reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that the government's "combating misinformation bill" signifies the end of free speech in Australia, granting the government excessive control over the exchange of ideas. The bill compels digital platforms to censor content that may cause "serious harm," including content impacting public health or preventive measures. The speaker recalls the government censoring 4,000 social media posts during the pandemic, many of which later proved accurate. They cite concerns from legal counsel about digital platforms lacking expertise to identify misinformation, and from the Human Rights Commission that the bill doesn't balance censorship and free expression. The speaker claims the government and health bureaucrats spread misinformation during the pandemic by falsely claiming mRNA injections were safe and effective, that mandates would stop transmission, and that the injections would prevent illness. They criticize the exclusion of mainstream media from the bill, alleging media suppression of information, such as vested interests of health experts, deregistration of dissenting doctors, vaccine contract details, excess deaths, adverse reaction reports, and risks to the young versus the elderly. The speaker urges Australians to oppose the bill.

Liberals are proposing a law where a minister can ban me from the Internet, my Internet service provider ban me from the Internet, and neither of us be able to say anything about it. Matt Strauss, who's a doctor and a physician and also a member of parliament, said that you need to be concerned about bill c eight. It allows Melanie Jolley to kick anyone off the Internet with no trial and no warrant. Worse off, you won't be able to say that you've even been kicked off. And this is the Emergencies Measures Act on steroids, only permanent and secret? "Watch this. Ministers order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, degradation, the minister may by order and after consultation with the minister of public safety, prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person, including telecommunications service provider." "The order may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person." "This is crazy." "The minister may require any person to provide to the minister or any person designated by the minister, meaning she's able to designate whoever the heck she wants, within any time and any subject to any conditions that the minister may specify." "Any information that the minister believes on reasonable grounds is relevant for the purpose of making, amending, or revoking an order under section 15." "This is insane." "This is a minister that will have the sole power to kick you off the Internet at their will, then ban you or anyone else from being able to speak on this." "If the conservatives did this, there would be an uproar all over the media, all over the world." "They would call them a dictatorship. They would call them communist. They would say this is Nazi like." "But the liberals are doing this, and now everyone's quiet." "Come people have to speak up." "I promise you, if this bill goes through, it's gonna be ugly for everyone." "And if I get kicked off, I'm going to break that ban." "I will talk about it. I will let the world know that a totalitarian state, a communist state of the Liberal Party is trying to silence its people at its discretion, not the police, but the government." "Ridiculous."

Many young people rely solely on TikTok for news. A video about border issues went viral on social media but was abruptly shut down. This censorship stifles free speech and prevents people from seeing the truth. It's concerning how we are silencing each other instead of upholding our right to free speech. This normalization of censorship is alarming.

Speaker 0 argues that it is difficult to hear, but it is time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it. They state that we need to control the platforms—specifically all social platforms—and to stack rank the authenticity of every person who expresses themselves online. They say we should take control over what people are saying based on that ranking. The government should check all the social media.

We must address anti-vax campaigns to save lives. I am willing to collaborate with the government on emergency legislation to combat misinformation. The discussion of censorship on morning TV in the UK is concerning, as it threatens freedom of speech and individual rights. It is important to be skeptical about products and protect our collective duty to question.

"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."

I don't care if it's a small business or a large corporation; when the government threatens you, you should take it seriously. Blame the government for the issues we're facing. Those upset about free speech now are just mad they can't control the narrative anymore. For years, they've spread misinformation and now they're worried about others doing the same. It's not about the danger of misinformation; it's about losing control. They were wrong about everything and forced compliance, and now they resent others having the same freedom. It's absurd to pretend their concerns are about safety when it's really about power.

The speaker criticizes the Australian government for censoring online content and imposing fines for expressing opinions. They highlight a case where a post was taken down for misgendering a transgender individual. The speaker calls out the eSafety Commissioner for restricting free speech and urges people to take personal responsibility online. They warn against a government-controlled internet and advocate for individual freedom. The speaker encourages viewers to stand up against censorship and government overreach.

This is seen as a form of communism where the government is implementing laws that prevent people from challenging them. Only the government will be allowed to spread misinformation, and questioning their actions will not be permitted. I believe our government has been infiltrated by rogue actors who are determined to destroy our nation and suppress free speech.

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.

We must address anti-vax campaigns to save lives. I am willing to collaborate with the government on emergency legislation to combat misinformation. The discussion of censorship on morning television in the UK is concerning, as it threatens freedom of speech and individual rights to be skeptical about certain products.

The speaker expresses concern over a piece of legislation pursued by the Albanese government, stating that no government can be trusted to determine what is true or false. They compare this to actions taken by dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. They mention various topics that have been censored, such as Wuhan, the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. They question whether Facebook would be fined for publishing a specific story. The speaker believes this level of censorship is reminiscent of Orwell's "1984" and expresses worry about the government's ability to pass the legislation with support from the Greens and crossbenchers. Another speaker emphasizes the importance of trusted news services and the dangers of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

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.

Counselor Lisa Robinson argues that Bill C8 and Bill C9 are not protective measures but power grabs in disguise, aimed at expanding government control at the expense of Canadians’ freedoms. She claims Bill C8, titled the Cybersecurity Act, would allow the government to seize control of telecom networks, issue secret orders, and cut off access without notifying individuals. Under C8, the government could tell internet providers what to block, remove, or silence, justified by cybersecurity and national security, effectively giving the government power to “pull the plug on your voice.” Regarding Bill C9, she describes it as the hate propaganda and hate crime bill, asserting it would let the government decide what symbols are hateful and what speech is intimidating, with prosecutors able to pursue cases for “the wrong things.” She emphasizes that C9 removes the attorney general’s oversight, meaning prosecutors could pursue hate speech actions without a second opinion or accountability. She frames this as ideology with a badge and warns it would target speech rather than stop hate, undermining free expression. She stresses that combined, C8 and C9 erode digital independence and freedom of speech, enabling the government to determine what you may say and how you say it, and to shut you down if you dissent. She warns that such power could be abused over time and that history shows powers granted in this way tend to be used against ordinary people. She opposes the idea that protecting democracy requires censoring speech, arguing instead that democracy is defended by defending the right to offend, to question, and to challenge power. Her call to action is direct: contact MPs, flood inboxes, call offices, and tell them to vote no on C8 and C9. She warns that passing these bills would not only reduce privacy but strip the freedom to discuss them, turning Canada toward a “digital dictatorship run by bureaucrats and hate speech committees.” She concludes by urging Canadians to wake up, defend freedom now, and reject C8 and C9, presenting herself as the People’s Counselor who will “never whisper the truth to protect a lie.” She ends with a plea to follow, subscribe, and share the message, and a final exhortation to stand strong and say no to the bills.

The transcript argues that hate speech laws are expanding globally and criticizes Australia’s proposed Combating Antisemitism, Hate, and Extremism Bill 2026 as exceptionally tyrannical. The speaker notes that after the Bondi terrorist attack, proposals to ban protests and ordinary Australians’ speech emerged, and claims that some groups will explicitly be unprotected, including Catholics and Christians. The report highlights how the bill defines public place so broadly as to include the Internet (posts, videos, tweets, memes, blogs) and states it is irrelevant whether hatred actually occurs or whether anyone felt fear. It asserts that speech is not a crime, yet the bill would criminalize speech that merely causes fear, with penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment. Key provisions highlighted include: - Prohibited speech can be punished even if no actual harm occurs. - A person is guilty of displaying a prohibited symbol unless they prove a religious, academic, or journalistic exemption; however, Christianity is not claimed to be protected. - The AFP minister can declare prohibited groups without procedural fairness, including relying on retroactive conduct, potentially punishing actions that occurred before the law existed. - The scope could extend to actions outside Australia, with penalties including up to seven years in prison for membership in a prohibited group and up to fifteen years for supporting, training, recruiting, or funding a banned group. - Although the bill claims religious protections, the joint committee hearing indicates that protections would be afforded to Jewish and Sikh Australians, but not to Catholics and, by extension, Christian Australians. A discussion between Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 suggests that while clearly protected categories may include Jews and Sikhs, being Catholic alone would not meet the protected criteria, though certain circumstances might bring some Catholics into protection if they form part of broader protected groups. The speakers argue that the legislation effectively excludes Christianity, the world’s largest religion and a religion emphasizing love, forgiveness, and praying for enemies. They reference prior parallels in Canada, where efforts to criminalize hate speech allegedly led to passages of the Bible being criminalized. They claim that, in practice, hate speech laws protect every other group while narrowing or excluding Christianity, and they suggest this pattern reflects a broader effort to suppress Christian voices in the West. The discussion touches on how the law could enable retroactive punishment, asking whether authorities might use AI to review old social media posts for politically unacceptable content from many years prior. It also references concerns about enforcement bias, suggesting that hate speech laws are enforced by those who tolerate violent zealots while suppressing peaceful religious expression. The speakers advocate for protecting freedom of religion and ensuring that protections apply to all beliefs, warning that if one religion is not protected, none are. They also cite remarks from US figures like Sarah B. Rogers suggesting that the issue is not simply to replicate European or UK approaches, but to maintain balanced protections while addressing concerns about restricting religious speech.

The speaker expresses concern over a piece of legislation pursued by the Albanese government, stating that no government can be trusted to determine what is true or false. They compare this to actions taken by dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. They mention various topics that have been censored, such as Wuhan, the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. They question whether Facebook would be fined for publishing a specific story. The speaker believes this level of censorship is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 and expresses worry about the government's ability to pass the legislation with support from the Greens and friendly crossbenchers. Another speaker emphasizes the importance of trusted news services and the dangers of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

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.

The Irish government is attempting to pass a law allowing police to search homes, confiscate devices, and arrest individuals for online activities. This global crackdown on independent journalism is a threat to free speech. We must support Ireland to prevent this from spreading. Stand up for the right to speak out against political issues. Take action now to stop this dangerous reality from becoming widespread. Share this message and consider donating to a free speech fund. Our future generations depend on our actions today. Let's prevent this dystopian scenario from becoming a reality.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss what they call the TikTok ban bill, claiming it does more than just ban TikTok. They assert that foreign adversaries can change definitions at any time, listing a few already, but saying these definitions can change, enabling broader control. They warn that a group could be labeled as foreign adversaries, including doctors, by loosely defined terms. They claim the bill covers hardware technology such as modems, routers, home cameras, and virtual tech like VPNs, and bans them if they are manufactured by or used to contact and deal with foreign adversaries. They explain that a VPN is a virtual private network that allows users to search on Google while revealing data about them, and that using VPNs to bypass banned apps like TikTok becomes a criminal act under the bill, with penalties of a minimum imprisonment of twenty years and a minimum fine of $250,000 or $1,000,000 depending on whether the act was knowingly done to access banned content. The bill allegedly grants the federal government power to monitor any activity used by these suspected devices, whether virtual or not, effectively enabling twenty-four-seven monitoring of home activity without informing users. They list examples including routers, video games, streaming apps, smart thermostats, Ring cameras, and essentially anything that uses the internet, noting that cell phones and Alexa are included and that conversations could be used against individuals in court. They emphasize a particularly terrifying aspect: the bill would have the president appoint a secretary of communication, who then forms a group independently, without voter input, with meetings behind closed doors. This group could ban and deem anything inappropriate or a security risk at any moment, and could censor via access to instant messages, emails, texts, and anything that uses the internet. The speakers warn that if this passes, videos like theirs could disappear as apps like Telegram, which enable them to speak freely, might be removed. They question who in the government would decide what content is banned versus allowed content. They urge viewers to consider this deeply. In summary, they contend the bill could effectively ban anything the government deems inappropriate very quickly without warning, with ramifications including disrupting mass communication methods and enabling spying on home devices and cameras. They assert the bill is “that bad,” insisting they are not using hyperbole. Speaker 0 adds a metaphor about banning books from libraries and facing jail for accessing banned books, suggesting the bill represents a push for complete control and urging people to wake up and investigate further.

A Trump victory signals change, particularly in addressing censorship. Meanwhile, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is pushing a bill that threatens free speech, criminalizing dissent against the government. This authoritarian legislation mirrors previous warnings about the rise of a zero trust model, with measures like mandatory ID linking for social media use. The government is overstepping parental rights, claiming it will care for children instead. Australians must pressure politicians to uphold their rights and reject this bill entirely, rather than seeking amendments. The focus should be on restoring freedoms and ensuring that politicians serve the public, not control it. Support minor parties opposing this bill and advocate for a bill of rights to prevent future authoritarianism. It’s time for Australians to reclaim their country.

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.