Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

Trump admin probing U.K.’s crackdown on free speech

Published

4 minute read

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Trump administration quietly dispatched U.S. diplomats to Britain in March to investigate growing free speech concerns. According to The Telegraph, they met with pro-life campaigners arrested for silent prayer and questioned UK officials about internet speech laws.

Key Details:

  • A five-person U.S. delegation visited Britain in March to probe free speech issues, meeting activists like 74-year-old Rose Docherty, arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic.

  • The team also met with UK Foreign Office officials and Ofcom, which now polices online content under the country’s Online Safety Act.

  • In February, Vice President JD Vance warned free speech is “in retreat” in Europe and pointed to arrests of pro-life demonstrators in the UK.

Diving Deeper:

According to The Telegraph, the Trump administration sent a team from the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to Britain in March for meetings with victims of what the administration views as increasingly authoritarian speech restrictions. The diplomats reportedly engaged with pro-life campaigners, including 74-year-old Rose Docherty, who was arrested for quietly praying near an abortion facility under the UK’s controversial “buffer zone” law.

“I didn’t break the law, I didn’t influence, I didn’t harass, I didn’t intimidate,” Docherty told reporters. “This can’t be just. It’s heartening that others around the world, including the U.S. government, have realised this injustice and voiced their support.”

The U.S. team also met with British government officials, including members of the Foreign Office and Ofcom. Ofcom’s growing authority over digital speech, enhanced under the UK’s new Online Safety Act, has become a flashpoint between Washington and London. The legislation allows British regulators to impose large fines on American tech companies for failing to adequately monitor and censor online content—a power U.S. officials say could have serious consequences for American firms and speech protections.

Vice President JD Vance spotlighted the issue during his speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, calling out the United Kingdom by name. “I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs,” he said. Vance specifically cited cases like Docherty’s, warning of a broader erosion of fundamental rights across Europe.

The administration’s concerns extend beyond religious liberty. The case of Lucy Connolly, a 42-year-old British mother sentenced to 31 months in prison for social media posts after a horrific mass killing in Southport, has also attracted attention from Trump allies. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, a longtime ally of President Trump, described the case as emblematic of a “two-tier Britain” and claimed, “My American friends cannot believe what is happening in the UK.”

Despite mounting criticism, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has denied there is a crisis. In a February meeting with President Trump at the White House, Starmer said, “We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time.”

That reassurance hasn’t quieted concerns. A separate report from The Times of London in March found that British police make more than 30 arrests every day over alleged offensive online or public statements—amounting to approximately 12,000 arrests annually.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Canada’s PM Mark Carney Revives Online Censorship Agenda

Published on

logo
Steven Guilbeault, once Canada’s Environment Minister is now poised to spearhead a different kind of oversight, this time, over what Canadians can see and share online.
In his new post as Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, Guilbeault has been entrusted with executing Bill C-11, a contentious piece of legislation passed in 2023 that gives the federal government unprecedented power over online streaming platforms.
Celebrating the appointment, Guilbeault publicly thanked newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney, expressing his intent to “build a stronger country, based on the values of Canadians.”
This shift in leadership places Guilbeault at the center of an ongoing battle over internet regulation. Bill C-11, which was rushed into law during Justin Trudeau’s final term as Prime Minister, obligates major tech companies to fund and prioritize Canadian content, particularly that of the mainstream media, regardless of whether users are seeking it.
While the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) was initially expected to enforce the new requirements, it recently admitted that the regulatory framework won’t be ready until late 2025. That leaves platforms, creators, and consumers in limbo, uncertain about how deeply the government’s hand will extend into digital media.
Carney, seen as a political continuation of Trudeau’s legacy, appears ready to go even further. Before the most recent election, the Liberal Party was already moving to introduce Bill C-63, a so-called Online Harms Act.
While framed as a tool to protect minors from exploitation, the bill also includes expansive measures to monitor and penalize what it terms “hate speech.” This vague language has prompted concern from legal scholars and civil liberties organizations about the law’s potential to suppress legitimate expression.
With Guilbeault now steering Canada’s cultural and digital policies, free speech advocates worry the government is tightening its grip not only on environmental and economic life but on the very flow of information and dialogue in the digital sphere. What began as a push for national content promotion may ultimately serve as a model for broader censorship under the guise of cultural stewardship.
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

In Britain the “Thought Crime” Is Real

Published on

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

By

A pensioner faced a raid not for plotting mayhem, but for posting a sarcastic tweet fewer than 30 people saw

It takes a very special kind of madness to send six baton-wielding, pepper-spray-toting police officers to arrest a 71-year-old man in his slippers. But here we are: welcome to Britain 2025, where tweeting the wrong opinion is treated with the same urgency as a hostage situation in Croydon.

Julian Foulkes, once a proud servant of law and order, now finds himself on the receiving end of what can only be described as a full-scale, Kafkaesque raid. His crime? Not drug-dealing, not fraud, not even refusing to pay the TV license. No, Julian questioned a pro-Palestinian demonstrator on X. Because apparently, free speech is now a limited-time offer.

The Curious Case of the Grocery List

The story began in Gillingham when Kent Police decided to deploy what must be half their annual budget to storm the Foulkes residence. Six officers with batons barged into the home of a pensioner who’s spent a decade in service to the very same force now treating him like the Unabomber.

And what high-level contraband did they uncover in this den of danger? Books. Literature. And not just any literature; “very Brexity things,” according to bodycam footage obtained by The Telegraph. One can only imagine the horror. Perhaps a Nigel Farage biography lying next to a battered copy of The Spectator. It’s practically a manifesto.

But wait, it gets better. A shopping list, penned by Julian’s wife (a hairdresser, no less), featured such ominous items as bleach, aluminum foil, and gloves. For those keeping score at home, that’s also the standard toolkit of anyone doing household chores or dyeing hair. But to Kent’s finest, it must have looked like the recipe for domestic terrorism. You half expect them to have called in MI5 to decipher the coded significance of “toilet paper x2.”

Now, this could all be darkly amusing if it weren’t also painfully cruel. While Kent’s squad of crime-fighting intellects were turning over Julian’s life like a garage sale, they rummaged through deeply personal mementos from his daughter’s funeral. Francesca, tragically killed by a drunk driver in Ibiza 15 years ago, had her memory poked through as if it were a bag of potato chips.

An officer was heard stating: “Ah. That’s sad,” before carrying on like she was flicking through junk mail.

After the shakedown came the cell. Eight hours locked up like a mob boss, while the state decided whether tweeting concern about a reported rise in antisemitism qualified as incitement or merely the audacity of having an opinion. It’s hard to say what’s more insulting; the arrest or the mind-numbing absurdity of it all.

A Nation Eating Its Own

Now, let’s not kid ourselves. This isn’t just a Kent problem. This is a snapshot of a country in full bureaucratic freefall. We’ve reached a point where police forces, rather than chasing burglars or catching knife-wielding lunatics, are now busy raiding the homes of retirees over innocuous social media posts.

Julian Foulkes is not a revolutionary. He’s not leading rallies, he’s not printing manifestos in his shed, and he’s certainly not strapping himself to the gates of Parliament. He’s a retired cop who owns a few books, uses X to vent the occasional opinion, and wants to visit his daughter in Australia without being flagged at passport control like he’s smuggling plutonium.

But after hours of interrogation for what the police grandly labeled malicious communication, Foulkes accepted a caution. Not because he believed he’d done anything wrong, he hadn’t, but because the alternative might have been even more grotesque. A criminal conviction. Which, for a man with family overseas, could turn his trips to Heathrow into a permanent no-fly zone.

“My life wouldn’t be worth living if I couldn’t see her. At the time, I believed a caution wouldn’t affect travel, but a conviction definitely would,” he said about being able to visit his daughter.

“That’s about the level of extremist I am… a few Douglas Murray books and some on Brexit.”

He reads. Possibly even thinks. The horror.

The Apology That Barely Was

Kent Police did what all institutions do when caught with their pants around their ankles. They mumbled something vaguely resembling an apology. They admitted the caution had been a mistake and removed it from his record.

And while that’s nice, it rather misses the point. Because they’d already sent a message, loud and clear: Think the wrong thing, tweet the wrong joke, and we might just pay you a visit. It’s the sort of behavior you’d expect in some authoritarian state where elections are won with 98 percent of the vote and the only available television channel is state news. Not the Home Counties.

Foulkes, for his part, hasn’t gone quietly.

“I saw Starmer in the White House telling Trump we’ve had [free speech] in the UK for a very long time, and I thought, ‘Yeah, right.’ We can see what’s really going on.”

He’s not wrong. For a nation so smug about its democratic values, Britain seems increasingly allergic to people expressing them.

He goes further, pulling no punches about the direction his former profession has taken.

“I’d never experienced anything like this” during his time on the force, he said, before diagnosing the whole debacle as a symptom of the “woke mind virus” infecting everything, including the police.

The Tweet That Triggered the Avalanche

The whole affair kicked off in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, a day of bloodshed that left 1,200 dead and more than 250 taken hostage. The shockwaves weren’t limited to the Middle East. They rattled through Europe, igniting a fresh wave of pro-Palestinian marches across the continent.

Foulkes, like many watching the news, saw a video of a mob in Dagestan storming an airport reportedly to find Jewish arrivals.

So, when he saw a post from an account called Mr Ethical; who, with all the irony the internet can muster, threatened legal action if branded an antisemite, Foulkes couldn’t help himself. He replied:

“One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals….”

A social media post exchange where Mr Ethical responds to Suella Braverman saying if called an antisemite he will sue, followed by Julian Foulkes commenting about storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals.

That was it. One tweet. One line. No threats. No calls to violence.

Foulkes maintains he’d never interacted with the account before. There was no feud, no history. His post had fewer than 30 views.

And yet, within days, he had six police officers treating his home like a crime scene.

What does this tell us? That we’ve entered an era where satire is indistinguishable from evidence. Where sarcasm is treated like sedition. And where a retired constable who’s paid his dues can still find himself pulled into the maw of state-sanctioned nonsense for a tweet.

So yes, the caution’s gone, wiped clean like it never happened. But the message is still smoldering in the ashtray: think twice before you speak, and maybe don’t speak at all if your bookshelf includes anything more provocative than a Gordon Ramsay cookbook. Because in modern Britain, it’s not always the rapists and murderers who get doorstepped, it’s pensioners with opinions. And if that’s where we’ve landed, then the only thing truly extreme is how far the country’s gone off the rails.

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

Continue Reading

Trending

X