posting a racist cartoon online. This was one of over 50 similar raids across Germany, part of a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech. It's absurd how these anti-nazi principles are being violated. The authorities are going after people for posting Jewish propaganda, like pictures with the Star of David or menorahs, claiming they're illegal symbols. It's like, how is this any different from what the Nazis would do? Also, go to AlexJonesStore.com and get great supplements and gear. We're reaching over a million people a day, but these new viewers aren't necessarily supporting the show. It's the hardcore patriots who are keeping us on the air. Become a VIP member for $30 a month and get $40 to spend in the store.

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 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.

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.