Censorship Industrial Complex
New Australian law, if passed, will make the gov’t the sole arbiter of truth’
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
The main purpose of the legislation is to silence critics of the Australian government’s response to the Covid-19 crisis. What they have done instead is demonstrate that Australia does not have adequate protection for free speech, nor is it a democracy.
In a crushing blow to free speech in Australia, the lower house of federal parliament has passed an amendment, known as the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. It imposes obligations on digital communications platform providers to prevent the dissemination of content “that contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, and is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm of a specified type (misinformation and disinformation).”
Several dissenting politicians have expressed outrage and incredulity at the legislative move. Nola Marino, a member of the right-wing opposition Liberal Party said that she did not think that Australia, a liberal democratic society, would ever be “debating a bill that is explicitly designed to censor and silence the Australian people.”
National Party member Keith Pitt described the legislation as a “yawning chasm that is incredibly … dangerous to this country.” He expressed shock that the amendment was being put forward, adding that Western democracies such as Australia have been built on freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Such principled objections were ignored, however. The legislation now has only to pass in the Senate (the upper house) to become law.
The first and most obvious criticism of the law is that it puts the government authority, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in the ridiculous position of deciding what is and isn’t “false” information. That is not only absurd – how could ACMA, for example make judgements on subjects like vaccines or viruses – it means that the law cannot be applied universally.
Governments routinely put out false information, arguably more often than they put out true information. Will they be penalized? Of course not. Advertisers present information that is false. Will they fall under his law? No. It will only be directed at people who are saying things that the government does not like, especially in relation to health policy. It is politics, not law.
When governments distort the law for political ends, it inevitably ends up in badly crafted legislation, and that is what has happened here. The law depends for its integrity on clear semantics, words whose definition is clear. But two key words, “misinformation” and “disinformation” are misleading at best.
They are variants of the word “information”; the prefixes “dis” and “mis” have been added to create the impression that what is at issue is objective truth (“information” being something objectively observable). It is a diversion. What is happening instead is that the law will target the intent of the writers.
Disinformation is defined as information that is “intended” to mislead and to cause harm. With misinformation there is no such intent; it is just an error, but even there it requires determining what is in the author’s mind. The aim is to outlaw thinking that is not congruent with the governments’ official position.
Determining a writer’s or speaker’s intent is all but impossible, however, because we cannot get into another person’s mind, only speculate on the on their motivations. Thus, someone who produces content that is deemed to be false and have caused damage could say that it was meant as irony, not literally. How is it possible to prove otherwise?
Pointing out this definitional slipperiness could be the basis for an effective rebuttal of the legislation. Courts are very poor at establishing intent.
A second problem: How do we know what meaning the recipients will get? Glance at the comments on social media posts and you will see an extreme array of views, ranging from approbation to intense hostility. To state the obvious, readers think for themselves and inevitably derive different meanings. Anti-disinformation legislation, which is justified as protecting people from bad influences for the common good, is not merely patronizing and infantilizing, it treats citizens as mere machines ingesting data – robots, not humans. It is legislation that is not just aimed at controlling the thoughts of the producers of the content, it is targeted at the thoughts of the recipients: two layers of absurdity. The result would be like targeting the “thought crimes” depicted in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four.
Censorship regimes operate on the assumption that if a sufficient proportion of the available content is skewed towards pushing state propaganda, then the audience will inevitably be persuaded to believe the authorities. But what matters is the quality of the content, not the quantity of the messaging. Repetitious expressions of the government’s preferred narrative eventually become meaningless, while sound analyses will cut through.
The main purpose of the legislation is to silence critics of the Australian government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. The aim is to ensure that in future health authorities and the political class are immune from scrutiny and criticism. It is unlikely to be effective. What they have done instead is demonstrate that Australia does not have adequate protection for free speech, nor is it genuinely a democracy.
From LifeSiteNews
By Dan Frieth
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a fierce rebuke of Brazil’s moves to silence American-run social media platforms, particularly Rumble and X.
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
He calls attention to “SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms,” pointing out that Brazil’s Supreme Court has been “threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market.”
Trump warns that these actions are “due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans,” and states: “starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs.” He also adds that “Goods transshipped to evade this 50% Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.”
Brazil’s crackdown has targeted Rumble after it refused to comply with orders to block the account of Allan dos Santos, a Brazilian streamer living in the United States.
On February 21, 2025, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Rumble’s suspension for non‑compliance, saying it failed “to comply with court orders.”
Earlier, from August to October 2024, Moraes had similarly ordered a nationwide block on X.
The court directed ISPs to suspend access and imposed fines after the platform refused to designate a legal representative and remove certain accounts.
Elon Musk responded: “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo‑judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.”
By linking censorship actions, particularly those targeting Rumble and X, to U.S. trade policy, Trump’s letter asserts that Brazil’s judiciary has moved into the arena of foreign policy and economic consequences.
The tariffs, he makes clear, are meant, at least in part, as a response to Brazil’s suppression of American free speech.
Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Brazil for censoring American platforms may also serve as a clear signal to the European Union, which is advancing similar regulatory efforts under the guise of “disinformation” and “online safety.”
With the EU’s Digital Services Act and proposed “hate speech” legislation expanding government authority over content moderation, American companies face mounting pressure to comply with vague and sweeping takedown demands.
By framing censorship as a violation of U.S. free speech rights and linking it to trade consequences, Trump is effectively warning that any foreign attempt to suppress American voices or platforms could trigger similar economic retaliation.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Canadian pro-freedom group sounds alarm over Liberal plans to revive internet censorship bill
From LifeSiteNews
The Democracy Fund warned that the Liberal government may bring back a form of Bill C-63, which is aimed at regulating online speech.
One of Canada’s top pro-democracy groups has sounded the alarm by warning that the Canadian federal government is planning to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.
The Democracy Fund (TDF), in a recent press release, warned about plans by the Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney to bring back a form of Bill C-63. The bill, which lapsed when the election was called earlier this year, aimed to regulate online speech, which could mean “mass censorship” of the internet.
“TDF is concerned that the government will try once more to give itself the power to criminalize and punish online speech and debate,” the group said.
“TDF will oppose that.”
According to the TDF, it is “concerned that the government intends to re-introduce the previously abandoned Online Harms Bill in the same or modified form.”
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.
The Online Harms Act would have censored legal internet content that the government thought “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.” It would be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints.
The TDF said that Bill C-63 would have made it a criminal offense to publish ill-defined “harmful content.”
“It required social media companies to remove potentially harmful content or face punitive fines. Many defenders of civil liberty, including TDF, worried that the application of this badly defined concept would lead to mass surveillance and censorship,” the group said.
The TDF warned that under Carney, the government is “once again considering new or similar legislation to regulate online speech, with the Minister of Justice claiming he would take another look at the matter.”
Mark Joseph, TDF litigation director, pointed out that Canada already has laws that “the government can, and does, use to address most of the bad conduct that the Bill ostensibly targeted.”
“To the extent that there are gaps in the Criminal Code, amendments should be carefully drafted to fix this,” he said.
“However, the previous Bill C-63 sought to implement a regime of mass censorship.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews last month, 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.
Under Carney, the Liberals are expected to continue much of what they did under Justin Trudeau, including the party’s zealous push in favor of abortion, euthanasia, radical gender ideology, internet regulation and so-called “climate change” policies. Indeed, Carney, like Trudeau, seems to have extensive ties to both China and the globalist World Economic Forum, connections that were brought up routinely by conservatives in the lead-up to the election.
Dallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’
US airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Was it obliteration?
Lacombe meat processor scores $1.2 million dollar provincial tax credit to help expansion
The Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree
Canada’s Carbon Tax Is A Disaster For Our Economy And Oil Industry
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Resets The Energy Policy Playing Field
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame 2025 Inductee profiles – Alpine Skiing Athlete – Brady Leman
-
Business2 days agoWEF-linked Linda Yaccarino to step down as CEO of X
-
Automotive2 days agoAmerica’s EV Industry Must Now Compete On A Level Playing Field
-
Business2 days ago‘Experts’ Warned Free Markets Would Ruin Argentina — Looks Like They Were Dead Wrong
-
International2 days agoSecret Service suspends six agents nearly a year after Trump assassination attempt
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should recognize that private sector drives Canada’s economy
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoThe Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Alberta1 day agoFourteen regional advisory councils will shape health care planning and delivery in Alberta
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta school boards required to meet new standards for school library materials with regard to sexual content