The State Department announced Tuesday it was barring five Europeans it accused of leading efforts to pressure U.S. tech firms to censor or suppress American viewpoints.
The Europeans, characterized by Secretary of State Marco Rubio as “radical” activists and “weaponized” nongovernmental organizations, fell afoul of a new visa policy announced in May to restrict the entry of foreigners deemed responsible for censorship of protected speech in the United States. […]
The action to bar them from the U.S. is part of a Trump administration campaign against foreign influence over online speech, using immigration law rather than platform regulations or sanctions.
The five Europeans named by Rogers are: Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate; Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, leaders of HateAid, a German organization; Clare Melford, who runs the Global Disinformation Index; and former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was responsible for supervising social media rules.
19 Replies to “US Bars Five European Speech Nannies”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Starmer?
buuuuuuut Trump bad kamalalalalalala good? bidenautopen for president???
it WASNT just USA that dodged an ‘artillery shell’ ’twas the entire GLOBE starting with the EU.
alas, the last oh, say very MINIMUM year? (more like 20 years) shows just how effective propaganda
*continues* to be. (including its great success north of the 49th)
Seriously bud, I can’t understand a word you say. Maybe you should try a different approach. In English, please.
As my war guy on YouTube, Combat Veteran News, just said, “You known how fkcing stupid you have to be to fail at running a casino?”
… except when said Casino is in New Jersey. Bummer … it NEVER became a “destination” like Vegas.
https://isoftgamble.com/articles/bankrupt-casino/
More than a DOZEN Atlantic City casinos BANKRUPT since the early 2000’s. Thanks for playing.
Oh, that guy — he used to at least try to sound more sensible, but all that sweet, sweet Ukraine traffic turned him into a Jake Broe-bro. (another “veteran” account that seems to be a bit troubled that my President may cost him Ukraine war traffic).
Moral of the story: everybody’s got their hustle.
Perhaps I should start my own channel; I’ve got a face made for radio…I could call it “Jane PO’s Everybody”…
Pssst … hey Canadians! So called ‘Hate Speech’ is FREE Speech. Sorry, but you need to get over it if someone makes you feeeeeel uncomfortable or feeeeeeel “unsafe”. You want a “safe space”? Then go hide in your closet. Because the REAL world is a bitch!
ANY country with “Hate Speech” Laws should be BANNED from entering the USA. Yeah … ALL their citizens who agree with that nonsense and voted for that nonsense … BANNED.
Agreed.
Not to mention that you *should* be made uncomfortable and unsafe if you’re the sort of person who screams “Death to America” or “Death to Israel.” Who engages in *actual* hate speech.
Calling a spade a spade is never a hate crime. It’s something else again to openly call for the mass murder of good, decent people just because in your heart you know you’re not worthy to be fed to their pigs.
Hey Kenji, just who are you lecturing with that comment, considering that all (most?) folks in the SDA community are free-speech supporters?
Also, I love that “hey Canadians” as if we are just one nebulous mass.
Finally, it’s impossible for “any country” to enter the US. However many of their citizens can. And just how would you determine which of those citizens “agree with that nonsense and voted for that nonsense”.
What are you prattling on about ?
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2025/09/canada-introduces-legislation-to-combat-hate-crimes-intimidation-and-obstruction.html
The Canadian government introduced hate crimes laws, Canadian citizens didn’t.
That “logical” and “rational brain” you once boasted about seems to be a myth.
Pssst … hey Californians! So called ‘Hate Speech’ is FREE Speech. Sorry, but you need to get over it if someone makes you feeeeeel uncomfortable or feeeeeeel “unsafe”. You want a “safe space”? Then go hide in your closet. Because the REAL world is a bitch!
https://oag.ca.gov/hatecrimes
Wow. You cannot tell the difference between hate SPEECH laws and hate CRIME laws. Neither logic, or rational thought appear to be your strong suit. But that’s OK … I don’t take things personal or give 2 whits about people with cognitive problems.
Kenji, here’s your hate speech law:
In California, under the Ralph Act, Civil Code § 51.7, your civil rights may be violated if you have been subjected to hate violence or the threat of violence – EVEN WHERE THE INCIDENT DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A HATE CRIME AND AND MAY BE OTHERWISE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED from prosecution by the government – because of your actual or perceived: sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, political affiliation, and position in a labor dispute. A civil violation may result in restraining orders, injunctive and/or equitable relief, damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, and attorney’s fees.
Addedum to the above:
Examples of hate incidents include:
• Name-calling, insults, slurs, derogatory comments, and epithets lodged at a protected group that do
not threaten violence.
• Displaying hateful materials on one’s own real property that do not threaten violence.
• Wearing clothing with a hateful message that does not threaten violence.
• Distribution of materials with hateful messages in public places that do not threaten violence
I get your point, but on the flip side your government (and others) appear to be working against free speech both at home and abroad. Would you consider this restriction on certain people of influence unjustified?
I’m guessing you would not. Unfortunately, there are many citizens who would because they are influenced to believe it so; hence we get into generalities. Yes, we have the same problem here; it just got knocked onto its back foot for now, but hopefully we keep it there for a while longer and significantly weaken it long term (it will of course come back at some point).
A generality like “ALL their citizens who agree with that nonsense and voted for that nonsense … BANNED.” That’s not singling out people of influence.
Also, most citizens didn’t vote for that nonsense because they typically vote for a political party or a political figure who strikes a cord, and while some may know the party platform my guess is that most don’t, at least not in sufficient detail.
From the legislation:
-“Most police-reported hate crimes targeting religion were directed towards Jewish (68%) and Muslim (17%) populations.”
Is the 17% coming from the 68% who have been targeted?
-“Since 2020, Black people have been the most frequently targeted population as victims of hate crimes motivated by race or ethnicity, accounting for 37% of these hate crimes in 2024.”
Is the 37% done by other ethnic groups?