STANFORD UNIVERSITY, BARACK OBAMA AND A PROXY-CENSORSHIP MODEL

In spring 2022, former President Barack Obama delivered a keynote speech at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, outlining a broad plan for government oversight of social media via the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Just six days later, the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security unveiled its “Disinformation Governance Board,” intended to monitor and shape online information in (frankly) a manner that can be likened to an authoritarian truth ministry.

Central to Obama’s framework was a provision empowering the National Science Foundation to finance ostensibly independent nonprofits tasked with moderating online content. This proxy-censorship model—pioneered by DHS in collaboration with Stanford’s Internet Observatory—had actually already been deployed in 2020 to flag election-related posts and in 2021 to target vaccine-skeptic narratives, sidestepping First Amendment constraints.

Now, president Donald Trump’s 2024 victory markedly curtailed these initiatives; and this is considering that his administration stripped funding from key elements of the Censorship Industrial Complex. In addition, the Platform Accountability Act (which sought to hold the owners of social media platforms accountable for content posted on their platforms) stalled in Congress. And at Twitter (now X), Elon Musk dismissed the bulk of its content-moderation team, broadening permissible speech. Meanwhile, even prior to the election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt withdrew support from the Internet Observatory after investigative reporting by research and free speech advocacy platform Public and Racket News, alongside probes led by House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, revealed its pivotal role in the DHS proxy scheme.

But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. We saw this, for instance, when Facebook complied with the Biden-Harris administration’s demands to censor speech because Facebook needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. Similarly, the Brazilian government tried to force Elon Musk to censor the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets. And so, this is the fundamental issue with this proxy-censorship model—pioneered by the DHS in collaboration with Stanford’s Internet Observatory.

Now, an investigation has revealed that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center—directed by Michael McFaul, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration—is central to a secretive and potentially unlawful censorship program that surpasses in scope the one Obama floated in 2022. In particular, on September 24th, the Center convened a closed-door dinner involving its leadership and senior censorship regulators from Europe, the UK, Brazil, California, and Australia. Dubbed “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape,” the event was funded by Frank McCourt—the founder of the Stanford Internet Observatory—via his Project Liberty Institute (or PLI), to which he has committed $500 million to apparently “bolster democracy” and promote “ethical technology.”

Well, the research and free speech advocacy platform Public contacted all 21 attendees and organisers of the closed door dinner dubbed “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape” by email but received responses from only four: being the PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union. The EU declined to comment, citing insufficient time (despite a 24-hour window), with a spokesperson stating, (quote) “We would need several days.”

The UK government also responded to state that (quote): “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.”

I’d like for us to then discuss why Regulators like Ofcom do NOT meet regularly to share what can be thought to be plausible insights, experience, and best practice. In fact, when you look at the Online Safety Act in the UK, you get to understand that these gatherings among regulators are about devising their respective roles in a proxy-censorship model.

THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT IS A TOOL OF A PROXY-CENSORSHIP MODEL

As you’d be aware, the Online Safety Act is legislation in the UK that gives the relevant Secretary of State the power to designate and suppress or record a wide range of online content that is “illegal” or “deemed harmful to children”.

The Act creates a new duty of care for online platforms, requiring them to take action against illegal content, or legal content that could be “harmful” to children where children are likely to access it. Platforms failing this duty would be liable to fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher. It also empowers Ofcom to block access to particular websites. Ideally, the act is also supposed to oblige large social media platforms NOT to remove, and to preserve access to, journalistic or “democratically important” content such as user comments on political parties and issues.

Then, the Act also requires platforms, including end-to-end encrypted messengers, to scan for child pornography, despite warnings from experts that it is not possible to implement such a scanning mechanism without undermining users’ privacy. To which the UK government has claimed that it does not intend to enforce this provision of the Act until it becomes “technically feasible” to do so. And then lastly, the Act also obliges technology platforms to introduce systems that will allow users to better filter out the “harmful” content they do not want to see… So this is a more idealistic presentation of what the Online Safety Act seeks to accomplish, and it is presented this way by the Labour-led UK government, so that anyone who opposes it can be dismissed as a child predator sympathiser and an enemy of progress. BUT, here’s what the Act fundamentally contributes, as far as trying to shift the jurisprudence in the UK is concerned.

The Online Safety Act hands sweeping and incredibly dangerous powers to the relevant secretary of state, allowing them to interfere directly with Ofcom’s operations including the authority to dictate the content of its so-called “codes of practice”. This thus represents a dangerous centralisation of power that compromises Ofcom’s supposed independence and opens the door to government control over online speech. And these powers, which can be exercised with minimal oversight and under vague emergency justifications, indicate a government with aspirations that are ultimately authoritarian and dystopian in nature.

Now, in light of this act and its part in the proxy-censorship complex, I’d like to rehash a crucial point about the UK in particular. The point is this: Beyond the authoritarian and dystopian nature of the Online Safety Act, how the Labour-led government is going about with it, further exposes its big government inclinations. And the difference here is how the labour-led government is responding to the dissent resulting from the Act. More specifically, governments receive their operational mandate from the governed (at least that is how it should be). This means we measure a government’s political legitimacy and efficacy based on how well it enacts what the people demanded, as opposed to imposing its dictates on the people. This is why for instance, the UK government has an explicit obligation to implement Brexit because the majority of the country voted for it through the referendum, irrespective of what an incumbent government may think of Brexit.

HOWEVER, when the people of the UK signed a petition that has received over four hundred thousand signatures (as we speak) to repeal the “Online Safety Act”, the government’s response, in a nutshell, was “We hear you and know you’re upset, but think of the children” (which we’ll get to in a moment). But, this number of petition signatures is important because, in the UK, Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate – and so clearly, many people want to see repeals of the Online Safety Act.

More broadly, this petition was created by Alex Baynham, and the aim of the petition is stated as being based on the belief that the scope of the Online Safety act is far broader and restrictive than is necessary in a free society. And that those signing it think that Parliament should repeal the act and work towards producing proportionate legislation rather than risking clamping down on civil society.

 Well, on the 28th of July, the UK government responded – and they gave a categorically big government response. The government stated that (quote): “It is right that the regulatory regime for in-scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users.” (end quote). In other words, the government concedes to the correctness of the mandate that citizens are demanding it fulfil in light of proportionality, and not infringing on freedoms in a free society.

BUT, then immediately after the government states in its response that (quote): “The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.” It continues to say “Proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is in-built into its duties. As regulator for the online safety regime, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements. Duties in the Communications Act 2003 require Ofcom to act with proportionality and target action only where it is needed.” In other words, the government concedes that proportionality is important not to infringe on rights in a free society, but insists that the expanded oversight powers through the Online Safety Act are necessary to protect this free society from itself. 

But, this is nothing short of an aggravating and patronising response! If there is no enjoyment of free speech, then there is no free society period! Free speech is quite literally the yardstick, because it is the difference between constructive and open debate on matters of importance, and fearing to speak up. And if society is governed by a fear to speak up, then what they say is likely not a reflection of what they stand for but of what they think is acceptable to the incumbent government. Therefore, it can never be acceptable for a government to claim to protect a society by expanding its powers to govern speech – proportionately or disproportionately. Free speech is an inalienable freedom, that no government has the power to limit or take away because it is God-given… Well, Zia Yusuf says Reform UK (the party led by Nigel Farage) will repeal the Online Safety Act.

MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATIONS CREATED THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

But, information has also come to the fore regarding the historical and intensive involvement of military and intelligence organisations in the war on free speech! More specifically, a whistleblower last year provided us with a trove of documents proving that US and UK military & Intelligence employees and contractors adapted counter-terrorism tactics developed abroad, including censorship, debanking, and cross-platform bans – really rivalling or exceeding the Twitter Files and Facebook Files in scale and importance. Now, they describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, that officially began as the volunteer project of data scientists and defence and intelligence veterans but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The CTI League documents offer the missing link answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Combined, they offer a comprehensive picture of the birth of the “anti-disinformation” sector, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex. Now, the whistleblower’s documents describe everything from the genesis of modern digital censorship programs to the role of the military and intelligence agencies, partnerships with civil society organisations and commercial media, and the use of sock puppet accounts and other offensive techniques.

But, here’s where it gets even more interesting: the CTIL files reveal that US and UK military contractors developed and used advanced tactics — including demanding that social media platforms change their Terms of Service — to shape public opinion about Covid-19, and that getting content removed was just one strategy used by the Censorship Industrial Complex. The CTI League, which partnered with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), THEN aimed to implement something called “AMITT,” which stood for “Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques.” Kindly have a listen to Michael Shellenberger as he exposes a key figure involved in this operation, and her name is Renee Teresita and even the “partnerships” that were formed to create this censorship industrial complex.

THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX’S WAR ON X AND ELON MUSK

Well, so the Department of Homeland Security’s AMITT project was ultimately, therefore, a disinformation framework that included many offensive actions, including discrediting alternative media, using bots and sock puppets, pre-bunking, and pushing counter-messaging AND working to influence government policy. This emphatically tells us that politicians are (once again) not the primary actors behind the war on free speech!

In any case, the specific counters to so-called “disinformation” in AMITT and what became its successor framework, called DISARM, include many tactics that we have observed, such as: “name and shame people who disagree with the narrative of the government of the diabolical conglomerates behind certain agendas, like the vaccine holocaust”; simulating misinformation and disinformation campaigns, AND “using banking to cut off access”, which is something Europe is considering against Elon Musk! In addition, the DISARM framework has included creating policy that makes social media police disinformation”. This especially became notable with the opposition towards X – which has exposed that the war on X and Elon Musk itself has a broader history involving diabolical non-state actors – in particular the UN.

Kindly have a listen as Paul Coleman explains how the global war on X, free speech, and Elon Musk was actually years in the making and includes a UN effort to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the West.

Paul Coleman points out a terrible irony there towards the end, which is that these diabolical tactics aimed at censorship are coming from the people who pretentiously parade themselves as being in the front seat of defending free speech. Which is why I always tend to emphasise that it is a mistake to assume that the state is not an absolute moral actor or a yardstick to measure ethical conduct, especially when we consider that atrocious policies like slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were all legal!

And true to form, in the status quo entities like the EU are weaponising laws against Musk and the X platform in order to fabricate justification for aggressive actions towards Musk. For instance, you’d recall that the European Union sent a letter to Elon Musk, demanding him to censor Donald Trump during their interview in early August 2024, ahead of the US presidential election in November. The EU proceeded to threaten Musk with legal consequences if he does not prevent the spread of what they label as “disinformation.” But, even that threat followed a pattern of autocratic figures looking to have more censorship on the X platform, in light of what they say is a problem consistent with the ills of what they have defined as mis and dis information. And so, what we are seeing now is that in addition to the EU feeling comfortable demanding censorship in a US election to comply with the Digital Services Act, the UK is continuing on a similar trajectory.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Decade after decade, a new wave of moral panic sweeps the nation, often accompanied by so-called “solutions” that blatantly erode our civil liberties. The roots of today’s surveillance state can be traced back to the fear that gripped the country on September 11, 2001, when the government seized on that fear to push through unconstitutional measures like The PATRIOT Act, real-time crime centres, and the TSA. By doing so, the government successfully imposed security measures that would have otherwise been met with fierce resistance. As the public grew increasingly comfortable with surveillance, it became remarkably easy to expand these measures from airports to city streets, fuelled by sensationalized stories of gang violence and other societal issues. Moreover, the divisive rhetoric surrounding illegal immigration has further accelerated the growth of surveillance, normalizing egregious privacy violations and touting technologies as solutions for non-violent offenses like littering and traffic infractions. Government programs are also utilizing surveillance to micromanage travellers’ behaviour under the guise of protecting the environment from climate change. The average citizen is being gradually conditioned to view the surveillance state as a necessary evil, with some even embracing it as a means to feel safer. However, this acceptance comes at a steep cost to our civil liberties, making it imperative to recognize the dangers associated with this expanding surveillance apparatus. Authorities are deliberately manipulating fear and misinformation to justify the growth of surveillance, and it is essential for citizens to stay informed about these tactics and demand greater transparency and accountability from their governments. The future of our civil liberties hangs in the balance, and addressing these issues is crucial before it’s too late.

The rapid expansion of the surveillance state is a complex issue, driven by a multitude of factors. One primary motivator is the age-old tactic of exploiting fear to consolidate power, a strategy that governments and institutions have long employed. By magnifying narratives surrounding crime, terrorism, and other threats, authorities can rationalize the enforcement of security measures that would typically face intense public backlash. Technologies like surveillance-enabled streetlights and Automatic License Plate Reader cameras are being promoted as solutions, but they pose serious risks to our civil liberties. As the surveillance state continues to grow, it is vital to expose the ways in which authorities are manipulating fear and misinformation to justify this growth. By doing so, we can demand greater transparency and accountability from our governments and work towards a future where our civil liberties are protected. The time to act is now, before the surveillance state becomes an irreversible reality. Citizens must take an active role in staying informed and pushing back against the erosion of their rights, or risk losing them forever. The government must be held accountable for its actions, and the true cost of the surveillance state must be laid bare. Only then can we hope to reclaim our civil liberties and build a future where freedom and security coexist.

The normalization of privacy violations

The surveillance state is actively eroding civil liberties, and its growth is being fueled by the normalization of privacy violations, which is a key factor in this alarming trend. As the government and other institutions increasingly use surveillance to control citizens’ behavior, they are severely impacting individual freedom and autonomy. By enforcing laws and regulations through surveillance, authorities are generating significant revenue, which is then being reinvested into further enhancing surveillance capabilities, creating a self-perpetuating cycle where the growth of surveillance leads to increased revenue, and subsequently fuels additional surveillance initiatives. The implications of the surveillance state on civil liberties are profound, and as citizens become more accustomed to being monitored, they are becoming less inclined to assert their rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the use of surveillance to generate revenue is raising additional concerns, as it creates a troubling incentive for governments to continue expanding surveillance measures.

Advanced technologies are being actively used by governments to jeopardize the privacy and safety of citizens, and this is a threat that requires immediate attention. The media is frequently overlooking this unprecedented risk, which echoes historical patterns seen around the world, and ignoring this issue could lead to severe repercussions for society. The technologies currently being used in our communities are mirroring those that oppress citizens in countries like China, where systems like social credit and ethnic cleansing are prevalent. Journalists and political dissidents who expose government corruption are suffering harsh penalties, including being denied basic resources, suitable housing, and the freedom to travel. Governments are using facial recognition technology to hunt down and execute political opponents, and entrusting such significant power to even small governments can be dangerous.

Advanced Technologies can Seriously Jeopardize the Privacy and Safety of its Citizens

Historical abuses, such as civil asset forfeiture, are revealing how easily a surveillance state can be misused, often under the guise of judicial protection. Artificial intelligence is identifying real crimes, but the evidence it provides is often unreliable, and another major threat is arising from the widespread collection of data without proper consent or oversight. The everyday activities of average Americans are being closely monitored and analyzed with minimal regulation, creating vulnerabilities not just from state agents but also from corporations that handle this data. Individuals are risking having their personal information exposed due to security breaches, often without ever having shared that information willingly. If someone becomes a target, state actors are compiling extensive details about their life while pursuing a crime to charge them with. It’s crucial to have an open conversation about surveillance, and focusing too much on certain fears has eroded personal freedoms, while other valid concerns—especially those related to government intrusion into citizens’ private lives—have largely gone unaddressed. The government must be actively held accountable for its actions, and citizens must be actively protected from the dangers of the surveillance state.

Authorities are actively building an all-encompassing digital surveillance system, with Digital Identity and Central Bank Digital Currencies serving as the core components that trap individuals in this framework. This system is being designed to replace traditional government-issued IDs with Digital IDs deeply rooted in unchangeable biometric data, including fingerprints, facial structures, and iris patterns, effectively creating an unbreakable link between individuals’ physical bodies and their digital identity credentials. By utilizing this biometric data, governments and financial institutions are rendering individuals’ bodies as passwords, establishing a total linkage between physical characteristics and digital identity. The United Nations and the Bank for International Settlements are openly acknowledging the integration of Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies to form the backbone of a new financial system, which requires the identification and verification of every participant through Know Your Customer protocols. Digital wallets are being tied to Digital IDs, which are mapped to individuals’ biometrics, creating a direct connection between financial transactions and biological data. Initiatives like Sam Altman’s WorldCoin are already rolling out prototypes of this system, encouraging people to scan their irises to obtain a unique identifier and a digital wallet.

Similarly, the UN’s Building Blocks program is forcing refugees to scan their irises to receive food rations, with the value being deducted from a wallet linked to their biometric ID. Under the guise of addressing the identity gap, authorities claim that digital IDs are necessary for the world’s poor to access essential services like banking and healthcare. However, the reality is that this system is being designed to exert total control over individuals, with their access to society and their own money being permissioned and revocable based on their compliance. This digital surveillance system is not about convenience; it’s about control, with the new global financial system being built on the foundation of total surveillance, where individuals’ every move is monitored and regulated. The implementation of Digital IDs and Central Bank Digital Currencies is a deliberate attempt to create a framework of control, where authorities can dictate who can participate in the financial system and who cannot, effectively rendering individuals’ autonomy and freedom obsolete.

Citizens are witnessing a dramatic expansion of the surveillance state, driven by the ruthless exploitation of fear, the gradual normalization of egregious privacy invasions, and the lucrative monetization of surveillance. This alarming trend poses a significant threat to civil liberties, with far-reaching consequences that imperil the very foundations of democracy. Governments must be held accountable for their actions, and citizens are demanding greater transparency and robust safeguards to protect their rights and freedoms. As the surveillance state continues to grow in power and scope, it is crucial that citizens remain vigilant and proactive, confronting these challenges head-on to prevent the erosion of their liberties. The clock is ticking, and the future of civil liberties hangs in the balance, making it imperative for citizens to take a stand against this insidious threat before it’s too late.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

The declaration grants security forces expanded powers to restore order and temporarily suspends certain civil liberties, including the right to assembly. The move comes amid growing public frustration over economic hardship, corruption, and ongoing political turmoil.

Peru has experienced extreme political instability in recent years, cycling through seven presidents since 2018. The latest unrest unfolds just six months ahead of the country’s presidential and congressional elections, scheduled for April 12.

Government officials said the state of emergency is also intended to combat organized crime and gang related violence that has sharply increased in recent months. Critics, however, warn that deploying the military for internal security risks further inflaming tensions between the government and demonstrators.

Analysts say the declaration underscores deepening social unrest in Peru as citizens demand stability, accountability, and economic reforms from a government struggling to maintain public confidence.

THE STATE OF FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

And now onto our main discussion, regarding “The Intersection of National Sovereignty and Free Speech”. I should state now that we are going to spend a fair amount of time on points of contextualisation, so that we are able to adequately adjudicate the related issues in the status quo. And to begin with, we ought to take stock of the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US. Now, first and foremost, the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the fundamental rights of persons to express themselves, to gather with other people, and to protest their government, among other rights. The text of the First Amendment itself is quite short but emphatic; it states that (quote): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now, since the First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, this short paragraph has acted as the basis of the right to free speech in the US. People across the US have sacrificed, litigated, legislated, and organised to ensure that the rights conferred by this amendment are upheld. In light of this, here is what the overall jurisprudence and progressively litigated precedent concerning the First Amendment looks like today:

To begin with, the First Amendment prohibits government agencies from censoring, discriminating against, or applying rules inconsistently to private speech based on its viewpoint. This principle is called “viewpoint neutrality,” and it means that local and federal government agencies can NOT allow expression on a given subject from Viewpoint A – but not from Viewpoint B. For example, the government can NOT approve a permit for an pro-abortion rally, while blocking a permit for an anti-abortion rally. Not only this, but viewpoint neutrality is not even limited to political issues. For example, panhandling – or asking passersby for money in public places – is actually also constitutionally protected under viewpoint neutrality. And the idea is that governments cannot ban people from asking for money for themselves in public places, while at the same time allowing people to ask for money for something like the Girl Scouts or political campaigns.

Secondly, the First Amendment protects a person’s right to express him/herself and to testify before, petition, and protest the many branches and agencies of the local and federal government. If, for example, a person in the US wants to picket his/her local police station to protest an issue of misconduct, or wants to protest a law that council members passed, the First Amendment protects the right to do so. Furthermore, the First Amendment also prohibits all local government agencies, including public schools, from discriminating against speech based on its viewpoint. Which is why it was jarring that a Massachusetts middle school suspended a student for wearing a “There are only two genders” t-shirt – because this is protected expression.

And Liam Morrison actually asked a crucial question, and it is unfortunate the courts in the US might have missed it or deliberately ignored it, and this is the point on what is a protected class, and why are their feelings more important than his rights. Now, this question that he asks is incredibly important because it exposes the fact that in undermining first amendment protections, the federal government and activist judges and courts are arbitrarily creating a “protected class” of beings not based on objective necessity or a decent legal argument, but rather based on their feelings?! This is UNACCEPTABLE!

DISHONEST AND HATEFUL SPEECH ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Then still taking stock of the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US, here is where this amendment and the progressive precedent surrounding it got more deliberate in its protections of not just free speech, but ABSOLUTE free speech. Irrespective of whether speech is a lie, it ought not to be limited! Make no mistake: lies are a problem. In fact, one can persuasively argue that lies are one of the biggest problems in society, especially when looking at the deception that came during the COVID era, or the climate change hoax, or feminism and its insistence in vilifying men, and so many phenomena in society. I’d even go a step further to state that few behaviours are as corrosive to a nation’s social fabric or as foundational to societal divisions as lies. And this is primarily because lies severely hobble the ability to communicate effectively, the capacity to understand reality, and attempts at securing social and moral progress. HOWEVER, in recognising the gravity of the ramifications emanating from lies, a number of individuals, as a result, conclude that using government power to prohibit and eliminate lies is justified – you’d even recall the Welsh government’s 2024  decision to criminalise lies from parliament members.

However, using government power to prohibit and eliminate lies is a dangerous idea, and one that is contrary to First Amendment jurisprudence. More specifically, outside of a few narrow and formally recognised categories of unprotected speech, the First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends.

This principle was expressed beautifully by Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1972 Supreme Court case of the Police Department of Chicago v Mosley, which questioned the constitutionality of a city ordinance banning non-union picketing outside of a school building. In the majority opinion, Justice Marshall wrote that (quote): “the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” So, in observing the precedent that came from this decision, this therefore tells us that the First Amendment almost universally prohibits content-based regulations of speech. In other words, because content-based regulations of speech target the substance of speech and are easily used to suppress disfavoured ideas, content-based laws or regulations are presumed unconstitutional, and the government must meet a very heavy burden to justify them.

Now, this heavy burden imposed on the government is understood as strict scrutiny — and is supposed to be the highest standard in First Amendment law, and it essentially requires the government to prove that the content-based regulation it wants to implement “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest,” as outlined in the case of Reed v Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al. The explanation of this burden is that: interests are “compelling,” when they are regarding “regulation vital to the protection of public health and safety, including the regulation of violent crime, the requirements of national security and military necessity, and respect for fundamental rights.” And the key here is that any regulations must not only advance a “compelling” interest, but must also not restrict people’s ability to speak freely (and dishonestly) beyond what is necessary to further that interest pursued by the government. BUT THEN, there was the case of United States v Robert J. Stevens, which offered an important challenge to this thinking.

Essentially, based on the issues that were just outlined in the excerpt we watched, in the case of the United States v Robert J. Stevens, the Court emphatically rejected as “startling and dangerous” the idea of a “free-floating test for First Amendment coverage” that requires speech to survive an ad hoc balancing of its costs and benefits by the government – because, as we stated, this was a burden on the government. As such, the development in the United States v Robert J. Stevens case is that: The “First Amendment itself reflects a judgement by the American people that the benefits of the restrictions imposed on the government through the first amendment outweigh the costs”. And so, from the precedent established in the United States v Robert J. Stevens case, it primarily means that American citizens were the ones who reserved judgement on the cost of restrictions to free speech, and not the government – which is a triumph and testament of the protectionist nature of the first amendment.

Then finally, on the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US, it is worth noting that First Amendment protections also extend to speech that might be deemed as hateful. And, honestly, in a world where “hate speech” is either arbitrarily defined OR is a highly weaponised and politicised definition, I would argue that speech that is supposedly hateful is especially crucial to protect if any meaningful institutionalisation of free speech is to be claimed.

So, all that we’ve just discussed is the broad contextualisation of today’s discussion, and it will factor into how we adjudicate cases in the status quo that pertain to the intersection of national sovereignty and free speech. And to start us off, let’s address the Jimmy Kimmel free speech debate, because many are building on that occurrence to claim that the Trump administration is violating the first amendment, especially in light of the recent visa suspension announcement – and in addressing the cases in the status quo that pertain to the intersection of national sovereignty and free speech, we get to understand where the first amendment also ceases to protect speech.

ADDRESSING THE JIMMY KIMMEL FREE SPEECH DEBATE

So, regarding the Jimmy Kimmel case, what essentially transpired is that after the assasination of Charlie Kirk, late night host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended following the concerning remarks he made about the assassination, and claims about president Trump’s supporters trying to capitalise on the assasination for political gain. For the most part, this was an incredibly important and interesting niche in free speech discourse, and I think it had a profound impact in how Americans view comedians (who function as political commentators for the left). However, there does also appear to be a gap in an understanding of the responsibilities and powers of media broadcasters, in light of the protections of free speech. But, before we proceed, here is how Jimmy Kimmel (and frankly a lot of people on the left) viewed his remarks:

So, yes, in the aftermath of the suspension, Jimmy Kimmel painted his suspension as being based on the malicious mischaracterisation of his words; and even told his audience that he was “silenced” by Trump (because apparently Trump cannot take a joke) and even warned about comedians being censored – and yet he did say that Charlie Kirk’s assassin is a product of MAGA indoctrination, and that Trump supporters were trying to capitalise on the assassination for political gain – and so, that was just a weird attempt at averting direct accountability for the distasteful remarks he made, and somehow try to make Trump the focus of the discussion.

Nevertheless, as far as the First Amendment is concerned, Jimmy Kimmel is entitled to say what he wants, however horrendous and distasteful the remarks; and the Trump administration is also mandated by the First Amendment NOT to censor Jimmy Kimmel, even if his speech is deemed a lie or paints president Trump poorly.

WAS JIMMY KIMMEL CENSORED, & DOES THIS AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Therefore, we then have to ask ourselves this question: In being suspended following the remarks he made about the Charlie Kirk assassination, was Jimmy Kimmel censored and does this amount to a violation of the first amendment by the Trump administration?

The first response to this is that the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel was not based on efforts at demanding the censorship of videos that paint President Trump in a bad light – seeing that Trump himself makes jokes about Trump. BUT, even if it was about censoring videos that paint Trump in a bad light (which it was not), Jimmy Kimmel has the backing of US law to protect his free speech, meaning that he has every right and opportunity to hold Trump accountable if he thinks his speech was censored. For instance, in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court explained that “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002), the Court declared that with few exceptions, “the First Amendment means [that] the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” And in the second case, which is the case of United States v Alvarez (in 2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that even “false statements” may not be censored, writing that “some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views…”.

And so, free speech and the freedom to criticise policies or even portray the president in a less pleasing light are very well protected in the US constitution and free speech jurisprudence! Ergo, president Trump is not running some comedian censorship industrial complex, that is enabled by the absence of laws that protect free speech. In fact, Trump himself has proven to understand and respect the ambits of the first amendment, especially in light of what powers are available to him. For instance, you’d recall that in late 2024, president Trump sued CBS News for $10 billion for “deceptively doctoring” Kamala Harris’ 60-Minutes interview. And the harm that was argued by Trump was that CBS engaged in election interference to try to help Kamala Harris; to which Paramount (the parent company of CBS) agreed to pay $16 million to Trump’s future library or other cause. Crucial to note here is that Trump did not launch a welfare campaign to try to get CBS off air, or orchestrate the censorship of the CBS anchor who conducted the interview: he simply used the same first amendment law to hold the CBS accountable for abusing the press freedom they enjoy through the first amendment.

Then, still answering the question of whether Jimmy Kimmel was censored and whether his suspension amounted to a violation of the first amendment by the Trump administration, the second response here is that the left does not appear to have a strong grasp on the intersection between free speech and the private corporations.

So, for some additional context: the First Amendment, like the US Constitution generally, affords rights that people can use to challenge the government. Local and federal governments have many agencies, all of which must abide by the First Amendment. But free speech and association rights do not BLANKETLY apply to private organisations or people, even if those organisations or people receive funding from the government. These private organisations are thus entitled to formulate private organisational policies that people can choose to opt in or out of.

Now, what this means is that a private company can suspend or fire an employee for something they say, or a social media platform can remove a user’s post without violating the First Amendment because they are not the government.

HOWEVER, the exception is that if you can prove a private company is working with government actors to suppress speech, then the First Amendment will apply – which is what the Murthy v Missouri case is doing in light of how the Biden-Harris administrations coerced social media companies to censor speech on their platforms.

Now, the left in decrying censorship from Trump as being the reason that Jimmy Kimmel was suspended, is ignoring this aspect of the first amendment, which allows private corporations to decide if they want to air certain content. And yet, this exclusion of private corporations in the scope of the first amendment is why, while ABC is the media corporation that powers Jimmy Kimmel’s show, a number of ABC affiliates suspended his show, ad have now refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show altogether. It is NOT censorship by Trump, RATHER, it is the first amendment allowing private corporations to decide what they will or will NOT air.

WHITE HOUSE REVOKES VISAS FOR ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENTS AFTER CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION

So, let’s bring in the factor of national sovereignty. As we alluded to earlier, on October 15th, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that US visas are a privilege revocable for foreign nationals expressing death wishes toward America, especially following the September 10th assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. The State Department has thus revoked visas for at least six individuals accused of celebrating Kirk’s death on social media, extending the policy to international students in pro-Hamas protests cited as national security threats. This move has drawn support from conservatives who see this as a defence of American values but, simultaneously, this has also drawn criticism from what are said to be civil liberties groups over free speech concerns. But before we proceed, here are the remarks from the Press Secretary.

Now, in addressing this development in the status quo, here we must ask: Is this policy by the Trump administration a weaponisation of national sovereignty against free speech?

Well, interestingly, this consideration is not at all new in US politics. In fact, in a case that considered whether lawfully present non-citizens in the United States have First Amendment rights, a federal district judge answered that question with a resounding “yes.” Judge William G Young, ruled that the Trump administration’s policy to detain and deport foreign scholars over their pro-Palestinian views violates the US constitution and was designed to “intentionally” chill free speech rights. Judge Young further stated that although no one’s freedom of speech is completely unlimited, the key is that whatever limits that exist “must be the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.” He even added that the Trump administration claimed the authority to deport non-citizens who have committed no crimes but whose presence it deems to pose a threat to US foreign policy. And so, after a 2-week trial, Judge Young ruled that this authority was being used to target people based on their constitutionally protected speech.

HOWEVER, I’d like to offer a practical rebuttal to this position. With ALL the extensive protections that the First Amendment offers to speech, it also draws the line on speech that is both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” – in other words, the First Amendment does not protect protesters who chant “death to America”, or make remarks about how they wish someone would kill Charlie Kirk. and all of this are things that have occurred in the US.

But, finally, for people concerned about censorship and even being offended, I’d also like to make the argument that free speech has a place in a functional society for 2 reasons. First, when people speak frankly about even hateful sentiments they hold, you have the privilege of an honest discussion, and an adequate measure of the moral inclinations of society. Furthermore, it is easier to challenge and debate (for instance) racist ideas with people who are openly racist than with people who form secret clubs and societies in which they share their racist inclinations among others who think the same. Therefore, there is less inspiration for change toward acceptable virtues, if those who do not yet possess them are not challenged to assess their thinking through open debate and free speech. In addition, when someone is frank with you about what they think, it is a manifestation of respect as opposed to that person telling you what they think you want to hear.

HOWEVER, also consider that in having the liberty to speak frankly, be prepared to be held accountable for what you say, where you abuse that speech- through litigation, and not laws that justify censorship.

Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso

A significant portion of central London was brought to a standstill over the weekend as thousands of demonstrators gathered to protest the UK government’s proposal to roll out mandatory digital ID cards for all residents.

The government claims the measure would streamline access to public services, reduce dependency on physical documents like utility bills, and assist in efforts to curb illegal migration.

But opponents, including civil liberties groups, religious leaders, and concerned citizens, say the plan signals a dangerous step toward creating a “checkpoint society” one where freedom of movement and access to services could be restricted or monitored through a centralized digital system.

“We’re sleepwalking into a surveillance state,” one protester said. “Digital IDs might seem convenient, but they come with a heavy price: our freedom and privacy.”

Not the First Attempt

This isn’t the UK’s first encounter with national ID programs. In the early 2000s, Tony Blair’s Labour government passed the Identity Cards Act 2006, introducing biometric ID cards and a national identity register. However, due to widespread backlash over privacy concerns, the law was repealed in 2010 by the incoming Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition government.

Digital ID critics see the current proposal as a modern reboot of that controversial plan, but with even broader implications due to the digital infrastructure involved.

Growing Opposition

Groups like Big Brother Watch, the Open Rights Group, and various religious figures have warned against normalizing state controlled digital identities.

While the government has not confirmed a timeline for implementation, civil rights advocates say the weekend’s protests are just the beginning of a broader resistance campaign.

“We won’t stop until this plan is shelved permanently,” said a representative from a civil liberties group at the protest. “The British public did not ask for this, and they won’t accept it.”

The weaponisation of laws and the media, and we ought to start with the UK, and the highly controversial Online Safety Act. So, the Online Safety Act is legislation that gives the relevant Secretary of State the power to designate and suppress or record a wide range of online content that is “illegal” or “deemed harmful to children”.

The Act creates a new duty of care for online platforms, requiring them to take action against illegal content, or legal content that could be “harmful” to children where children are likely to access it. Platforms failing this duty would be liable to fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher. It also empowers Ofcom to block access to particular websites. Ideally, the act is also supposed to oblige large social media platforms NOT to remove, and to preserve access to, journalistic or “democratically important” content such as user comments on political parties and issues.

Then, the Act also requires platforms, including end-to-end encrypted messengers, to scan for child pornography, despite warnings from experts that it is not possible to implement such a scanning mechanism without undermining users’ privacy. To which the UK government has claimed that it does not intend to enforce this provision of the Act until it becomes “technically feasible” to do so. And then lastly, the Act also obliges technology platforms to introduce systems that will allow users to better filter out the “harmful” content they do not want to see… So this is a more idealistic presentation of what the Online Safety Act seeks to accomplish, and it is presented this way by the Labour-led UK government, so that anyone who opposes it can be dismissed as a child predator sympathiser and an enemy of progress. BUT, here’s what the Act fundamentally contributes, as far as trying to shift the jurisprudence in the UK is concerned.

The Online Safety Act hands sweeping and incredibly dangerous powers to the relevant secretary of state, allowing them to interfere directly with Ofcom’s operations including the authority to dictate the content of its so-called “codes of practice”. This thus represents a dangerous centralisation of power that compromises Ofcom’s supposed independence and opens the door to government control over online speech. And these powers, which can be exercised with minimal oversight and under vague emergency justifications, indicate a government with aspirations that are ultimately authoritarian and dystopian in nature.

THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT EXPOSES THE BIG-GOVERNMENT INCLINATIONS OF THE LABOUR PARTY

However, beyond the authoritarian and dystopian nature of the Online Safety Act, how the Labour-led government is going about with it, further exposes its big government inclinations. And the difference here is how the labour-led government is responding to the dissent resulting from the Act. More specifically, governments receive their operational mandate from the governed (at least that is how it should be). This means we measure a government’s political legitimacy and efficacy based on how well it enacts what the people demanded, as opposed to imposing its dictates on the people. This is why for instance, the UK government has an explicit obligation to implement Brexit because the majority of the country voted for it through the referendum, irrespective of what an incumbent government may think of Brexit.

HOWEVER, when the people of the UK signed a petition that has received over four hundred thousand signatures (as we speak) to repeal the “Online Safety Act”, the government’s response, in a nutshell, was “We hear you and know you’re upset, but think of the children” (which we’ll get to in a moment). But, this number of petition signatures is important because, in the UK, Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate – and so clearly, many people want to see repeals of the Online Safety Act.

More broadly, this petition was created by Alex Baynham, and the aim of the petition is stated as being based on the belief that the scope of the Online Safety act is far broader and restrictive than is necessary in a free society. And that those signing it think that Parliament should repeal the act and work towards producing proportionate legislation rather than risking clamping down on civil society.

 Well, on the 28th of July, the UK government responded – and they gave a categorically big government response. The government stated that (quote): “It is right that the regulatory regime for in-scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users.” (end quote). In other words, the government concedes to the correctness of the mandate that citizens are demanding it fulfil in light of proportionality, and not infringing on freedoms in a free society.

BUT, then immediately after the government states in its response that (quote): “The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.” It continues to say “Proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is in-built into its duties. As regulator for the online safety regime, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements. Duties in the Communications Act 2003 require Ofcom to act with proportionality and target action only where it is needed.” In other words, the government concedes that proportionality is important not to infringe on rights in a free society, but insists that the expanded oversight powers through the Online Safety Act are necessary to protect this free society from itself.

But, this is nothing short of an aggravating and patronising response! If there is no enjoyment of free speech, then there is no free society period! Free speech is quite literally the yardstick, because it is the difference between constructive and open debate on matters of importance, and fearing to speak up. And if society is governed by a fear to speak up, then what they say is likely not a reflection of what they stand for but of what they think is acceptable to the incumbent government. Therefore, it can never be acceptable for a government to claim to protect a society by expanding its powers to govern speech – proportionately or disproportionately. Free speech is an inalienable freedom, that no government has the power to limit or take away because it is God-given… Well, Zia Yusuf says Reform UK (the party led by Nigel Farage) will repeal the Online Safety Act.

IRONICALLY, THE ONLINE SAFETY ACT INDIRECTLY PROTECTS PAEDOPHILES

Now, I alluded to the fact that the labour-led government keeps insisting that this act is about protecting the children – and so, let’s refute this, because it is not true. For instance, Sammy Woodhouse reported that as they try to share the horrific stories of child rape and the government cover-up, the UK’s Online Safety Act has done nothing but silence the victims. And this is due to the conduct of the very same government that claimed to launch a national inquiry, and whose leader said that speaking out about the abuse of children is “jumping on a far-right bandwagon.

Similarly, conservative UK journalist Smantha Smith went on TV to discuss Pakistani grooming gangs in her Labour-run hometown of Telford. The next day, officers banged on her door, wanting to shut her up for exposing them. And so, with the Online Safety Act now in force, no one is safe. Because if it happened to her, it can happen to anyone. But, the big irony I’d like to highlight here is that the UK government’s implementation of the Online Safety Act seems to protect paedophiles, and those inculcated in the grooming gangs – all while they claim that this is about protecting children. It simply is not true, and here is journalist Samantha Smith discussing her case.

REV DR CHRIS OYAKHILOME DSc. DSc. DD.: “SUE THEM; YOU WILL WIN”

Thankfully, many in the UK – much like those who started the petition we’ve just discussed – are not quiet, or merely accepting the status quo. Many are gearing up to challenge the state though the requisite avenues of formal legal recourse – including through suing the relevant parties! For instance, free speech lawyer Preston Byrne told GB News why he’s planning to sue Ofcom over the Online Safety Act.

MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATIONS CREATED THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Now, while this discussion focuses on the UK’s Online Safety Act, it is  important not to lose sight of the fact that this problem is not only global, but was often driven by a desire to ultimately apply restrictive provisions on Elon Musk’s X platform. And this is made apparent as information has also come to the fore regarding the historical and intensive involvement of military and intelligence organisations in the war on free speech! More specifically, a whistleblower last year provided us with a trove of documents proving that US and UK military & Intelligence employees and contractors adapted counter-terrorism tactics developed abroad, including censorship, debanking, and cross-platform bans – really rivalling or exceeding the Twitter Files and Facebook Files in scale and importance. Now, they describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, that officially began as the volunteer project of data scientists and defence and intelligence veterans but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The CTI League documents offer the missing link answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Combined, they offer a comprehensive picture of the birth of the “anti-disinformation” sector, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex. Now, the whistleblower’s documents describe everything from the genesis of modern digital censorship programs to the role of the military and intelligence agencies, partnerships with civil society organisations and commercial media, and the use of sock puppet accounts and other offensive techniques.

But, here’s where it gets even more interesting: the CTIL files reveal that US and UK military contractors developed and used advanced tactics — including demanding that social media platforms change their Terms of Service — to shape public opinion about Covid-19, and that getting content removed was just one strategy used by the Censorship Industrial Complex. The CTI League, which partnered with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), THEN aimed to implement something called “AMITT,” which stood for “Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques.” Kindly have a listen to Michael Shellenberger as he exposes a key figure involved in this operation, and her name is Renée Teresita and even the “partnerships” that were formed to create this censorship industrial complex.

THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX’S WAR ON X AND ELON MUSK

Well, so the Department of Homeland Security’s AMITT project was ultimately, therefore, a disinformation framework that included many offensive actions, including discrediting alternative media, using bots and sock puppets, pre-bunking, and pushing counter-messaging AND working to influence government policy. This emphatically tells us that politicians are (once again) not the primary actors behind the war on free speech!

In any case, the specific counters to so-called “disinformation” in AMITT and what became its successor framework, called DISARM, include many tactics that we have observed, such as: “name and shame people who disagree with the narrative of the government of the diabolical conglomerates behind certain agendas, like the vaccine holocaust”; simulating misinformation and disinformation campaigns, AND “using banking to cut off access”, which is something Europe is considering against Elon Musk! In addition, the DISARM framework has included creating policy that makes social media police disinformation”. This especially became notable with the opposition towards X – which has exposed that the war on X and Elon Musk itself has a broader history involving diabolical non-state actors – in particular the UN.

Paul Coleman points out a terrible irony there towards the end, which is that these diabolical tactics aimed at censorship are coming from the people who pretentiously parade themselves as being in the front seat of defending free speech. Which is why I always tend to emphasise that it is a mistake to assume that the state is not an absolute moral actor or a yardstick to measure ethical conduct, especially when we consider that atrocious policies like slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were all legal!

And true to form, in the status quo entities like the EU are weaponising laws against Musk and the X platform in order to fabricate justification for aggressive actions towards Musk. For instance, you’d recall that the European Union sent a letter to Elon Musk, demanding him to censor Donald Trump during their interview in early August 2024, ahead of the US presidential election in November. The EU proceeded to threaten Musk with legal consequences if he does not prevent the spread of what they label as “disinformation.” But, even that threat followed a pattern of autocratic figures looking to have more censorship on the X platform, in light of what they say is a problem consistent with the ills of what they have defined as mis and dis information. And so, what we are seeing now is that in addition to the EU feeling comfortable demanding censorship in a US election to comply with the Digital Services Act, the UK is continuing on a similar trajectory.

THE CHURCH IS NOT IGNORANT OF THE ENEMY’S DEVICES

But ultimately, the UK Online Safety Act represents a digression from Godly Wisdom – especially when we consider that free speech is a God-given right, and we observe in the Scriptures that God respects the choice of men, because love connotes free will.

And so, this highlights the significant shift in social narrative in Europe, and the gist of the spiritual war in today’s discussion; which is that when such laws are made in the UK, it is not the Wisdom of God and Scriptures that are at the fore of the discussion, rather it is diabolical activities of witches in the UK, and something must be done.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The authorities are actively constructing a digital prison

Big Tech insiders are now exposing the alarming plan to confine humanity within smart cities, essentially creating a high-tech prison under the guise of security, convenience, and sustainability. Aman Jabbi, a whistleblower, reveals that our personal devices and smart appliances are constantly monitoring our every move, tracking our daily activities. As we step out of our homes, our cars are being tracked, and our smartphones, smartwatches, and other devices are being surveilled as we walk down the street. This pervasive surveillance allows for 24/7 data collection on every individual, effectively creating a digital prison. The concept of smart cities, which encompasses the idea of 15-minute cities, is designed to restrict our mobility and limit our access to resources like water, energy, and transportation. Moreover, initiatives like air monitoring, water management, and noise pollution are being used to ration our resources, limit our movement, and even surveil our speech. The notion of geofencing is also being employed, creating an invisible fence that restricts our movement and controls our access to digital currency, all tied to our face recognition, digital identity, and access control. In essence, our world has been transformed into a digital panopticon, where our every move is being watched, tracked, and controlled. The authorities are actively constructing a digital prison, and it’s imperative that we’re aware of the looming threat to our freedom and autonomy.

Surveillance capitalism erodes individual autonomy

Surveillance capitalists are actively manipulating users, stripping them of their autonomy by utilizing algorithms that predict and shape their behaviour, posing a significant threat to the very foundations of democracy. By concentrating power in their own hands, these surveillance capitalists are undermining democratic processes, leveraging their influence to mold public opinion and dictate policy. Furthermore, the unchecked wealth generated by surveillance capitalism is exacerbating economic inequality, as the corporations that own and control the data and algorithms are raking in profits, while users are being exploited as nothing more than free commodities, fuelling a system that perpetuates economic disparity.

Covid was meant to normalise biometric surveillance

But it even goes beyond that. Advisor to the WEF, Yuval Noah Harari admitted that Covid was critical because this is what convinces people to accept total biometric surveillance, which will enable the Stalins of the 21st century” to monitor and analyse the brains of all the population, all the time.

Understanding Smart Cities, 15-Minute Cities

In cities and towns across the word, our communities are being transformed by the implementation of so-called “smart” technologies said to create more efficient, safe, and sustainable environments. These smart cities use a range of devices such as cameras, sensors, and artificial intelligence to attempt central management of everything from traffic and public safety to environmental monitoring. Proponents of smart cities will sing songs about their efficiency. Traffic lights adjust in real-time to traffic conditions, reducing congestion and shortening commutes. Smart waste management systems notify city services when trash bins are full, optimizing collection routes and frequencies. Public safety could be enhanced by using networked cameras and environmental sensors that can detect crimes and so forth.

Moreover, the control and ownership of this data resides predominantly in the hands of corporations. This new era of surveillance isn’t just about privacy. It’s a profound shift in the power dynamics between the state and the individual. It tips the balance overwhelmingly in favour of the observer. In a society where everyone is watched, the watched are not free. This surveillance creates a chilling effect on behaviour, stifling dissent and discouraging participation in civil society. If you think about it, it’s a strange trade-off. We’re bartering away bits of our privacy for the convenience of not having to flip a light switch or remember where we parked the car. And the lessons from history are clear. Surveillance technologies, once introduced, are rarely rolled back. They tend to expand in scope and scale, often outstripping the original intentions behind their deployment. So we need to ask: Are we building a smarter world or just a more surveilled one?

The UN’s Diabolical Agenda for World Domination 

Under the United Nations’ plan for complete global control known as Agenda 21 (which Agenda 2030 is a mere milestone of), humans who once lived on farms and in rural areas are to be forcibly relocated into densely populated “smart” cities, known as “human settlements”. Watch this except from the documentary, ‘Unsustainable: The UN’s Agenda For World Domination’.

As we stand at the crossroads of technology and privacy, the choices we make today will define the legacy of our generation. It’s crucial that we strike a balance between leveraging technology for our own betterment and safeguarding the individual freedoms we hold so dear. The Documentary ‘The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future’ by Oracle Films presents evidence that the global takeover is not only possible—it’s actually happening and has been decades in the making.”

Writtebn By Tatenda Belle Panashe