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.

Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), is calling for harsh measures against anyone who opposes the globalist agenda, including imprisonment and reeducation. Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who now works for the WEF, claims that censorship is necessary to protect free speech. The elites are pushing for a world government and believe they are gods. They want to eliminate alternative opinions and debate. The UK has passed a law allowing authorities to punish citizens who share "fake news" or labeled misinformation on social media, with fines up to £18 million and the power to imprison non-compliant individuals. The WEF is also urging governments to build COVID concentration camps. The globalist elite have plans for more pandemics and depopulation. However, people are starting to wake up to their agenda.

"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."

As a journalist who has covered world leaders, mass murderers, and war zones, the speaker says they have been targeted and falsely accused for almost a decade. They believe the media is in a crisis, facing an age of information warfare where propaganda is the entire battlefield, aided by advanced technology. The speaker contends that journalists betrayed free press principles by attacking one of their own for interviewing the Russian president, and that media companies and journalism schools have failed. Non-profit organizations are allegedly masquerading as non-partisan media watchdogs, acting as political propagandists who crush dissent and free speech. This "cancel culture" is a death sentence enabled by information dominance. The speaker claims that these non-profits are part of a censorship network including government agencies, using deception to mask their actions with goals like preventing misinformation and hate speech. Companies like Facebook, Instagram, and Google have monopoly power, controlling what billions see and hear. The speaker draws a parallel to apartheid South Africa, emphasizing the importance of the First Amendment and warning that the lights of freedom are going out, requiring action to relight them.

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.

Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people. This global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. A policy brief on information integrity on digital platforms puts forward a framework for a concerned international response.

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.

In 2016, the UN decided to give everyone a digital identity for daily use, integrating driver's licenses, bank accounts, media, and health records. A global vaccination strategy was also introduced. This laid the groundwork for a social credit system, similar to China's model. Currently, they are collecting medical data and basic information, with plans to include CO2 emissions, financial data, and personal IP addresses linked to biometric data. The goal is to monitor internet activity. They don't care about our arguments because there is a hidden agenda. It's not about climate, helping people, trade, or public health. They want to maintain pressure on healthcare to push vaccinations. We need to understand why ICU capacity isn't being increased. It's important to recognize the manipulation behind the housing crisis and the division caused by fabricated issues like nitrogen emissions. We must unite for our collective rights and freedoms.

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.

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.

She alleges the Pact of the Future, a two-part UN document on science/technology and youth/future generations, was passed after failing to secure a World Health Organization treaty and adopted by the General Assembly via a 'silence procedure,' with 193 nations and the current administration reportedly on board. It allegedly creates a 'power structure fully digital and maximized for the control of the masses,' including a biometric digital ID that marks people as global citizens. Dissent would be labeled 'misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation' and memory hold, with AI-enforced punishments such as being locked out of bank accounts, unable to purchase, or travel by plane, subway, or drive. She denounces unelected bureaucrats at the UN as architects of a 'one world order' and says this is 'no longer coming, it's here.' She calls for preparedness and action with sheriffs, referencing a press conference on the seventeenth and urging local resistance.

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 drives censorship by advocating for global blasphemy laws under the guise of combating religious hatred. The UN system, with its vast and well-funded bureaucracies, contributes to a censorship industrial complex. The WHO Pandemic Treaty initially sought to combat misinformation, disinformation, and "infodemics" defined as too much information. The UN Global Digital Compact, to be negotiated in September, aims to prohibit hate speech, discrimination, misinformation, and disinformation. The European Court of Human Rights has been undermining free speech protections, exemplified by a 2012 judgment stating that racist and extremist opinions cause more harm than restrictions on freedom of expression. The court argued that it's unnecessary to wait until hate speech becomes a real and imminent danger to democratic society, advocating for early intervention.

Elon Musk is facing criticism for not removing a stabbing video from his platform globally. An Australian senator called for Musk to be jailed, sparking a debate on global internet censorship. Australia's top internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, boasts of her censorship powers and leads a global online safety regulators network with other countries. Grant aims to crack down on VPNs and privacy to control online content. European Union's Vera Jurova supports censorship to prevent events like January 6th. These actions raise concerns about government control over the internet worldwide.

Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people. This global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. A policy brief on information integrity on digital platforms puts forward a framework for a concerned international response.

The World Economic Forum's biggest fear is that people will not comply and will fight for freedom by making individual decisions. Digital control is key to enforcing mandates and controlling lives. The speaker claims that issues like carbon emissions and experimental injections are secondary to the desire to control people from the outside in. A digital process that restricts movement, behavior, and decisions with the click of a button would mean the end of individual autonomy.

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.

Two years ago, we were labeled as bought-off journalists for questioning digital censorship. I was shocked to see my party seemingly endorse censorship. John Kerry even lamented that the First Amendment hinders the government's ability to control information and build consensus, essentially complaining that people choose their own news sources. Building consensus isn't the media's job; it's our job to make governing hard, and many of our allies have already embraced draconian speech laws. The EU's Digital Services Act is the most comprehensive censorship law in a Western democracy. USAID is funding organizations that promote unified messaging and discourage diverse opinions, spending millions of dollars to transform the free press into a consensus machine. You've taken taxpayer money to tell people they're wrong about what they can see, you sold us out.