Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis warns Liberals’ ‘hate’ bill will allow for prosecution of free speech

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Section 319(7) of the bill will redefine “hatred” as an “emotion” of “detestation or vilification,” which she noted is “a vague and subjective test that could capture ordinary debate or criticism.”

Canadian Conservative Party MP Leslyn Lewis blasted a new Liberal “hate crime” bill, calling it a “dangerous” piece of legislation that she says will open the door for authorities to possibly prosecute Canadians’ speech deemed “hateful.”

In an X post on Tuesday, Lewis slammed the Liberal government’s Bill C-9, or the Combating Hate Act, in a scathing post.

Lewis observed that the bill, as written, “expands state power to prosecute speech under unclear rules and with fewer checks on government abuse.”

“Canadians must be alert: broad definitions & weaker Attorney General oversight increases the risk of government abuse,” she warned.

Lewis noted how the bill will change Section 319 of the Criminal Code “in two dangerous ways.”

She then went through a variety of sections in the bill, commenting on her concerns with them.

Lewis noted how Section 319(6) will remove the “Attorney General’s consent, eliminating a safeguard that prevents political or overzealous prosecutions.”

She said Section 319(7) of the bill will redefine “hatred” as an “emotion” of “detestation or vilification,” which she noted is “a vague and subjective test that could capture ordinary debate or criticism.”

As it stands now, Section 319(6) of Canada’s Criminal Code mandates consent of the nation’s attorney general before a person can be hit with a hate crime charge. Lewis warned that Bill C-9 will eliminate this protection.

The Mark Carney Liberals have boasted that the bill will make it a crime for people to block the entrance to, or intimidate people from attending, a church or other place of worship, a school, or a community centre. The bill would also make it a crime to promote so-called hate symbols and would, in effect, ban the display of certain symbols, such as the Nazi flag.

The Liberal government, since taking power in 2015, has brought forth many new bills that, in effect, censor internet content, as well as go after people’s ability to speak their minds.

For example, Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online. The bill died earlier this year after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the 2025 federal election.

While protecting children is indeed a duty of the state, the bill included several measures that targeted vaguely defined “hate speech” infractions involving race, gender, and religion, among other categories. The proposal was thus blasted by many legal experts.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other “interested senators” want Carney to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.

Another recent Carney government Bill C-2, which looks to ban cash donations over $10,000, was blasted by a constitutional freedom group as a “step towards tyranny.”

Carney, as reported by LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeau’s footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.

He has also said his government plans to launch a “new economy” in Canada that will involve “deepening” ties to the world.

LifeSiteNews reported that former Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault, known for his radical climate views, will be the person in charge of implementing Bill C-11, a controversial bill passed in 2023 that aims to censor legal internet content in Canada.

Business

Critics Accuse YouTube of Dragging Out Return Process for Banned Channels

Published on

logo

A promise to let banned creators return rings hollow when only select ones get a second chance.

Stand against censorship and surveillance, join Reclaim The Net.

By

YouTube is being criticized for what many see as backpedaling on its commitment to free speech, after pledging to restore banned accounts, only to continue removing new channels created by previously banned figures.

The initial assurance came in a letter dated September 23, 2025, addressed to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan.

In that communication, YouTube acknowledged its past enforcement actions, which included terminating channels over election-related and COVID-19 content under policies that have since changed. The company claimed that its current guidelines permit more room for such topics and asserted:

“Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the Company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.”

The same day, YouTube posted a message on X describing a “limited pilot project” that would provide “a pathway back to YouTube for some terminated creators to set up a new channel.”

However, the platform immediately added that this option would only apply to a “subset” of creators.

The vagueness of the commitment raised suspicion, which intensified when two prominent figures, Infowars founder Alex Jones and “America First” host Nick Fuentes, launched new channels that were almost immediately taken down.

Cartoon purple monkey wearing a red cap holding a magnifying glass above the message "This page isn't available. Sorry about that. Try searching for something else." with the YouTube logo and a search bar below on a pale gray background.

On September 25, YouTube confirmed in a follow-up post that the pilot program wasn’t active yet and reiterated that users previously banned under its policies would have their new channels removed.

Screenshot of a tweet by verified Updates From YouTube (@UpdatesFromYT) stating that previously terminated creators trying to start new channels are still prohibited, the pilot program on terminations is not yet open, YouTube will terminate new channels from previously terminated users in accordance with Community Guidelines, and more details on a limited pilot program will be shared soon; posted Sep 25, 2025, 9:42 AM, 728.7K views.

This abrupt reversal drew widespread condemnation. Either YouTube is committed to backtracking on its mistakes or it’s not.

YouTube’s September 25 post was heavily ratioed, with users blasting the company for promoting a free speech revival while simultaneously doubling down on removals.

The disconnect between the public promise and its execution fueled accusations of insincerity.

While YouTube didn’t ban Jones and Fuentes under the now-defunct COVID or election integrity policies: Jones was booted in 2018 over what the platform labeled “hate speech,” and Fuentes was removed in 2020 for alleged violations of the same hate speech rule, many argue that the company’s overall stance still undermines the broader principle of open discourse.

By dragging out the reinstatement process and narrowing eligibility through an undefined pilot, YouTube is being accused of turning its supposed “commitment to free expression” into a hollow gesture.

The promise to Congress now appears to be less a genuine policy shift and more a tightly controlled PR maneuver.

Despite YouTube’s attempts to frame its evolving guidelines as a win for free speech, actions speak louder. Blocking even the chance to return, particularly after stating that creators could rejoin, reveals just how selective the platform remains in determining who gets to speak and who doesn’t.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, join Reclaim The Net.

Fight censorship and surveillance. Reclaim your digital freedom.

Get news updates, features, and alternative tech explorations to defend your digital rights.

Continue Reading

Business

Google Admits Biden White House Pressured Content Removal, Promises to Restore Banned YouTube Accounts

Published on

logo

By

Google admits bending to political pressure, but only long after the damage was already done

After years of denying bias, Google now concedes that it gave in to pressure from the Biden White House to remove content that did not breach its own rules.
The admission comes alongside a promise to restore access to YouTube accounts permanently removed for political speech related to COVID-19 and elections, topics where government officials had applied behind-the-scenes pressure to control the narrative.
This move follows sustained scrutiny from the House Judiciary Committee, which Reclaim The Net covered extensively, led by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), who issued a subpoena and spearheaded an investigation that revealed the extent of government influence on content moderation decisions at Google.
In a letter from its legal representative, Google confirmed that it faced pressure from the federal government to suppress lawful speech.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
Google revealed that it had been contacted multiple times by top federal officials regarding content on its platforms, even when that content did not break any rules.
The company stated that “Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the Company regarding certain user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies.”
According to the company, this outreach took place in a broader political climate that made it difficult to operate independently.
Google noted that “The political environment during the pandemic created significant pressure on platforms, including YouTube, to address content that some deemed harmful.”
While describing the situation, Google made clear its disapproval of such efforts, stating bluntly that “This pressure was – and remains – unacceptable and wrong.”
In response to this period of politicized enforcement, the company said it is now taking steps to reverse prior censorship decisions.
As part of that process, Google confirmed that “Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.”
The letter also clarified YouTube’s approach to content moderation, explicitly rejecting the use of outside arbiters. “YouTube does not use third-party fact checkers to determine whether content should be removed or labeled,” the company said.
Acknowledging the role of political diversity on its platform, Google stated that “YouTube values conservative voices on its platform. These creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse.”
The company concluded with a broader statement rejecting government interference in lawful online speech, saying that “The federal government should not play a role in pressuring private companies to take action on lawful speech.”
The revelations echo findings in the Murthy v. Missouri case, where lower courts found that federal agencies had taken on a role similar to an “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” While the Supreme Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, the core issues around government pressure on speech remain unresolved.
The investigation into Google is part of a broader probe into how tech firms handled information related to the 2020 election, COVID-19, and high-profile political topics such as Hunter Biden’s laptop. The committee’s findings show a pattern of censorship aligned with political objectives.
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy. 
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Trending

X