Censorship Industrial Complex
Julian Assange laments growing censorship, suppression of truth in the West upon release

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, attends the European council on October 1, 2024, in Strasbourg, France
From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
Speaking after 12 years of confinement, Julian Assange warned of the erosion of free speech in the West, linking his own prosecution to global censorship, political corruption, and attacks on honest journalism.
On October 1, Julian Assange made his first major speech since his release. In it, he delivered a verdict on how we are governed which is as damning as it is revealing.
āI am not free today because the system worked,ā Assange said, āI am free today because after years of incarceration I pled guilty to journalism.ā
Julian Assange was convicted under the U.S. Espionage Act and spent 12 years in confinement, first taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012, followed by five years in Britainās maximum-security prison in Belmarsh.
Had his plea not been accepted heĀ facedĀ a sentence of 175 years in prison. He was speaking in Strasbourg, France, at a hearingĀ convened by the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council ā which recognized Assange as a āpolitical prisoner.ā
Saying how āincarceration has taken its toll,ā Assange noted how the world he had rejoined had changed ā for the worse:
I regret how much ground has been lost during that time period. How expressing the truth has been undermined, attacked, weakened, and diminished.
Assange gave a chilling account of the state of the Western world today, saying he now seesĀ āmore impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth, and more self-censorship.ā
He believes that his own treatment was a turning point for the suppression of freedom of speech in the West:
It is hard not to draw a line from the U.S. governmentās prosecution of me ā its crossing the Rubicon by internationally criminalizing journalism ā to the chill climate for freedom of expression that exists now.
During his speech, Assange alleged that former CIA director Mike Pompeo devised a plan to kill him, following Wikileaksā revelation in 2017 of CIA operations in Europe.
Citing the testimony of āmore than 30 former and current U.S. intelligence officials,ā Assange said that āit is a matter of public record that under Pompeoās explicit direction the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate meā while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
TheĀ revelationsĀ published by Wikileaks which prompted the plot included evidence of CIA espionage on European governments and industries. In addition, WikileaksĀ reportsĀ ārevealed the CIAās vast production of malware [spy software] and viruses, its subversion of supply chains, its subversion of antivirus software, cars, smart TVs, and iPhones.ā
Assange was originally pursued for havingĀ publicizedĀ U.S. actions in Guantanamo Bay, and alleged war crimes in Iraq, which he explains intensified following Wikileaksā CIA revelations.
Cracks in our system
Assangeās case and his extraordinary testimony reveals one of many fault lines in the Western world.
āToday, the free world is no longer free.ā said Salvadorean President Nayib Bukele, describing also how the West is becoming āmore pessimistic,ā adding that, ā[t]ragically, we can see more evidence of this decline every day.ā Speaking at the United Nations on September 30, he said:
When the Free World became free it was due to freedom of expression, freedom before the law. But once a nation abandons the principles that make it free itās only a question of time before it completely loses its freedom.
The āFree Worldā is no longer free.
El āMundo Libreā ya no es libre. pic.twitter.com/IOrLv33KbW
— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) September 30, 2024
His observations are echoed by statements from across the political divide in the U.S.
The former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard warned on October 5 that the party she left now seeks to undermine the First Amendment. She said onĀ X,Ā āPeople like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris do not believe in the First Amendment because they see it as an obstacle to achieving their real goal: ātotal control.āā
Her remarks followed those made by Hillary Clinton in a recent video interview, in which Clinton said āwhether itās Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok ⦠if they donāt moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.ā
Hillary said it: when you allow free speech, āwe lose total control.ā People like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris do not believe in the First Amendment because they see it as an obstacle to achieving their real goal: ātotal control.ā https://t.co/euQJgAVxV4
— Tulsi Gabbard šŗ (@TulsiGabbard) October 5, 2024
Clintonās remarks about losing ātotal controlā come after Sen. John KerryĀ spokeĀ at the World Economic Forum on September 25, sayingĀ āour First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just hammer [disinformation] out of existence.ā
Kerry argued that opposition to the polices of the WEF was fueled by ādisinformationā when critics in fact simply dislike its policies. Populism generally is described as aĀ threatĀ to democracy in the West, when it is also simply theĀ preferenceĀ for popular policies, against the unpopular ones of the current ruling elite.
āDisinformation,ā and āmisinformationā are terms invented and used by the language and ideological police to hide their malicious intent.
It appears that unpopular policies such as those of permanent war, Net Zero, deindustrialization, and denationalization can only be pursued with ātotal controlā of the information seen by the public.
The meaningful political debate is not about left and right. It is about the meaning of what is right, and the outrage at what is obviously wrong. Assange says āit is uncertain what we can doā about the āimpunityā of our leadership, which as yet has faced no meaningful consequences for its pursuit of deeply unpopular policies at the expense of widespread corruption and defended by censorship.
Business
Trump slaps Brazil with tariffs over social media censorship

From LifeSiteNews
By Dan Frieth
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz InƔcio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a fierce rebuke of Brazilās moves to silence American-run social media platforms, particularly Rumble and X.
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz InƔcio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
He calls attention to āSECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms,ā pointing out that Brazilās Supreme Court has been āthreatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market.ā
Trump warns that these actions are ādue in part to Brazilās insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans,ā and states: āstarting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs.ā He also adds that āGoods transshipped to evade this 50% Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.ā
Brazilās crackdown has targeted Rumble after it refused to comply with orders to block the account of Allan dos Santos, a Brazilian streamer living in the United States.
On February 21, 2025,Ā Justice Alexandre de MoraesĀ ordered RumbleāsĀ suspensionĀ for nonācompliance, saying it failed āto comply with court orders.ā
Earlier, from August to October 2024, Moraes had similarly orderedĀ a nationwide block on X.
The court directed ISPs to suspend access and imposed fines after the platform refused to designate a legal representative and remove certain accounts.
Elon Musk responded: āFree speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudoājudge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.ā
By linking censorship actions, particularly those targeting Rumble and X, to U.S. trade policy, Trumpās letter asserts that Brazilās judiciary has moved into the arena of foreign policy and economic consequences.
The tariffs, he makes clear, are meant, at least in part, as a response to Brazilās suppression of American free speech.
Trumpās decision to impose tariffs on Brazil for censoring American platforms may also serve as a clear signal to the European Union, which is advancing similar regulatory efforts under the guise of ādisinformationā and āonline safety.ā
With the EUāsĀ Digital Services ActĀ and proposedĀ āhate speechā legislationĀ expanding government authority over content moderation, American companies face mounting pressure to comply with vague and sweeping takedown demands.
By framing censorship as a violation of U.S. free speech rights and linking it to trade consequences, Trump is effectively warning that any foreign attempt to suppress American voices or platforms could trigger similar economic retaliation.
Reprinted with permission fromĀ Reclaim The Net.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Canadian pro-freedom group sounds alarm over Liberal plans to revive internet censorship bill

From LifeSiteNews
The Democracy Fund warned that the Liberal government may bring back a form of Bill C-63, which is aimed at regulating online speech.
One of Canadaās top pro-democracy groups has sounded the alarm by warning that the Canadian federal government is planning to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.
The Democracy Fund (TDF), in a recentĀ press release, warned about plans by the Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney to bring back a form of Bill C-63. The bill, which lapsed when the election was called earlier this year, aimed to regulate online speech, which could mean āmass censorshipā of the internet.
āTDF is concerned that the government will try once more to give itself the power to criminalize and punish online speech and debate,ā the group said.
āTDF will oppose that.ā
According to the TDF, it is āconcerned that the government intends to re-introduce the previously abandoned Online Harms Bill in the same or modified form.ā
Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online. The bill died earlier this year after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the 2025 federal election.
While protecting children is indeed a duty of the state, the bill included several measures that targeted vaguely defined āhate speechā infractions involving race, gender, and religion, among other categories. The proposal was thusĀ blastedĀ by many legal experts.
The Online Harms Act would have censored legal internet content that the government thought ālikely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.ā It would be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints.
The TDF said that Bill C-63 would have made it a criminal offense to publish ill-defined āharmful content.ā
āIt required social media companies to remove potentially harmful content or face punitive fines. Many defenders of civil liberty, including TDF, worried that the application of this badly defined concept would lead to mass surveillance and censorship,ā the group said.
The TDF warned that under Carney, the government is āonce again considering new or similar legislation to regulate online speech, with the Minister of Justice claiming he would take another look at the matter.ā
Mark Joseph, TDF litigation director, pointed out that Canada already has laws that āthe government can, and does, use to address most of the bad conduct that the Bill ostensibly targeted.ā
āTo the extent that there are gaps in theĀ Criminal Code, amendments should be carefully drafted to fix this,ā he said.
āHowever, the previous Bill C-63 sought to implement a regime of mass censorship.ā
As reported by LifeSiteNews last month, a recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other āinterested senatorsā want CarneyĀ to revive aĀ controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.
Another recent Carney government Bill C-2, which looks to ban cash donations over $10,000, wasĀ blasted byĀ a constitutional freedom group as a āstep towards tyranny.ā
Carney, asĀ reported byĀ LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeauās footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.
He has alsoĀ said his government plans to launch a ānew economyā in Canada that will involve ādeepeningā ties to the world.
Under Carney, the Liberals are expected to continue much of what they did under Justin Trudeau, including the partyās zealous push in favor ofĀ abortion, euthanasia, radicalĀ gender ideology,Ā internet regulationĀ and so-called āclimate changeā policies. Indeed, Carney, like Trudeau, seems to haveĀ extensive tiesĀ to bothĀ ChinaĀ and the globalistĀ World Economic Forum, connections that were brought up routinely by conservatives in the lead-up to the election.
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
9 Things You Should Know About PK/PD in Drug Research
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
The Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Business2 days ago
āExpertsā Warned Free Markets Would Ruin Argentina ā Looks Like They Were Dead Wrong
-
Business2 days ago
Cannabis Legalization Is Starting to Look Like a Really Dumb Idea
-
Business1 day ago
Carney government should recognize that private sector drives Canadaās economy
-
Media2 days ago
CBC journalist quits, accuses outlet of anti-Conservative bias and censorship
-
Automotive2 days ago
Americaās EV Industry Must Now Compete On A Level Playing Field
-
Alberta1 day ago
Fourteen regional advisory councils will shape health care planning and delivery in Alberta