Facebook&#8217;s parent company Meta said that two posts that included &#8220;misgendering&#8221; were not a violation of its policies, in a case that appears to have involved content from The Daily Wire.
The social media giant&#8217;s Oversight Board ruled that two posts about trans-identifying males do not violate the company&#8217;s hate speech rules.
&#8220;Despite the intentionally provocative nature of the posts, which misgender identifiable trans people in ways many would find offensive, a majority of the Board found they related to matters of public concern and would not incite likely and imminent violence or discrimination,&#8221; the Oversight Board <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/news/wide-ranging-decisions-protect-speech-and-address-harms/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement on the <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/bun-1ynnk264/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decision</a>.
Back in September, Meta&#8217;s Oversight Board <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/news/new-cases-to-consider-debate-around-gender-identity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> it was looking into two posts from last year that involve videos of trans-identifying males.
One of the posts <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/04/23/meta-oversight-board-trans-content-moderation-hate-speech/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appears</a> to be a video <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C7Mk01jo1P8/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> by Libs of TikTok on Instagram that shows an Oregon high school boy getting booed by the crowd when he finished first place in the girls’ 200-meter race.
&#8220;He&#8217;s a boy who thinks he&#8217;s a girl,&#8221; Libs of TikTok <a href="https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/bun-1ynnk264/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">captioned</a> the post.
Around the same time, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C7PjzzrOEkE/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> the same video on Instagram, using male pronouns for the trans-identifying high schooler.
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7PjzzrOEkE/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7PjzzrOEkE/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by The Daily Wire (@realdailywire)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
The other post was a video posted to Facebook showing a girl confronting a trans-identifying male in the women&#8217;s bathroom and expressing her discomfort. That video was likely <a href="https://www.iwf.org/2024/09/05/meta-considering-monumental-policy-change-to-ban-speech-promoting-womens-sports-and-spaces/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">taken</a> by Payton McNabb, a female high school athlete who was seriously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/injured-high-school-volleyball-player-reacts-to-congresswoman-saying-trans-identifying-males-dont-hurt-anyone" target="_blank" rel="noopener">injured</a> in 2022 when a trans-identifying volleyball player spiked a ball at her head.
Both posts were reported for &#8220;Hate Speech and Bullying and Harassment&#8221; multiple times, but Meta left both posts up, deciding that neither violated Meta&#8217;s Community Standards. Users who reported the posts then appealed to the Oversight Board.
However, on Wednesday, the board ruled in favor of Meta&#8217;s original decision to leave both posts up. Rulings by the Oversight Board on specific posts are considered binding for the company.
&#8220;The Hate Speech policy does not include misgendering as a form of prohibited &#8216;attack,'&#8221; the Oversight Board noted when it announced it was looking into the videos.
The move is the latest victory for conservative users as Meta says it is working to dial back censorship, including on gender identity.
Earlier this year, Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-pro-life-accounts-demand-meta-lift-suspensions-after-free-speech-promises" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> sweeping changes to his company’s content moderation policies, promising “more speech and fewer mistakes.”
“In recent years we’ve developed increasingly complex systems to manage content across our platforms, partly in response to societal and political pressure to moderate content. This approach has gone too far,” Meta said.
“We want to fix that and return to that fundamental commitment to free expression,” the company said.
The company also said it will be “getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate” and it will also recommend more political content if a user has indicated they are interested.
Meta has been fiercely criticized in recent years for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/meta-doubles-down-after-zuckerberg-reveals-how-facebook-censored-hunter-biden-laptop-story" target="_blank" rel="noopener">censoring</a> political content such as the Hunter Biden laptop story, which broke just before the 2020 election.

Social Media And Company Logos

After Review, Facebook Says ‘Misgendering’ Doesn’t Violate Its Hate Speech Policy

Meta Rules Transgender Posts Do Not Violate Hate Speech Rules In Win For Conservatives, Daily Wire

Facebook

Gender

LGBT

LGBTQ

Social Media

Social Media Censorship

Transgender

Meta&#8217;s Oversight Board expressed indignation at the social media giant for its January policy overhaul that axed fact-checking and eased restrictions on discussions about immigration and gender identity.
The independent oversight board railed against the company for implementing the changes &#8220;hastily&#8221; with supposedly no transparency about &#8220;what, if any, prior human rights due diligence&#8221; was performed.
Zuckerberg acknowledged that previous content moderation efforts had resulted in &#8220;too many mistakes and too much censorship.&#8221;
President Trump had frequently criticized Facebook during his first term, culminating in his platform suspension following the January 6, 2021, Capitol events — a ban eventually lifted as he launched his successful 2024 campaign.
Since President Trump’s election to a second term, the Meta CEO has been working to mend fences and roll back a decade of content policies that prohibited “hate speech” and supposed misinformation that conservatives have long criticized as biased.
As part of the January policy <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/metas-oversight-board-rebukes-company-over-policy-overhaul-2025-04-23/">overhaul</a>, Meta scrapped its U.S. fact-checking program, replacing third-party partnerships with a Community Notes tool similar to Elon Musk&#8217;s X, per Reuters.
In addition, Meta removed restrictions on “hate speech” towards LGBT individuals, and also announced it would stop proactively scanning platforms for &#8220;less severe policy violations,&#8221; instead focusing its automated systems only on serious content like terrorism and child exploitation.
Among its 17 recommendations, the board requested that Meta improve enforcement of its bullying policies while clarifying which hateful ideologies remain banned.
The board expressed concern about potential impacts in countries experiencing conflicts, urging Meta to &#8220;assess whether the changes could have uneven consequences globally.&#8221;
Despite the success of Community Notes on X, the Oversight Board still requested that Meta assess the new tool&#8217;s effectiveness and release reports every six months.
Meta said it would respond to the board&#8217;s 17 recommendations within 60 days.
The board did uphold Meta&#8217;s decisions to allow some controversial content, including posts discussing transgender people&#8217;s access to bathrooms, while requiring the removal of posts with racist slurs.
A Meta told Reuters the company welcomed decisions &#8220;that leave up or restore content in the interest of promoting free expression,&#8221; but did not address rulings calling for content removal.
Despite tensions, Meta has so far committed to funding the Oversight Board through 2027, allocating at least $35 million annually over the next three years, placed in an Irrevocable Trust designed to protect the board&#8217;s independence.
Oversight Board Co-Chair Paolo Carozza stated, &#8220;We have no reason to think that Meta is soured on the board or planning to make any large-scale structural changes in terms of its commitment with the board.&#8221;

US-POLITICS-IT-FACEBOOK-TRUMP

Meta Oversight Board Fumes As Facebook Ends Censorship Initiatives

Censorship

Mark Zuckerberg

A <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Canadian father</a> recently sat before an Australian tribunal in Melbourne for five days because he shared an article from <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Mail</a> in an X post last year.
Let that sink in.
Chris Elston, better known as &#8220;<a href="https://x.com/BillboardChris" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Billboard Chris</a>,&#8221; flew halfway around the world to defend not only his own free speech rights, but also those of all people. He is <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/billboard-chris-australia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pushing back</a> against an order from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner. The order demanded X censor Chris’ February 2024 post criticizing the appointment of a transgender activist to a World Health Organization panel of experts, citing the Daily Mail <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a> titled &#8220;Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED&#8221;
Linking to an article from one of the most-read news websites in the world, the post was <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1906643539754205575" target="_blank" rel="noopener">deemed</a> by eSafety to be “cyber-abuse material targeted at an Australian adult.” X initially resisted pressure to censor the content in any way but later geo-blocked the post in Australia when hit with a formal takedown notice. Billboard Chris, with legal support from ADF International, is challenging that order, and X joined in a separate suit.
This isn’t about one post. It’s about whether governments should be able to censor lawful expression because they don’t like the content — in this case, the rejection of gender ideology. 
The hearing at the Melbourne Administrative Review Tribunal spanned five days and took in over 2,000 pages of documents. Meanwhile, the complainant, Teddy Cook, never even appeared before the tribunal.
<a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1906643539754205575" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Day one</a> revealed how thin the complaint truly was. eSafety’s lawyers claimed that part of the problem was that Chris had revealed Cook’s place of work and posted private images. Chris, however, simply reposted the Daily Mail’s piece, which named Cook’s workplace (a detail already publicly available online) and, as anyone who uses social media knows, the featured images were pulled from Daily Mail article, not supplied by Chris. It becomes more ridiculous still. The Daily Mail had obtained the photos from Cook’s own social media. The argument didn’t just collapse under scrutiny — it exposed the flimsy foundation apparently sufficient for this bureaucracy to suppress dissent.
By <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1907084293513318811" target="_blank" rel="noopener">day two</a>, it was clear how detached from reality the process had become. There was no evidence of actual harm. Cook, just nine days after the post, had tweeted: “living my best life.” But here we were, with psychiatrists and professors flown in to dissect whether a single X post could legally be considered “likely … intended to have an effect of causing serious harm”.
Chris testified to the Tribunal about the issue at the core of his advocacy: “It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body &#8230; children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.” Asked whether he was trying to provoke outrage, he responded: “No. I want to provoke discussion.”
That matters. Under Australia’s Online Safety Act, takedown orders can only be issued if content is not only offensive, but also “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm.&#8221; However, eSafety seemed to argue that intent is largely irrelevant. If someone feels offended, even by public information, that alone might justify censorship.
On <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1907754476250792285" target="_blank" rel="noopener">days three and four</a>, several more expert witnesses took the stand. eSafety’s own expert — a digital communications professor — asserted that biologically accurate terms are “harmful,” and that children should be able to choose their gender around age 12. Note Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for this expertise — reportedly more than $10,000 for just this one.
The final day brought closing submissions and a stark contrast in worldviews. eSafety argued the Tribunal should view the post in isolation, ignoring the broader debate, and insisted that Teddy Cook — a WHO-appointed expert and activist — shouldn’t be considered a public figure. Chris’ legal team, along with X, pushed back: any fair assessment must consider the wider social and political context. This wasn’t targeted abuse — it was participation in a critical public conversation.
This case is a warning to all who value free expression. If a Canadian citizen can be silenced in Australia for sharing a news article on U.S.-based platform X, then clearly, censorship is no longer bound by borders. What’s to stop any other government — from Canada to the EU to China — from deciding your speech “harms” someone abroad and demanding it be taken down too?
This is exactly how global censorship metastasizes: bureaucracies leveraging international tech companies to enforce vague, ideological speech codes on people who never voted for them, under laws they never consented to. And the more they get away with it, the bolder they become.
Fortunately, X put up a robust legal defense, and Chris, with the legal backing of ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, was unequivocal in his message: he will not be censored as he fights to put an end to the evils of gender ideology.
Most evidently, gender ideology needs censorship to survive, and that is why Chris has been targeted. He hasn’t gone before this tribunal to protect himself — he’s doing it to protect the right of every person to tell the truth.
This is a test case with global consequences. Billboard Chris’ censorship challenge shows us exactly where we’re headed if we don’t defend free speech: toward a world where bureaucrats silence opinions they don’t like, even from the other side of the globe. It’s a world where truth must be approved, and feelings outweigh facts. That’s not just anti-democratic — it’s dangerous. Because once a government crosses the line of international censorship, there’s no saying where it will stop.
* * *
Robert Clarke is a barrister and director of advocacy for ADF International, which is supporting the case of Billboard Chris in Australia. Follow him on X at <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rob_ADFIntl.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-07-Apr-2025-01-02-PM-8595

He Shared A Link On X. Now He’s In An Australian Court.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Australia

Canada

Free Speech

gender ideology

Opinion

Twitter

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, announced Friday that its fact-checking program in the United States would be &#8220;officially over&#8221; on Monday, when it will roll out the community notes feature across all platforms.
The news comes after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in January that the company would end fact-checking and move to restore free speech on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Starting Monday, fact-checkers will no longer be able to rate new content, and old fact-checks placed on content will no longer appear.
Instead of fact-checks, Meta will adopt an X-style community notes system where users can add context to posts, which are then rated by other users. Anyone will be able to sign up to be a contributor to community notes if they are over 18 and have had a verified account for over six months.
Joel Kaplan, Meta&#8217;s chief global affairs officer, announced the changes on Friday.
&#8220;By Monday afternoon, our fact-checking program in the US will be officially over. That means no new fact checks and no fact checkers. We announced in January we’d be winding down the program &amp; we haven’t applied penalties to fact-checked posts in the US since then. In place of fact checks, the first Community Notes will start appearing gradually across Facebook, Threads &amp; Instagram, with no penalties attached,&#8221; Kaplan posted on social media.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
By Monday afternoon, our fact-checking program in the US will be officially over. That means no new fact checks and no fact checkers. We announced in January we’d be winding down the program &amp; removing penalties. In place of fact checks, the first Community Notes will start…
&mdash; Joel Kaplan (@joel_kaplan) <a href="https://twitter.com/joel_kaplan/status/1908204701457236472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The changes come after Meta was placed under congressional scrutiny for targeting conservative views on topics like the 2020 election, the COVID vaccine, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Zuckerberg has pinned much of the blame for the censorship on former President Joe Biden, saying Meta was pressured to target conservative content.
Meta started testing out its community notes feature last month, allowing some 200,000 potential contributors to sign up.
&#8220;Meta won’t decide what gets rated or written – contributors from our community will. And to safeguard against bias, notes won’t be published unless contributors with a range of viewpoints broadly agree on them,&#8221; the company said. &#8220;This isn’t majority rules. No matter how many contributors agree on a note, it won’t be published unless people who normally disagree decide that it provides helpful context.&#8221;
In January, Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/zuckerberg-says-meta-restoring-free-speech-will-get-rid-of-fact-checkers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that the move was part of Meta&#8217;s goal of restoring free speech on its platforms.
“We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms,” Zuckerberg said. “We’re going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with Community Notes similar to X, starting in the United States.”
Zuckerberg said restrictions on discussions on topics like immigration and gender were “out of touch with mainstream discourse.”
“What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas,” he said.
In that same announcement, Zuckerberg said that Meta would work with the incoming Trump administration to fight censorship abroad.
“We’re going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more,” he said. “The U.S. has the strongest constitutional protections for free expression in the world.”

US-TECHNOLOGY-INTERNET-CHILD-EXPLOITATION

Facebook To Shut Down Fact-Checking Program On Monday: ‘Officially Over’

Fact Check

In a recent piece, the great <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/03/21/democrats-10-part-strategy-to-stopping-trump-at-any-cost/?utm_source=TDS_Email&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=MorningBell&amp;mkt_tok=ODI0LU1IVC0zMDQAAAGZXFVF8EiGHTOyBnThyW4grIVUl7BZT15Afcq-EIHg2MlGbVXGiYW0vNjgf4M2VoXDCfdVx3aPXat1HzDwjX0OzlMzAiZsyuw1NrKva4F7ED5RIRjnxQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Victor Davis Hanson</a> apologized to his readers for previously contending that Democrats were both disorganized and without a plan. Upon reflection, he now sees a very clear and organized ten-point plan largely focused on continued demonization of President Trump and Elon Musk, the opposition to any federal budget cuts or the deportation of anyone, continued promotion of open borders, support of radical Palestinians, the Ukraine war, DEI initiatives, and chaos, and an amplification of hysteria in all of their communication. Their actions thus far would indicate that he is spot on.
It is a truly audacious plan — audacious because it involves, in many ways, simply doubling down on the messaging from the losing 2024 presidential campaign, and audacious because with each of these issues, the Democrats are on the opposite side of the fence with regard to public sentiment, in some cases dramatically so. Nonetheless, their aim is to change that public perception on at least enough of those issues to overcome their opponents in the midterms and ultimately regain power. What would make them think they could pull that off?
The answer is likely that the Democrats have grown accustomed to having a very finely tuned, powerful and successful network for public influence at their disposal.
In 2019, author and researcher Dr. Robert Epstein<a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein%20Testimony.pdf"> testified before Congress</a> about the dangers posed by just one piece of that network — Google. He concluded that Google represents a dire threat to both democracy and human autonomy, and provided numerous examples from his extensive data collection going back to 2016, including this one: “In 2016, biased search results generated by Google’s search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton (whom I supported). I know this because I preserved more than 13,000 election-related searches conducted by a diverse group of Americans on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in the weeks leading up to the election, and Google search results – which dominate search in the U.S. and worldwide – were significantly biased in favor of Secretary Clinton in all 10 positions on the first page of search results in both blue states and red states.”
However, the Tech players are only one part of the larger Democrat propaganda apparatus. The revelations from the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2877184/twitter-files-have-exposed-the-unholy-alliance-between-democrats-the-fbi-big-tech-and-the-media/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter/X Files</a>, from DOGE regarding <a href="https://www.newstarget.com/2025-02-08-usaid-funds-6000-journalists-1000-platforms-worldwide.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">USAID</a> and other governmental funding have laid bare the indisputable <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/governments_collusion_with_social_media_is_worse_than_you_realize.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unholy alliance</a> of the Democrat party, key governmental and non-governmental agencies, and factions of the mainstream and social media.
We now see that these entities have worked together to simultaneously push false narratives and censor truth — often demonizing and punishing those parties that interfered with this process in any way. Michael Shellenberger warned and testified to Congress about “<a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/shellenberger-testimony.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Censorship Industrial Complex</a>.” He observed: “The censorship industrial complex combines established methods of psychological manipulation, some developed by the U.S. Military during the Global War on Terror, with highly sophisticated tools from computer science, including artificial intelligence. The complex’s leaders are driven by the fear that the Internet and social media platforms empower populist, alternative, and fringe personalities and views, which they regard as destabilizing. Federal government officials, agencies, and contractors have gone from fighting ISIS recruiters and Russian bots to censoring and deplatforming ordinary Americans and disfavored public figures.”
Executive Director of Foundation for Freedom and former State Department official Mike Benz refers to the entities behind much of this clandestine activity as simply “<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/09/24/mike_benz_the_history_of_the_intelligence_state.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Blob</a>.” In describing the blurring of the lines in our intelligence state he says: “This means that when the U.S. government provides funding or assistance, suddenly the churches they were working with are no longer simply churches — they are instruments of statecraft. The nonprofit charities are no longer simply charities; they become instruments of statecraft. The media is no longer independent; it becomes an instrument of statecraft. Hollywood becomes an instrument of statecraft, and organized criminal mafias do as well.” 
He describes the technological methodology of state narrative control in his presentation “<a href="https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MikeBenzCensorhip070924.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Whole-of-Society Censorship Framework”</a> saying, “This is why I refer to these AI super weapons as Weapons of Mass Deletion. They effectively did for internet censorship what weapons of mass destruction did for war. You didn’t need a standing army anymore of a million soldiers ready to go. You could have a few lines of code take out an entire political organization.”
In his piece <a href="https://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2025/03/06/the_artificial_culture_1095413.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Artificial Culture</a>, Mathew Gasda refers to this political/governmental/media cabal as “the propaganda regime.” He asks and answers, “Why did newspapers, universities, publishing houses, record labels, and movie studios uniformly fall in line behind Trump Derangement Syndrome, Russiagate, cancel culture, COVID safetyism, dogmatic gender ideology, and other authoritarian ideological certainties? Because key figures in public and private institutions across the globe — literally — were being paid to propagate these narratives; this much we now know.”
Call the alliance what you will; the Democrat complex is an extraordinarily powerful, technologically sophisticated, and overwhelmingly partisan machine — not like a mere airplane to use a simile, but more like an F-47 Stealth Fighter.
This fighter jet has a storied track record of success in getting most or enough Americans to ignore the facts that surround various issues and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-2024-election-was-a-referendum-on-reality" target="_blank" rel="noopener">embrace a preferred alternative narrative</a> — at least for a while. From Obamacare, to Benghazi, to Russiagate, to Covid, to belief in multiple genders, to the activities of the <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden Crime Family</a>, to the authenticity of <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/10/19/its-been-two-years-since-51-intelligence-agents-interfered-with-an-election-they-still-wont-apologize/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hunter’s laptop</a>, to border security, to a host of specific individuals, the Democrats’ warplane inflicted massive damage on their enemies and got them through turbulence and countless battles with shockingly low casualties.
It is perhaps understandable that with this impressive history of success, party leadership would be hesitant to abandon this awesome weapon. They will look earnestly for alternative explanations for the 2024 election result. Perhaps the pilot, whoever that was, had the wrong flight or battle plan for the aircraft? Perhaps the pilot didn’t understand and adequately maximize the sophisticated evasion and engagement capabilities of the aircraft? In fact, perhaps the pilot didn’t even employ or fully engage the aircraft’s most powerful weapons, or focus them on the correct targets?
Sure, a jackbooted DOJ may no longer be part of the arsenal (although the judiciary certainly isn’t on the sidelines), Twitter/X has now fallen to the enemy, and it looks like the plug is being pulled on some of the funding for sycophant NGOs, so the Democrat warplane has taken a bit of flak and may be down to only five or so of the eight engines. But those are big engines, and five of them still garner a lot of power — maybe more than has yet been shown. So it will obviously require more than the results of a single election to convince them that their combat-tested warbird needs to be mothballed. They’re going with pilot error, not aircraft design.
* * *
Greg Salsbury, Ph.D. is former president of Western Colorado University and Board of Advisor member for <a href="https://starrs.us" target="_blank" rel="noopener">STARRS.US</a>. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Senators Meet For Policy Luncheons Ahead Of Government Funding Deadline

As Democrat Warplane Takes Flak, Audacity Remains Intact

Democrats

Donald Trump

Elections

Google

Leftists

President Trump

Progressivism

U.S. Politics

Victor Davis Hanson

Elon Musk’s social media platform X is being hailed in Ireland for its defense of the free press after it declined to comply with a demand from Irish authorities for confidential user data from one of the nation’s only independent news outlets.
An Irish court order, issued on June 13, 2024, and obtained by The Daily Wire, sought not only private account details, but also a log of IP addresses and messages tied to the Gript Media’s coverage of the April protests against the forced housing of undocumented migrants by the Irish government.
The order, granted under Ireland’s Criminal Justice Act 1994 at the request of Garda Síochána, Ireland’s national police, directed X to produce extensive data linked to Gript Media’s official X account, @griptmedia. The court order specifically sought subscriber and registration details, including all logged IP addresses, private messages that would have exposed confidential informants, attachments, and posted videos from April 25-28, 2024.
In a February email to Gript, X notified Gript of Ireland’s June request and said it would not comply.
“X has not produced information related to your account in response to this legal process,” the email said, according to a copy obtained by The Daily Wire. “One of our core values is to defend and respect the user’s voice. Accordingly, it is our policy to notify users of requests for their account information as soon as the law allows us too, unless we’re generally prohibited from doing so.”
In April, <a href="https://gript.ie/in-newtownmountkennedy-the-state-has-crossed-the-rubicon/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gript</a> extensively covered protests in Newtownmountkennedy, where Irish citizens opposed the establishment of an &#8220;asylum seeker&#8221; accommodation center. The demonstrations escalated on April 25, with the Garda Public Order Unit using force, including pepper spray, against protesters. Gript’s journalist Fatima Gunning was caught in the clashes, an incident captured on video and widely circulated online.
According to court documents obtained by The Daily Wire, it was shortly after the publication of these videos that the Gardaí sought legal authority to access Gript’s X account, a move seen by journalists as an attempt to intimidate those seeking to expose state misconduct.
Gary Kavanagh, Gript’s deputy editor, condemned the order calling it a “direct attack on press freedom” designed to deter sources from speaking to journalists.
“The role of journalism is to hold power to account, but how can we do that when the state is using secret court orders to access our private communications?” Kavanagh said. “This is not just about Gript; this is about the future of a free press in Ireland.”
He also praised X for its “commitment to free speech.”
“If this had happened under the previous management of Twitter, we might never have even known about it,” Kavanagh said. “The fact that Musk’s team stood firm is a testament to their commitment to free speech and transparency.”
Gunning, the journalist, told The Daily Wire that if X complied with the order, she would have been “powerless” as a reporter.
“As a journalist, if I cannot establish trust of confidentiality with sources if needs be, I am in many ways rendered powerless to report on issues of concern to the Irish people,” Gunning said.
“I can put my hand on my heart and say that I believe my reporting on the situation in Newtownmountkennedy was fair to both the protestors and the Gardaí,” she said. “Anyone interested doesn’t need to take my word for this: they can simply watch the many videos I posted from the scene which did not give favorable coverage to either side.”
“Nothing was concealed from the public on my part, so to have our national police force use laws originally intended to tackle those funding terrorism against my colleagues and it feels like nothing more than a gross abuse of power and Irish law.”
Kavanagh says Gript has since instructed legal counsel to challenge the warrant’s legitimacy, suspecting it may have been improperly awarded. “If the Irish state can do this to Gript today, it can do it to any journalist tomorrow,” Kavanagh stated.
Reached for comment by The Daily Wire, a Garda Síochána spokesman &#8220;declined to comment on ongoing investigations,&#8221; but defended the use of court orders, stating that law enforcement has a duty to obtain all available evidence when investigating alleged criminal activity.
“We operate within the legal framework set out by the Irish courts and judicial oversight is always applied in such cases,” the spokesman said.
The force did not address concerns about press freedoms or the implications of using anti-crime legislation against journalists.
This is only the latest of a number of controversies amid growing concerns over state surveillance and media suppression in Ireland and the European Union. Critics argue that granting police unrestricted access to social media accounts could undermine free speech and chill the press, particularly in countries where major social media companies, including X, maintain European headquarters.
The incident also ties into a broader debate on Ireland’s housing crisis and immigration policies. Many protesters in Newtownmountkennedy argued that the government’s prioritization of undocumented “asylum seekers” for housing left native Irish citizens waiting years for accommodations. The government’s approach, coupled with its crackdown on journalists covering these protests, has only inflamed public distrust.
X’s refusal to comply with the court order, however, underscores the platform’s commitment to free speech.
As the Irish government faces mounting international criticism over its treatment of independent journalists, its handling of immigration protests, and the potential misuse of legal mechanisms to silence dissenting voices, Gript Media remains resolute—vowing to challenge the order in court.
Ireland&#8217;s prime minister Micheál Martin, known as the Taoiseach, will be in Washington, D.C., this week to meet with President Donald Trump at the White House.

Another St Patrick’s Day During The Coronavirus Pandemic

Irish Police Used Secret Court Order To Extract Info From Journalists. Elon’s X Shut It Down.

Ireland

Since Churchill’s time, America and Britain have spoken of their “special relationship” – even if the affection has been somewhat unilateral in recent years, as the US has recognised the UK’s increasing irrelevance on the world stage as it descends into economic decay, social disintegration, and democratic suppression.
You might think this an exaggeration – and I do not intend to imply that dissenting British voices receive the same treatment they might receive in China or Cuba. But that is not the right question. The question is whether dissenting voices in Britain are free.
We have all seen the evidence that they are not. The first act of Bridget Philipson, Keir Starmer’s Education Secretary, was to <a href="https://freespeechunion.org/phillipson-tried-to-pull-plug-on-new-free-speech-law-days-after-election/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">try and revoke</a> the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, even after it was passed by Parliament. That this is not merely a position, but even the top priority, of our new government is chilling. This, despite the fact that <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/uk-students-feel-censored-on-campus-poll-finds" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nearly half</a> of UK students are scared to express their views.
Whether people are <a href="https://www.gbnews.com/news/christian-lecturer-sacked-from-methodist-college" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fired from their jobs</a>, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-64786856" target="_blank" rel="noopener">referred to terrorist watchlists</a>, secretly put on registers for “non-crime hate incidents” (<a href="https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/children-as-young-as-nine-investigated-by-police-for-hate-incidents/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">even as children</a>), or even <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/article/police-criticised-over-arrest-for-gay-swastika-post-0dj6j0007">arrested</a>, freedom of speech is increasingly a luxury commodity in Britain – and saying what you think is increasingly seen as criminal. “Hate speech” is increasingly seen as a legitimate constraint – with <a href="https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/bible-hate-speech-survey-rewrite" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1 in 4 young people</a> open to banning the Bible itself if they believed it included “hate speech”.
Yet free speech is not the only casualty of recent years. Multiple people have been <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/cases/isabel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arrested or charged</a> merely for praying silently in their heads in the vicinity of an abortion clinic (which, in one case, was not even open), with an army veteran <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/guilty-army-vet-convicted-for-praying-silently-near-abortion-facility" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recently convicted</a> for silently praying for his unborn son. Thoughtcrime is no longer Orwellian fiction.
When asked if the UK should be included among other human rights abusing regimes, however, congressmen in the US ordinarily reply that “we are allies, we can’t do that”. The UK is enough of a friend to the US that it escapes any significant accountability.
But true friends do not let each other make serious mistakes without challenge: that is politeness, not friendship. So the question is: can the UK be enough of a friend to receive accountability?
We all know what tough love means: that if you really seek the best for someone, you confront them with reality, whose content or consequences may be acutely painful – but ultimately needed for our flourishing. And the reality in this case is clear: the British people desperately need a restoration of their civil liberties before we are too far down the slippery slope. If the US really cares for our country and its citizens, you must speak – and act – in favor of our freedom, whoever you offend in the process. Vance’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCOsgfINdKg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speech in Munich</a> was a fantastic start – but now action is needed.
There are many ways to achieve this, but here is one idea: the freedom tariff. The UK is desperate for a trade deal with the US after Brexit. Trade is one of the few areas where nations can be genuinely held accountable beyond stern letters or phone calls – which are routinely ignored. Freedom tariffs would provide genuine leverage over the UK with a simple addition: include a clause stipulating that insofar as the UK restricts the most basic freedoms – speech, assembly, conscience, religion, and thought – it will pay for those restrictions with tariffs.
This is hardly coercive: why should America give us free trade when we won’t give our own people free speech? We either believe in freedom or we don’t. If we don’t, we can hardly expect its benefits from others. The deal is up to us to take or not.
America imposing “freedom” on other countries has understandably come under fire in recent decades. But rather than intervening militarily in intractable Middle Eastern political disputes, tariffs are entirely non-violent. And here’s the extra good news: this tough love need not be painful at all. All the UK would have to do is stop firing, blacklisting, and arresting people for thinking and saying the wrong things. Give free speech, get free trade. It is really that simple.
Of course, this problem is not unique to the UK. In France, a TV channel was <a href="https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/french-tv-channel-fined-for-calling-abortion-the-worlds-leading-cause-of-death" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fined 100,000 euro</a> for stating that abortion is the leading cause of death worldwide, while in Finland, a sitting parliamentarian has been on <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/campaign/free-speech-on-trial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criminal trial</a> under the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity sections of their penal code – launched by the attorney general – for years, simply for tweeting a Bible verse (a bishop has faced similar persecution).
The European Union’s deleterious approach to open discourse on social media has been widely publicized by Vance and Musk, among others. Perhaps freedom tariffs are benefits that can be extended beyond the Special Relationship.
* * *
Calum Miller is a research fellow at University of Oxford and a registered medical doctor.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP

President Trump Should Impose ‘Freedom Tariffs’ On Europe

England

Europe

Great Britain

United Kingdom

In just a few days, Germans will vote in one of the most important elections in their country&#8217;s history. For the first time since the Second World War, a true nationalist party — one the media dubs &#8220;far-Right,&#8221; which is a term that&#8217;s never been defined, and will never be defined — stands to win a significant number of seats in parliament.
This party, called &#8220;Alternative for Germany,&#8221; promises to end unrestricted migration into the country. They&#8217;ll stop destroying Germany&#8217;s nuclear plants to appease climate cultists, and focus instead on energy independence. They&#8217;ll reject the fiction that people can change their gender whenever they want to. Above all, they&#8217;ll affirm that there&#8217;s nothing shameful or embarrassing about being German.
This is all very basic stuff. In this country, largely because of the political rise of Donald Trump, &#8220;America First&#8221; has been a rallying cry for tens of millions of voters for more than a decade. But in Europe, this kind of thinking isn&#8217;t just taboo. It&#8217;s basically heresy. That&#8217;s why the &#8220;Alternative for Germany&#8221; party is currently being investigated by several German intelligence agencies.
It&#8217;s also why JD Vance just gave what may be the single most consequential speech by a U.S. politician in Europe since Reagan was in office. Just before Germans head to the polls, Vance delivered a message at the Munich Security Conference that the media could not censor. He was speaking to European elites in the room, but his message was actually directed at voters — and particularly, voters in Germany. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Vance in Munich" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cwRR8k-rC_8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
After this speech, it&#8217;s not an overstatement to say that European elites lost their collective minds.
One European official told the Economist that the speech was a &#8220;direct assault on European democracy.&#8221; Meanwhile a senior diplomat stated, &#8220;It&#8217;s very clear now. Europe is alone.&#8221; He added that Europe now regards the U.S. as an &#8220;adversary.&#8221;
Perhaps the best reaction came from a guy named &#8220;Christoph Heusgen,&#8221; who&#8217;s the chair of the Munich Security Conference. Apparently he&#8217;s retiring, so he delivered a speech about how America&#8217;s values don&#8217;t align with Europe&#8217;s anymore. Then, at the end of the speech, he did something that no grown man should ever do in public: He broke down crying. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 crying" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ixs0UwDEVjU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In response to this footage, the Munich Security Conference put out a statement that — for my money — is the single most humiliating statement that a &#8220;security conference&#8221; can possibly put out. Keep in mind, this is supposedly a very serious conference about saving the world from Russian military aggression, keeping us out of nuclear war, making sure we&#8217;re not all speaking Chinese in five years, and so on. The Munich Security Conference is the real deal.
With that in mind, here&#8217;s the official statement from the Munich Security Conference, after that footage <a href="https://x.com/MunSecConf/status/1891393579144372627" target="_blank" rel="noopener">went viral</a> online: 
<blockquote>Our former Chair Christoph Heusgen did not shed a few tears out of &#8216;frustration&#8217;. It was his farewell speech as he was leaving the [Munich Security Conference] after this year&#8217;s conference. He was saying goodbye to the team at this very moment.</blockquote>
In other words, the Munich Security Conference is taking a break from keeping the world secure, in order to clarify that the footage you may have seen online was edited unfairly. They&#8217;re saying that their fearless leader wasn&#8217;t crying in public over anything JD Vance said. That would just be ridiculous. Instead, he was crying in public because he&#8217;s leaving his job.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1538-cbs-claims-that-free-speech-caused-the-holocaust-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Of course, that explanation doesn&#8217;t change the fact that Christoph Heusgen is not a child under the age of 12. He is, in fact, a 69-year-old man. And by the way, he&#8217;s only held this particular job since 2022. So he&#8217;s breaking down in public because he&#8217;s leaving a job after a period of time that qualifies, at best, as a short stint. This is what broke him. He had to just walk off stage, head in his hands, because he&#8217;s really going to miss being the &#8220;chair of the Munich Security Conference&#8221; after three whole years.
At this point, they should probably just admit that JD Vance made him cry, honestly. That would actually be less embarrassing than whatever they came up with.
Not to rub it in, by the way, but this guy — Christoph Heusgen — is the same German diplomat who laughed at Donald Trump back at the United Nations in 2018, when he warned that Germany was dangerously dependent on Russian energy. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 laughing" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iJ4joU-O96M?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
We all know what happened next. When Russia invaded Ukraine and cut off a majority of Germany&#8217;s energy, the Germans had to re-open a bunch of coal plants and delay the shutdown of their nuclear plants. They also had to find natural gas elsewhere — including from the United States. So it&#8217;s fitting, I guess, that a few years later, this same guy isn&#8217;t laughing on camera anymore. Instead he&#8217;s crying, for one reason or another.
It&#8217;s obviously a flattering comparison for JD Vance. It&#8217;s almost like Europe&#8217;s leaders wanted to appear as weak as possible, in the wake of his speech — and right before this weekend&#8217;s elections in Germany.
But Europeans weren&#8217;t the only ones giving JD Vance a big assist this weekend. Over at CBS News, Margaret Brennan suggested that Vance was wrong to extol the virtues of free speech, because the Nazis used free speech, and that&#8217;s how you got the Holocaust. 
To be clear, yes, this is a real segment that actually aired on national television. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 CBS free speech" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WbKgv-6Z71I?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Keep in mind, the woman who asked this question moderated the VP debate, in which she cut off JD Vance&#8217;s microphone because he refuted one of her lies about immigration. Now here she is, claiming that the Nazis somehow &#8220;weaponized&#8221; speech to &#8220;conduct a genocide.&#8221;
On reflection, it&#8217;s actually impressive how little her question makes sense. First of all, it doesn&#8217;t actually mean anything to &#8220;weaponize free speech to conduct a genocide.&#8221; The words don&#8217;t come together in a way that makes any sense. It&#8217;s like saying the Nazis &#8220;weaponized air to conduct a genocide.&#8221; So therefore we need to ban air, I guess, since the Nazis used it.
But in this case, she&#8217;s just wrong on the basic facts. Before the Nazis rose to power, Weimar Germany had laws against so-called &#8220;hate speech,&#8221; including laws that prohibited hate speech against Jews. Prior to the rise of the Nazis, they shut down something like 100 newspapers in Prussia alone, over a two-year period. In 1925, Hitler was banned from speaking in some states because of his rhetoric. In the end, all of these speech restrictions actually emboldened Nazis. People assumed that, because these Nazis were being censored, maybe they were onto something. Censorship had the exact opposite of its intended effect. Then, of course, when the Nazis took over, they eliminated freedom of speech, as Rubio said. You couldn&#8217;t criticize Hitler in any way.
So there are about a million reasons why Margaret Brennan&#8217;s question is complete nonsense. I could go on and pick apart Brennan&#8217;s logic some more. But I really don&#8217;t need to, because her own network — CBS — did it for me. This weekend CBS just so happened to do a whole segment about how Germany cracks down on free speech. They conduct pre-dawn raids on people who post offensive content on the internet. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 Meme raid" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kpZXGbho09M?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Try to imagine how CBS would be covering raids like this if they came at the direction of Donald Trump. Let&#8217;s say Trump decides that he wants to ban hate speech, so he&#8217;ll conduct pre-dawn raids against anyone who posts hateful content about white people on the internet. How do you think &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; would react to something like that? Imagine Joy Reid or Jemele Hill getting carted away by armed law enforcement officers in the middle of the night because they made their one millionth post about how white people are evil. How do we think CBS might respond?
I can tell you this. Margaret Brennan wouldn&#8217;t come out and declare that Trump was doing his part to prevent another Holocaust. That&#8217;s because the corporate press isn&#8217;t actually concerned about the rise of an authoritarian government. They just want to make sure they&#8217;re the ones running it. 
If you doubt that, watch how the CBS anchorwoman reacts as German officials explain their draconian laws to her:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 Germany explains limits" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ek8H0r0dzVc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
In case you missed it, here&#8217;s a screen-grab of the glee on her face:
<div id="attachment_878939" style="width: 690px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-878939" class="size-full wp-image-878939" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GkA06_HWIAA0UdT.jpeg" alt="Screenshot: 60 Minutes/CBS" width="680" height="344" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GkA06_HWIAA0UdT.jpeg 680w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GkA06_HWIAA0UdT-300x152.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px" />Screenshot: 60 Minutes/CBS</div>
She&#8217;s being told that people in Germany are shocked to realize that their electronic devices are being seized. And she&#8217;s smiling throughout the whole thing. If you watch this entire segment, you won&#8217;t find any pushback whatsoever from CBS. They didn&#8217;t bring on a guest to explain how, actually, this is a horrible idea. Instead the whole segment came across like a promotion for state censorship. As it continued, it became more and more bizarre. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 reposting crime, internet insults worse" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t5vDG8OJLos?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Conservatives are reacting with shock and horror to footage like this, which is understandable. We can&#8217;t forget, however, that something very similar has already happened here, in this country. And we would have gone full-Germany if Trump hadn&#8217;t won.
Everyone on the Left understands this. That&#8217;s why they&#8217;re lying to their viewers about what life is like in Germany at the moment. Here for example is MSNBC talking head Rick Wilson, explaining that Germany — despite the pre-dawn raids over memes — has a far better free-speech environment than America does. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Rick Wilson claims Germany has more free speech than us: &quot;HOW DARE JD LECTURE GERMANY!?&quot; <a href="https://t.co/UnjXkBWDOO">pic.twitter.com/UnjXkBWDOO</a>
&mdash; End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) <a href="https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1891495539981623526?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
He says that America is rated &#8220;55th in the world&#8221; for freedom of expression. I have no idea where he got that figure. My assumption was that some Left-wing group rated us 55th because some states ban drag queens from performing strip teases in front of children. But after looking into it, he could be referencing something called the &#8220;World Press Freedom index,&#8221; which basically surveys journalists and asks them if they feel threatened. Of course, all the journalists here say that Trump is going to put them in camps tomorrow, so we rate poorly as a result. Somehow this survey has Canada ranked 40 spots higher than the U.S., which is a pretty good indication that the survey is completely useless, given that Canada was arresting journalists who covered the trucker convoy just a couple of years ago.
Of course Rick Wilson is pointing to this useless survey because he knows that, by every actual metric, Americans have far more free-speech rights than Europeans. And people like Wilson want to change that. But there&#8217;s an even deeper issue here, which often gets lost as conservatives justifiably resist restrictions on speech: What makes the Left&#8217;s assault on free speech so insidious (whether in this country or in Germany or anywhere else in the Western world) is not just that they seek to ban open expression, but that they specifically want to ban the expression of true and morally right ideas. That&#8217;s the key element that will always separate Left-wing assaults on free speech from alleged Right-wing assaults on free speech.
Whenever someone claims that the Right is waging an assault on free speech, it always means that some conservatives are advocating for restrictions on pornography, or trying to ban adults from staging burlesque shows for children. On the other hand, when the Left bans free speech, they&#8217;re trying to stop us from saying that men can&#8217;t have babies, or they&#8217;re demanding that we show religious reverence to the pride flag. They&#8217;re arresting people for leaving tire marks on rainbow colored crosswalks, just as one example.
The alleged Right-wing restrictions on speech aren&#8217;t really restrictions on speech at all. But even if they were, it&#8217;s still a very different kind of speech. There is no equivalency here. This is the point that promoters of the &#8220;woke Right&#8221; narrative seem to consistently miss. The Atlantic, for example, just ran a big think piece entitled, &#8220;How the Woke Right Replaced the Woke Left.&#8221; They equate Republicans&#8217; dismissal of fake words like &#8220;Latinx&#8221; with Democrats&#8217; many, many attempts to dictate what words people can and cannot use, for example.
But the reality is that the &#8220;far-Left&#8221; and the &#8220;far-Right&#8221; are not, in fact, two sides of the same coin. They are not equally delusional and dangerous. One side denies and seeks to suppress the most basic and fundamental realities of human existence. One side manipulates language and denies statistical data in order to hide the truth. The other side does not. The people demanding that you use the word &#8220;Latinx&#8221; because they think Hispanic people can be non-binary superhumans or whatever are not, in fact, identical to the people who understand that the entire concept of &#8220;Latinx&#8221; is ridiculous and incoherent.
But the Left has to draw an equivalence because they have no other response. When JD Vance points out that so-called &#8220;asylum seekers&#8221; are constantly murdering innocent Americans and Europeans, they know it&#8217;s true. In fact, just hours before Vance spoke in Munich, a girl and her mother were mowed down by an Islamic terrorist in the city. Dozens were injured. Then, after Vance&#8217;s speech, a Syrian &#8220;asylum seeker&#8221; murdered a 14-year-old boy in Austria. He was grinning as the police arrived.
Again and again, reality intrudes on Left-wing narratives. That is the fundamental problem with their ideology. It&#8217;s why they&#8217;re so insistent on censorship. It&#8217;s why JD Vance&#8217;s speech has European elites in tears, whether they&#8217;ll admit it or not. And it&#8217;s why, in just a few days, Germans will send a message that in Europe — as in this country — tens of millions of regular people have had enough.

CBS News

CBS Claims Free Speech Caused The Holocaust

Germany

JD Vance

Marco Rubio

Matt Walsh

Vice President JD Vance blasted a trio of German prosecutors who said during an interview with &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; that insults — both in person and online — are <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/guest-on-60-minutes-claims-german-citizens-have-free-speech-but-there-are-limits" target="_blank" rel="noopener">illegal</a> in their country.
The &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">60 Minutes</a>&#8221; segment that aired on Sunday reported on Germany&#8217;s enforcement of its &#8220;hate speech&#8221; law, which has been around since 2017, and showed police raiding German citizens&#8217; homes and confiscating electronics over social media posts. During the interview, all three German state prosecutors told host Sharyn Alfonsi that insulting someone in public and online is criminal. Those who break the law are usually punished with a stiff fine, but repeat offenders could be thrown in jail.
&#8220;The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet,&#8221; said state prosecutor Dr. Matthäus Fink, adding, &#8220;Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, okay. Finish. But if you&#8217;re in the internet, if I insult you or a politician &#8230;&#8221;
&#8220;It sticks around forever,&#8221; Alfonsi said to Fink&#8217;s agreement.
State prosecutor Svenja Meininghaus added that reposting a lie — which could include gossip or fake quotes — is also a criminal action in Germany &#8220;because the reader can&#8217;t distinguish whether you just invented this or just reposted it.&#8221;
Along with fining offenders of the hate speech law, judges sometimes confiscate their phones.
&#8220;How do they react when you take their phones from them?&#8221; Alfonsi asked.
<a href="http://dailywire.com/subscribe">PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40</a>
&#8220;They are shocked,&#8221; replied Frank-Michael Laue as the prosecutors laughed.
Vance, who spoke in Munich last week and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-people-have-a-voice-vance-warns-europe-about-censorship-the-threat-from-within" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> Europe against censorship, blasted the &#8220;Orwellian&#8221; German hate speech law on Monday.
&#8220;Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships,&#8221; the vice president posted on X. &#8220;This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships. 
This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy. <a href="https://t.co/WZSifyDWMr">https://t.co/WZSifyDWMr</a>
&mdash; JD Vance (@JDVance) <a href="https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1891467842106630244?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
During his Friday speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance ripped European countries that have cracked down on free speech.
“I believe deeply that there is no security if you’re afraid of the voices, the opinions, and the conscience that guide your very own people,” Vance said. “Europe faces many challenges, but the crisis this continent faces right now, the crisis, I believe we all face together, is one of our own making. If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people who elected me and elected President Trump.”

German Prosecutors Tell ’60 Minutes’ That An Insult Is A Crime. JD Vance Blasts ‘Orwellian’ Law.

60 Minutes

Global Politics

Hate Speech

World

Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo knows the real danger of online censorship.
The husband and father of five <a href="https://morningstarnews.org/2025/02/two-christians-in-egypt-released-after-three-years-in-jail/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">walked out</a> of an Egyptian jail recently after three years of detention. The reason for his punishment? Authorities had taken a dislike to his participation in a private Facebook group.
Abdo was a Christian convert from Islam, and liked to discuss theology with other likeminded friends online. Expressing his faith online cost him his freedom – and placed him in immensely difficult conditions, as he battled failing health from a Cairo cell.
The comparison to America’s recent “vibe shift” toward freedom could not be starker. Zuckerberg’s apparent “U-Turn” on free speech last month brought much jubilation to conservative commentators, who had voiced concern for years about the censorship of lawful content on Meta. “It’s time to get back to our roots on free expression,” said the social media mogul, after scrapping his notorious “third party fact checking program” in favor of a “community notes” approach to verifying information, modeled after Elon Musk’s X.
Zuckerberg’s fresh perspective is a clear leap forward in the march against censorship. But as the experience of Abdo in Egypt warns, it isn’t only social media companies who can pose a threat to our right to speak. As free as social media platforms ought to be, governments can nevertheless seize power to shut down speech they don’t like, wherever it may appear.
Few are shocked to learn of unjust crackdowns against “blasphemy” in the Muslim world, in which Abdulbaqi is based. But the problem of state censorship is thriving in the West too. Last week, it was reported that British deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is set to create a “council on Islamophobia” amidst turmoil on the streets of England – a move which could severely limit free speech and criticism of religious views. The announcement came days after a man was arrested in Manchester for <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/greater-manchester-islamic-manchester-arena-greater-manchester-police-twitter-b2691184.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">burning</a> a Koran, and later publicly named by police, despite the risk of threats posed to his life. Recently, in another incident, a Bristol preacher was similarly <a href="https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-tier-policing-christian-pastor-arrested-bristol-preaching-islam-adf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arrested</a> for daring to compare Islam and Christianity in public, in answer to a question. And in Wakefield, Police recorded a “hate incident” against a 14-year-old autistic boy who <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11821157/14-year-old-autistic-boys-naive-prank-scuffed-copy-Koran.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scuffed</a> a Koran at school. Following death threats, the child was forced into hiding, but police refused to prosecute his tormentors for fear of “escalating” the situation. Instead, his white British mother donned a hijab and begged for forgiveness at the local mosque. 
Granted, most leaders in the West do not voice support for outright blasphemy laws of the kind we see across the Middle East and North Africa. But many instead welcome these undemocratic initiatives via more cleverly disguised “hate speech laws.”
Examples abound.
Take Finland. A member of parliament, Päivi Räsänen, will soon be heading to <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/paivi" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criminal trial</a> at the Supreme Court because of a Bible-verse tweet she posted in 2019. Her tweet questioned her church’s sponsorship of a “pride” event – making her a heretic of the state religion of “woke”. It wasn’t a social media platform that censored her Christian view – but the state authorities.
Meanwhile in Mexico, a court <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/gabriel-quadri-mexico" target="_blank" rel="noopener">convicted</a> a politician and former presidential candidate, Gabriel Quadri, of “gender based political violence” &#8211; all because he spoke out on “X” about trans-identifying males taking spaces in Congress designated for females. As part of his punishment, he was made to attend a re-education course, and forced to tweet an apology for his words every day, twice a day, for fifteen days.
And in Australia, a <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/billboard-chris-australia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal showdown</a> in March will see “X” and internet sensation “Billboard Chris” take on the Australian “e-Safety Commissioner,” who censored a tweet upholding the truth on protecting kids from harmful gender ideology.
Freedom of expression is a universal human right. But commitments to free speech from “X” and Meta are only as good as the countries in which they operate – as Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo knows only too well.
Yet while we celebrate his release from an Egyptian prison this week, the West can hardly lecture Egypt on ending archaic blasphemy laws when we’re intent on introducing our own.
* * *
Paul Coleman is the executive director of ADF International and author of “Censored: How European Hate Speech Laws are Threatening Freedom of Speech.”
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Fingers tapping smartphone screen

The Gatekeepers Of Digital Discourse: Governments And The Future Of Online Speech

Christians

Muslims

Social Media Bias

Earlier on Wednesday, President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a> signed an agreement requiring Meta Platforms to pay $25 million to settle a lawsuit he brought after his social media accounts were suspended in 2021.
The settlement resolves a 4-year-long court battle over free speech and social media censorship, with Meta suspending Trump following his remarks on the January 6 Capitol riot.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, settlement negotiations <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trump-signs-agreement-calling-for-meta-to-pay-25-million-to-settle-suit-6f734c8c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> became more serious after Mark Zuckerberg dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in November following Trump’s election victory.
Of the settlement, $22 million will go toward the president’s library, with the remainder designated for legal fees and other plaintiffs.
This settlement follows efforts by tech companies previously hostile to Trump to get into his good graces, with Amazon Chairman Jeff Bezos and Apple CEO Tim Cook, in addition to Zuckerberg, each <a href="https://www.commoncause.org/articles/big-tech-is-donating-millions-to-trumps-inauguration/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">donating</a> $1 million respectively, to the inauguration.
Alongside Meta, Trump sued other major platforms, including Twitter and YouTube, over his suspensions, arguing that the companies had wrongfully violated his right to share political speech.
A federal judge ultimately dismissed the Twitter action in 2022, concluding that the First Amendment applies to government entities rather than private corporations, although Trump’s legal team lodged an appeal that has yet to be resolved. The YouTube suit was put on an administrative pause in 2023, with the possibility of being reopened at a later date.
One of Trump’s lawyers acknowledged that they saw an opening for possible settlements, noting that corporate defendants appeared willing to mend fences with the new administration.
Although Trump’s Facebook and Instagram access was eventually restored, his attorneys argued that an atmosphere of uncertainty continued for him online.
Zuckerberg, for his part, had previously explained that Meta saw security concerns in allowing continued engagement by high-profile figures who contested election results.
Reflecting on the 2021 suspensions, he said the potential risks posed amid that tumultuous period were “simply too great.”
While the lawsuit with Meta has now been settled, the broader debate over what boundaries, if any, private businesses can set for political speech shows few signs of fading.

The Inauguration Of Donald J. Trump As The 47th President

Trump, Meta Settle Lawsuit Over Social Media Ban for $25 Million

Courts

Lawsuit

U.S.

It’s one thing to hear the alarm go off … and another to roll out of bed and hit the ground running. After several years of increasing revelations about the growing complex of private enterprises, non-profit organizations, and governments — federal and state — that have been censoring Americans’ speech, it’s refreshing to see political leadership that throws back the covers and <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-the-weaponization-of-the-federal-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">confronts the danger head-on</a>.
Our newly re-elected president, to his credit, seems clear-eyed on what we’re facing. “If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country — it’s as simple as that,” now President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNcLWKdyiOY&amp;t=403s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told the nation</a> shortly after the November election. “If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple … like dominoes.”
Few people in the public eye have as much reason as the president to take seriously the blunt instrument of political censorship being wielded against all Americans by the <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Biden-WH-Censorship-Report-final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">federal government</a>, its <a href="https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2023/11/new-york-announces-it-will-take-citizen-surveillance-and-censorship-to-the-next-level/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blue state allies</a>, and their <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/free-speech-issue-our-generation-corporate-cancellations-threat-freedom/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">private enterprise proxies</a>. Even fewer are in so ideal a position to do something about that threat.
The mere fact that Trump is beginning his second term signals his remarkable personal triumph over the massive campaign of censorship hurled against him over the last 10 years. He was still serving his first term when he found himself removed from Facebook, invisible on Google, and locked out of what was then called Twitter.
“This censorship is unlawful, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s completely un-American,” he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4d6jiGEXWU" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in 2021, announcing a class-action lawsuit against the three platforms. “We’re demanding an end to the shadow-banning, a stop to the silencing, and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well.” Four years don’t seem to have assuaged his determination to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNcLWKdyiOY&amp;t=4s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lay an axe</a> to the roots of the problem.
He won’t be swinging his axe alone. Another key member of the incoming administration, Elon Musk, has already taken some major initiatives, buying Twitter and rebranding it as “X,” after <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60979656" target="_blank" rel="noopener">raising his own questions</a> about political censorship on major social media platforms.
And Rep. Jim Jordan’s congressional subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has released multiple reports—including <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/final-report-weaponization-federal-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one</a> last month detailing the Biden administration’s largely successful “monthslong campaign … to coerce large companies … to censor books, videos, posts, and other content online.” This campaign, the committee’s report concluded, “needlessly imposed harm and suffering on Americans across the country.”
Earlier this month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg publicly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhY5ggQK08" target="_blank" rel="noopener">confirmed</a> those findings, describing how Biden administration officials angrily and aggressively demanded that Facebook remove Covid-related content, “even things that were facts, or memes and humor. When we refused, we found ourselves under investigation by several agencies.” His was one of many social media platforms, he admitted, that buckled under the government’s pressure.
In fact, these revelations are only the tip of a very large iceberg. In recent years, an illegal Cold War against unwelcome messaging and messengers has targeted <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNhGAWtzbTY" target="_blank" rel="noopener">schoolchildren</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qvt5IBRBQ8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">college students</a>, <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/ohio-school-district-coughs-450k-settle-free-speech-case-teacher?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">teachers</a>, <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/families-doctors-affirm-counseling-based-biological-reality-effective?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">counselors</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vyja7NKrM">artists</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZE6KKpbj1U&amp;t=2s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pregnancy care centers</a>, <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/adf-court-church-speech-ban-must-go" target="_blank" rel="noopener">churches</a>, <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/de-banking-victim-steve-happ-indigenous-advance-ministries-bank-america-i-dont-want/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ministries</a>, and <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/babylon-bee-files-suit-against-humorless-california-censorship-laws/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">humor websites</a> all over the country, intimidating ordinary Americans through everything from <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/educators-have-rights-too/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">job termination</a> to <a href="https://adflegal.org/support/debanking-video/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">de-banking</a>, and with threats of <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/virginia-photographer-now-free-government-coercion/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">costly fines</a> and even <a href="https://adflegal.org/client/brush-nib-studio/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">jail time</a>.
But recognizing the threat — like hearing the alarm — isn’t enough. Someone has to rise to challenges posed by this Censorship Industrial Complex to cut Americans off from news, information, and viewpoints that some in positions of power and authority don’t want them to have.
Fighting this good fight is going to require significant and concentrated effort by the executive and legislative branches to root out the offenders — even within the federal government itself. All records evidencing governmental attempts to censor speech should be made public — after all, those records belong to the American people. The officials who acted to infringe rights of free speech must be held accountable. And each leader in every government agency must make one thing abundantly clear: state power may never be used to censor, limit, or diminish protected speech — it’s that simple.
Thankfully, the incoming administration seems intent on pursuing all these actions — and keenly aware of the stakes. “The fight for free speech is a matter of victory or death for America,” Trump recently said, “and for the survival of Western Civilization itself.”
So the president himself has sounded the alarm, most recently through his executive orders. Here’s hoping the rest of this administration won’t be caught napping.
* * *
Philip A. Sechler is senior counsel and director of the Center for Free Speech at <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu