Tag Archives: 1st amendment

Jan 2 2026

Jack Smith’s Twisted, Machiavellian Lawfare Mindset Paints a Dystopian Future for the USA if Not Dispatched Quickly


Posted originally on CTH on January 1, 2026 | Sundance |

I don’t care if you support Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis or the Easter Bunny, any American who doesn’t realize the tenuous future of our union, after reviewing the information within this testimony, is going to forever live in a collapsed dystopian nightmare, if they vote for any political representative who supports it.

The House Judiciary Committee has released the [VIDEO] and [TRANSCRIPT] of special prosecutor Jack Smith’s deposition.  What is outlined within it is alarming in the extreme.  I strongly urge anyone with any platform to review the details and quickly highlight the content therein.  There is no time to waste.

[TRANSCRIPT HERE]

Jack Smith appeared before the committee with three personal lawyers to support him.  The content of the deposition is chilling in the extreme.  While many will focus on the granular details of the testimony, I wish to highlight one of the more alarming aspects to the bigger picture.

The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boils down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.

To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith claims Trump knowingly understood that Joe Biden had won the election; President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election; President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him, and instead chose to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”

It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith.   The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.

The case was dropped after the results of the November 2024 election, won by President Trump.  However, if President Trump had not won that election, the prosecution would have continued.

Jack Smith notes in his testimony, in the most Machiavellian way, that his primary prosecution approach was to present “Republican” witnesses like Mike Pence, who Smith cunningly said he could not discuss as he was restricted from revealing grand jury testimony.

Smith was prepared to present witness testimony from Pence and other political “Republicans” who told President Trump that Joe Biden had legitimately won the election, and Trump needed to concede.  This testimony then forms the baseline for the definition of “truthful information” that Trump rejected out of a malice mindset to continue clinging to power.

In essence, Smith defines what is “truth” (Biden won), then outlines how that truthful information was delivered and how President Trump dismissed it. Therefore, President Trump’s “mens-rea”, or state of mind, was one of promoting an intentional falsehood.  According to the Lawfare approach selected by Smith, this mindset is the predicate that blocks President Trump from using his First Amendment right to speech as a defense.

Intentional fraud is not allowed under the protections of “free speech.”   Jack Smith wanted to prove that President Trump was engaged in intentional fraud, and wanted to prove his mindset therein through the use of Republican political voices who delivered information to President Trump.

Jack Smith sought to define “truth”, and then counter the free speech defense by mob agreement on what constitutes the “truth.”  Under this predicate, President Trump was being prosecuted for a thought crime, and Jack Smith sought to legally prove he knew his thoughts.

The only way Jack Smith could prove fraud would be to prove that President Trump believed the information about Joe Biden winning the election.  Smith sought to prove Trump’s belief by presenting Republican voices who told President Trump he lost.

Whether you like or dislike President Trump, the issue here is alarming when contemplated.

A man tells you a chicken is a frog, you laugh.  The man then brings 15 of your family members to tell you a chicken is a frog. You reject the absurdity of the premise, but the man brings forth hundreds more people to tell you the chicken is a frog, and if you do not accept that Chickens are Frogs, you will be defined as mentally impaired, institutionalized and become a ward of the state.

[Insert any similar metaphor needed, including “what is a woman.”]

When we consider the current state of sociological, societal or government manipulation of information, and/or the need for government to control information (mis-dis-mal-information) as an overlay, you can quickly see where this type of legal predicate can take us.  Bizarro world becomes a dystopian nightmare.

Yes, it is also clear that Leftists, inside that closed-door committee hearing, are intending to impeach President Trump on these grounds if they successfully win the 2026 midterm election.  However, that is not the critical takeaway from this deposition.   Instead, the critical takeaway is how the Lawfare construct can be twisted and manipulated to create the legal means to the leftist ends.

Stop the Division! 

We cannot allow these communist, Marxist and leftist-minded control agents get back into power.

It’s not about Trump.  It’s about us.

Dec 28 2025

The EU Leaders Shouting About Visa Bans Are the Same EU Leaders Who Sent Political Operatives Into the U.S. to Support Kamala Harris


Posted originally on CTH on December 27, 2025 | Sundance

EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions.  However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election.

The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.”

The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS:

GREAT BRITAIN (October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign in key swing states.

[SOURCE – LINKEDIN]

Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024.

The same pearl-clutching assembly, now standing jaw-agape at the Trump administration recognizing their censorship, are the same assembly who engaged in political operations intended to influence the voting voice of the American electorate.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

It is worth remembering the British intelligence operation, (Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as MI6), was at the center of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in 2016.

The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”

I would say that given the direct nature of the U.K effort to undermine American viewpoints, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is being diplomatically generous in his visa ban.

Dec 25 2025

Promethean Action: Britain’s Secret Plot


Posted originally on CTH on December 25, 2025 | Sundance 

Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) was a rather eclectic communist in the world of American politics for several generations. A few of his perspectives were sound and nationalistic. However, many of his perspectives were completely communist and slipped into the realm of geopolitical conspiracy theory finding British Imperialism under every rock and blaming Queen Elizabeth II for assassination attempts against him.

Susan Kokinda and Barbara Boyd of Promethean Action continue the LaRouche tradition while smoothing out some of the more outlandish elements and removing the overt communism the originating political movement was known for.

Barbara Boyd is the spokesperson and treasurer of the LaRouche Youth Movement. Boyd’s partner, Susan Kokinda, maintains a belief that eliminating British Imperialism is the objective of President Trump’s America-First policy agenda.  This is where I disagree.

While the outcome of President Trump’s policy does factually lead to the result LaRouche advocated, I strongly doubt “eliminating British imperialism” is the prism through which Donald Trump’s thought process flows.  That said, in the overall picture of American politics, the Kokinda and Boyd analysis of Trump’s international opposition is generally accurate, but their perspective on the domestic opposition is entirely shallow.

In their recent update, “Britains Secret Plot”, Susan Kokinda discusses how Marco Rubio is confronting the EU censorship program, and how President Trump’s national security strategy marks a significant departure from over a century of British-influenced American foreign policy.  Her review delves into the geopolitical friction between the U.S. and the UK, particularly regarding their strategies toward Russia and Ukraine.

Mrs. Kokinda underscores the broader clash of worldviews between America-First sovereignty and British-led internationalism. This episode also examines the opposition Trump faces from within the U.S. political establishment and British geopolitical strategists and emphasizes the importance of maintaining political support to ensure the success of Trump’s transformative policies.  WATCH:

The divergence between the worldview of the European Union and President Trump is accurately presented as above.  The Ukraine/Russia war serves as a case study in how the two worldviews conflict.  The core of U.K policy and national security strategy continues to view Russia as the biggest threat; the national security outlook by President Trump does not.

On the domestic side of the issue, there are several American elements in direct opposition to the geopolitical policy structure of President Trump. Understanding the domestic opposition to President Trump is where Kokinda/Boyd are shallow, while seeing British control behind every shadow.

In reality the domestic opposition to President Trump is the ideological left in combination with the Wall Street right.  Currently the EU/U.K opposition to President Trump is in alignment with goals and objectives of the Sea Island group and the professionally republican.

Just as the Biden/Obama agenda included the targeting of President Trump for removal (Transition Integrity Project – originating group) in early January 2017, so too did another UniParty stop Trump operation begin in January 2025.  We saw the latest iteration surface in the odd (at the time), narrative surrounding Qatar -vs- Israel.

The ideologically similar GOPe elements within the Sea Island network, tech and traditional Republican party, are all aligned due to opposition to Trump policy. They continue their efforts to divide elements from the larger MAGA network.

The use of the Qatar vs Israel wedge is clear within the billionaire tech/political group, and essentially distillates to 2028 positioning, JD Vance -vs- Ron DeSantis.

The battle was clear last week at TPUSA with the alligator emojis leveraging all the pressure they could toward the organization.  The Ellison, Weiss, Shapiro goal was to steer Turning Point to support DeSantis.  However, Erika Kirk endorsed JD Vance.

Now the alligator emojis, blind orcs for the Ellison agenda, hate TPUSA.

Dec 25 2025

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Issues Visa Bans Against Five EU Leaders of Censorship


Posted originally on CTH on December 24, 2025 | Sundance 

The European Union, France and Germany are furious at the U.S. State Department and Marco Rubio for issuing visa bans against European political figures who are involved in censorship under the guise of combating online hate and disinformation. Brussels said Wednesday it will “respond swiftly and decisively” against the “unjustified measures.”

[SOURCE]

The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”

STATE DEPT – Free speech is among the most cherished rights we enjoy as Americans. This right, legally enshrined in our constitution, has set us apart as a beacon of freedom around the world.  Even as we take action to reject censorship at home, we see troubling instances of foreign governments and foreign officials picking up the slack.  In some instances, foreign officials have taken flagrant censorship actions against U.S. tech companies and U.S. citizens and residents when they have no authority to do so.

Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign nationals who are responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States.  It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil.  It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States.  We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty, especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech.

This visa restriction policy is pursuant to Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the Secretary of State to render inadmissible any alien whose entry into the Unites States “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”  Certain family members may also be covered by these restrictions.  (SOURCE)

PARIS, Dec 24 (Reuters) – The European Union, France and Germany condemned U.S. visa bans on five Europeans combating online hate and disinformation on Wednesday, after President Donald Trump’s administration took its latest swipe at long-standing allies across the Atlantic.

[…] In Brussels, Paris and Berlin, senior officials condemned the U.S. bans, and defended Europe’s right to legislate on how foreign companies operate locally.

A European Commission spokesperson said it “strongly condemns the U.S. decision”, adding: “Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Europe and a shared core value with the United States across the democratic world.”

The spokesperson said the EU would seek answers from Washington but said it could “respond swiftly and decisively” against the “unjustified measures”.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been travelling across France to warn about the dangers that disinformation poses to democracy, said he had spoken with Breton and thanked him for his work.

“We will not give up, and we will protect Europe’s independence and the freedom of Europeans,” Macron said on X. (more)

Dec 21 2025

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Delivers a Bold, Succinct and Important Speech to the TPUSA Audience


Posted originally on CTH on December 21, 2025 | Sundance 

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard left nothing off the table when she gave remarks to the audience at Turning Point USA.  In a remarkable and very well delivered speech, Director Gabbard outlines in detail the biggest domestic and geopolitical challenges currently being faced by President Trump and his administration.

Underpinning her remarks is a refreshing focus on “freedom” versus the dark clouds of security threats drumbeat by those who seek control. Tulsi Gabbard accurately summarizes the importance of staying focused on liberty, while accepting the nature of the biggest threat to our core values, political Islam.

Director Gabbard hits on the key issues of the day as it pertains to her position in government, and she emphasizes how the message of fear/security is used against those of us who cherish freedom.  As she emphasizes the administration’s efforts toward peace, she also points out how Europe and NATO may not hold the same objective.  Gabbard hits multiple points that all of us can agree with, while intertwining a personal message.

There is already a visible apoplexy in reaction to these remarks, from U.S and international media on behalf of their benefactors in the Deep State.  WATCH: 

Both Tulsi Gabbard and Marco Rubio have been exceptional standouts in the first year of the administration.

Read the DNI 2025 Accomplishments HERE.

Dec 18 2025

Providence-area Radio Host Asks Brown University About Their Intentional Disabling of CCTV Systems


Posted originally on CTH on December 18, 2025 | Sundance

During a press conference on Wednesday, a Providence-area radio host, Chas Calenda, directly confronted Brown University officials and law enforcement with information he has received about the school intentionally disabling surveillance systems due to DEI concerns.

The response from university officials and the Providence Mayor indicate Mr. Chas Calenda’s informed accusation and question is directly on target.  WATCH:

In addition to information we previously shared {GO DEEP} reflecting requests from various “civil rights” and “humanitarian” groups who demanded Brown University disable their surveillance system, additional information about the issue comes via the Rhode Island ACLU making the same demand in October of this year [SEE HERE].

Brown University was under pressure from far-left groups as an outcome of concern the CCTV and school security system would be used by federal authorities to (a) identify radical leftists expressing antisemitic sentiments, and (b) identify the immigration status of persons on campus.  It is not just isolated to Brown University.

Multiple municipal governments, private and municipal agencies have received the same demand in an ongoing effort to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.  The mass shooting on Brown University is leading to a larger public awareness of an issue that has been spreading rapidly in the last several months.

The claim by Chas Calenda is that his local sources within law enforcement are confirming the university cowed to the concerns of the civil rights groups, including the removal of cameras.  This is why there is no recorded CCTV footage, and the university is talking gibberish in their efforts to avoid admitting what has taken place.

Brown University and Providence police have $8 billion liability reasons to be less than honest with the alarmed public. The political ramifications of the story are also complicating the issue for Brown University, as well as local and national figures.

Here is the full press conference.  The key question comes at the very end of the video 49:20.

Dec 18 2025

Brown University Received a Letter from 34 Human Rights Groups in August Requesting They Disable Their CCTV System


Posted originally on CTH on December 17, 2025 | Sundance

The question is: Did Brown University acquiesce under pressure from far-left human rights groups to disable their CCTV systems, in advance of the mass shooting on campus?

[SOURCE – AUGUST 19, 2025]

As originally reported in August 2025 {SOURCE}, a group of far-left human rights advocates sent a letter to 150 U.S. colleges and universities asking them to disable the CCTV systems to protect “free expression and academic freedom across the country,” because “the Trump administration has launched an aggressive campaign against US academic institutions.”

The motive for the request to disable CCTV systems as stated: “Right now these tools are facilitating the identification and punishment of student protesters, undermining activists’ right to anonymity––a right the Supreme Court has affirmed as vital to free expression and political participation.” {SOURCE}

The letter from ‘Fight For The Future‘ (August, 2025) came after an earlier campaign by the same group seeking to stop the use of facial recognition cameras on college campuses. {SOURCE}

The Brown University President and school officials have been giving ridiculous answers to questions about the 800 cameras on the campus and the fact that no current footage exists of the shooter walking around inside the campus or inside the buildings therein.

The question is really a simple one.  Did Brown University follow the requests of the hardline leftist groups who asked the school to disable the functioning of their surveillance network in order to protect the identity of the students on campus?

Obviously, this potential explanation would answer a lot of seemingly irreconcilable questions about the lack of surveillance footage available to local law enforcement, state police and FBI investigators.  The only current footage of the shooter is from privately owned doorbell cameras and CCTV systems from businesses near the campus.  No footage of the shooter on campus has been identified.

Against the factual evidence of Brown University receiving requests to disable their surveillance cameras, someone needs to ask the right question.

Everyone can see the potential ramifications here, along with the severity of the legal risk Brown University would be facing.  Perhaps that dynamic is what’s behind the twisted wording and explanations coming from university and local officials.

A targeted political assassination of a young, female conservative vice-chair of the Brown University Republican group takes place.  The ideological shooter benefits from the lack of school security and surveillance.  That lack of security was intentionally created by ideological school administrators and officials bowing to pressure from ideologically aligned leftist organizations.

If accurate, this is quite a scenario on many levels; including a considerable legal risk, intentional and willful negligence, and massive lawsuit exposure in the aftermath of two deaths and 9 injured students.  Brown University has an $8 billion endowment.

As everyone understands, a University like Brown creates a local economy unto itself. College towns like Providence, Rhode Island are college towns for a reason.  The college is a considerable foundation for the economic wealth of the community.  As an outcome, the local officials would be in full protection mode over their economic foundation.  In this case, there are billions at stake.

Perhaps this dynamic explains all the conflicts and seemingly bizarre statements by local and university officials.  WATCH:

.

Dec 13 2025

U.S. Govt Agency Verifies that Nine Large U.S. Banks Conducted Ideological Debanking Operations


Posted originally on CTH on December 12, 2025 | Sundance 

The United States Office of the Comptroller for the Currency (OCC) has delivered the preliminary results of an investigation into large U.S. banks and the practice of “debanking” customers based on ideology. [PDF HERE]

Between 2020 and 2023, the OCC found that JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., PNC Financial Services Group Inc., Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Bank of Montreal, all maintained policies that restricted legal companies from access to banking based on the “values” of the bank.

According to the OCC report, “these nine banks made inappropriate distinctions among customers in the provision of financial services on the basis of their lawful business activities by maintaining policies restricting access to banking services or requiring escalated reviews and approvals before providing certain customers access to financial services.”

Press Release – […] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released preliminary findings from its supervisory review of debanking activities at the nine largest national banks it supervises: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank.

The OCC conducted its supervisory review in accordance with the President’s Executive Order “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans” to determine whether these institutions debanked or discriminated against any customers or potential customers on the basis of their political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities.

“The OCC is committed to ending efforts – whether instigated by regulators or banks – that would weaponize finance,” said Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould. “Although our work continues, the OCC is today providing visibility into the debanking actions against customers and lawful businesses taken by the nation’s largest banks to ensure public awareness, and to halt these harmful and unfair practices.”

The OCC’s preliminary findings show that, between 2020 and 2023, these nine banks made inappropriate distinctions among customers in the provision of financial services on the basis of their lawful business activities by maintaining policies restricting access to banking services or requiring escalated reviews and approvals before providing certain customers access to financial services. For example, the OCC identified instances where at least one bank imposed restrictions on certain industry sectors because they engaged in “activities that, while not illegal, are contrary to [the bank’s] values.” Sectors subjected to restricted access included oil and gas exploration, coal mining, firearms, private prisons, tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers, adult entertainment, and digital assets.

The OCC’s findings confirm that these or similar policies and practices were in place at each of the banks reviewed. In a reaction to the observations Comptroller Gould stated, “It is unfortunate that the nation’s largest banks thought these harmful debanking policies were an appropriate use of their government-granted charter and market power. While many of these policies were undertaken in plain sight and even announced publicly, certain banks have continued to insist that they did not engage in debanking. Going forward, the OCC will hold banks accountable for these actions and ensure unlawful debanking does not continue.”

This review was first announced by the OCC in September 2025. While the OCC is releasing preliminary findings, its work continues to better understand the full extent and effect of these actions and their impact on affected industries and the American economy. The OCC is also still reviewing thousands of complaints to identify instances of political and religious debanking, which it will report on in due course and as appropriate. (LINK)

The six-page report identifies several industries that faced uphill climbs securing banking services, including oil and gas companies, cryptocurrency firms, tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers, and firearm companies. The OCC said that many of these banks had publicly disclosed relevant policies, often tied to environmental, social and governance goals.

The report also found some banks adopted heightened reviews for potential customers based on negative coverage in the media.

The OCC will complete their investigation and could send recommendations to the DOJ requesting prosecution.

Dec 12 2025

President Trump Grants Tina Peters Pardon, However State Officials Call Pardon Invalid


Posted originally on CTH on December 11, 2025 | Sundance 

Tina Peters is a gold star mom who was a former Mesa County, Colorado, clerk during the 2020 election.

Mrs Peters, age 70, is serving a nine-year prison sentence in Colorado state prison after her politically motivated conviction for attempting to influence a public servant and criminal impersonation for aiding an unauthorized person in copying voting-machine hard-drive data during a 2021 software update.

Mrs. Peters and her lawyers have repeatedly stated she was attempting to preserve evidence of false voter data in the Colorado 2020 election. The judge who sentenced Peters stated she had white “privilege” in delivering the exceptionally harsh sentence.

Today President Trump pardoned Tina Peters, but state officials and Colorado Governor Jared Polis say the pardon is invalid because Mrs. Peters was convicted of a state crime, out of the reach of a presidential pardon.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “For years, Democrats ignored Violent and Vicious Crime of all shapes, sizes, colors, and types. Violent Criminals who should have been locked up were allowed to attack again. Democrats were also far too happy to let in the worst from the worst countries so they could rip off American Taxpayers. Democrats only think there is one crime – Not voting for them!

Instead of protecting Americans and their Tax Dollars, Democrats chose instead to prosecute anyone they can find that wanted Safe and Secure Elections. Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest. Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the “crime” of demanding Honest Elections. Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!” (read more)

Unfortunately, Colorado Governor Jared Polis is extremely opposed to President Trump and anything he represents, immediately rejecting the pardon [SOURCE] and confirming that Mrs Peters will remain in state prison.

Dec 10 2025

Australia’s Social Media Ban for Those Underage-16 Structured Like a Global Intelligence Op


Posted originally on CTH on December 10, 2025 | Sundance 

If New Zealand and Australia, both 5-eye partners, were not used as the testing ground during the COVID-19 and vaccination exploits, this current move may not have gained the same level of scrutiny.  However, with a documented history of Australia pushing the limits against freedom and liberty, this latest development is notable.

Effective today, all Australian social media users will need to prove their age on websites and apps including Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube.  Users under the age of 16 are banned from accessing the sites/apps.

“But it’s only Australia,” says most.  Think again.  In the era of modern internet travel and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) how is the compliance aspect going to be determined.   That’s the problem the Australian control agents are now trying to address.

An intellectually discerning person would note the compliance angle should have been worked out long before the regulatory and compliance switches were flipped and the rushed-into-place law was activated.  The Internet Police Czar charged with enforcing the ban is American.

As Politico notes, “Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, an American tasked with policing the world’s first social media account ban for teenagers, acknowledges Australia’s legislation is the “most novel, complex piece of legislation” she has ever seen. … She told a conference in Sydney this month she expects others to follow Australia’s lead. “I’ve always referred to this as the first domino,” she says.

The Australian legislation passed through their parliament less than a year ago with UniParty and public support. “It was really fast,” Rebecca Razavi, a former Australian diplomat said. But she added: “Some issues, such as how it works in practice, with age verification and data privacy are only being addressed now.”

Given the issue of global VPNs, the compliance issues around age verification will have to accompany issues around geographic identification for various social media platforms.

That issue expands the internet identity verification to areas beyond the geographical boundaries of Australia.

(VIA CNN) – […] To comply with Australia’s law, platforms are verifying users’ ages with official documents or by using AI systems that estimate a user’s age by scanning their face on camera. Last year, Australia conducted a government-funded study testing age verification methods, which convinced officials that it could be done without compromising privacy.

Such AI age estimation tools have raised accuracy concerns when deployed elsewhere. In the UK, teens reportedly used the faces of video game characters to bypass age gates when some platforms tried to verify their ages.

Critics have also said these systems raise privacy issues for all users who will have to provide biometric data or other sensitive information, even if they’re above 16.

For example, some users protested when YouTube said this year that it would start using AI to detect users’ ages in the United States in a bid to protect children. They didn’t like the idea of having to hand over an ID or face scan if they were wrongly identified as a teen.

In Australia, platforms will be required to delete users’ data after verifying their ages.

Could a teen social media ban happen in the US? While none go as far as Australia’s ban, a growing number of US states have passed restrictions on teens’ access to social media or other internet services. (read more)

A digital ID.

When they say it’s for the children, it’s never for the children.