Press Release

Breaking: International Governments Are Criminalizing Free Speech Through Global Coordination; New Files Expose Plot

Posted on by thehawthorn
16
Sep

Free Speech is under attack. A Call to Action: Join an urgent meeting today

In a chilling assault on free speech, governments and shadowy organizations are secretly collaborating to silence dissent and criminalize those who dare to question the official narrative.

EXPOSED: The Secret Global Plot to Silence and Criminalize Dissent 

In a chilling assault on free speech, newly obtained documents reveal how international governments are collaborating to silence dissent and criminalize those who dare to question the official narrative. Spearheaded by the Biden-Harris administration in the U.S. and the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) in the UK, these revelations highlight a disturbing global effort to suppress free speech and control the flow of information. 

The new files, uncovered through America First Legal’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, show how the U.S. and UK governments, in partnership with powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and international bodies like NATO and the G7, have formed a global alliance to label and criminalize dissent. This global coordination is not just theoretical but has already manifested through Big Tech censorship, legal frameworks like the UK Online Safety Act 2023, and government pressure on social media platforms to deplatform individuals who challenge dominant narratives, especially those relating to health policies and vaccines.

These revelations should alarm everyone who values free speech and civil liberties, as they outline a sophisticated and systematic effort to deplatform and silence dissent worldwide. From the rise of AI-driven censorship systems to the targeting of specific individuals like the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” this global crackdown represents an unprecedented threat to open discourse.

This breaking story was first brought to our attention through Reclaim the Net’s report Behind Closed Doors: The UK and US Plot Global Speech Crackdown, published on Sept 13th, 2024.  

As Reclaim the Net’s report highlights, the UK and US, along with 20+ powerful nations, have orchestrated a global effort to suppress dissent under the guise of combating disinformation.

The fallout from this collusion is already being felt across the world, as individuals are deplatformed, censored, and even criminalized for speaking out against prevailing narratives, particularly in health and public policy.

In this article, we delve deeper into these mechanisms, uncovering the legal frameworks and government actions that are quietly being deployed to criminalize dissent worldwide, as the global war on free speech continues to intensify.

Summary: Key Takeaways

  • Global Government Collusion: Over 20 countries, including the US, UK, and international entities like NATO and the G7, have coordinated efforts to suppress speech deemed undesirable, using disinformation frameworks to justify censorship across borders. These revelations highlight the role of governments in shaping a global censorship regime through direct coordination and the use of foreign influence.[^1]
  • The Rise of CCDH: Backed by significant financial and institutional support, the CCDH has become a key player in the global censorship infrastructure, partnering with governments, NGOs, and Big Tech companies to silence dissent—especially regarding health policies, vaccines, and civil liberties. Their efforts have contributed to deplatforming those who challenge the official narrative. 

  • Foreign Collusion and AI-Driven Censorship: The recently exposed America First Legal documents show evidence of foreign collaboration between the US and UK governments in crafting legal and technological tools—such as AI-driven censorship systems—to automatically flag and suppress content in real time. These automated systems can identify and silence dissenting opinions without human oversight, shrinking the space for free speech globally. [^2]

  • The Atlantic Council and CIA Involvement: The CCDH board includes key figures from intelligence agencies, including seven former CIA officials. The Atlantic Council, a NATO-linked organization, is deeply involved in this censorship operation, plays a significant role in the global censorship network, advising governments and Big Tech on how to suppress speech that challenges dominant narratives.  [^3]
  • Legal and Political Ramifications: Through non-elected bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC), United Nations (UN), and the World Health Organization (WHO), governments are enacting draconian laws that could criminalize free speech worldwide. Legislation like the UK Online Safety Act and the Digital Services Act in the EU create a framework that threatens global civil liberties under the guise of public safety and combating “disinformation.” [^4]

    EMERGENCY LIVESTREAM

Mark Your Calendars:

Monday, September 16th, 12 PM EasternExclusively on Unite.live – Link to Watch and Bookmark

Join us live and get informed, empowered, and ready to stand up for free speech before it’s too late.

This is your chance to hear from the world’s leading voices on freedom, censorship, and civil rights—don’t miss it

Global Government Collusion: A Coordinated Effort to Silence Dissent

Documents obtained by America First Legal reveal the Biden-Harris administration’s coordination with the UK’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) in developing and implementing censorship strategies that target disfavored speech. This collaboration, which took place during high-level meetings in 2021, laid the groundwork for building a government-wide hub for censorship efforts in the U.S. and abroad.

In these meetings, representatives from U.S. government agencies—including the White House, CIA, FBI, Treasury, State Department, USAID, HHS, Global Media, State Department, Department of Defense, as well as high-ranking officers in the Army, Navy, and Air Force—received training from the UK on how to suppress speech labeled as “disinformation” through Big Tech platforms. The goal was to craft a global framework for censorship, leveraging international bodies like the G7, NATO, and United Nations to push these agendas across borders.

Damian Collins, CCDH, and the Revolving Door Between Government and NGOs

At the heart of this plot is the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), an NGO that has positioned itself as a watchdog against online hate and disinformation. But a closer look reveals that the CCDH is not the grassroots organization it claims to be.

Thanks to new disclosures through legal filings (Case 1:22-cv-00978-APM) and investigative reports from outlets like Reclaim the Net, we now know that the CCDH is part of a vast, coordinated effort to silence dissent across the globe.[^5] With funding from governments, foundations, and private donors, the CCDH is working with Big Tech companies and government bodies to deplatform and censor those who dare to challenge the dominant narrative, especially in relation to health policies, vaccines, and government mandates. 

The UK Online Safety Act 2023, spearheaded by key CCDH figures like Damian Collins, MP, represents the next phase of this effort, allowing governments to criminalize “lawful but harmful” speech—vague terminology that enables the suppression of dissent under the guise of public safety.[^6]

Damian Collins, MP, a key figure in the UK Parliament and former chair of the Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, has played a pivotal role in the rise of the CCDH. His influence stretches from the halls of government to his leadership role at CCDH, where he has pushed for stricter regulations on online speech.[^7] Collins’ direct involvement with both the UK government and CCDH has raised concerns about conflicts of interest, particularly as he seeks to impose draconian speech controls under the guise of protecting the public from disinformation.

In 2021, Collins chaired the UK Parliament Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, which aimed to combat harmful content online but was criticized for its vague and overreaching proposals that threatened free speech.[^8] After a brief stint in the UK government, Collins returned to CCDH, an organization he had previously led. Despite his obvious ties to the UK government, Collins has downplayed the connections, even as CCDH continues to receive indirect funding through government-linked grants.[^9]

CCDH’s connections run deep. Not only is Collins involved, but Simon Clark, chairman of CCDH’s UK and US boards, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a NATO-linked organization.[^10] The Atlantic Council, exposed in the Twitter Files by journalist Matt Taibbi, plays a central role in the global censorship industry, advising governments and Big Tech companies on how to monitor and suppress speech online.[^11] The Atlantic Council’s close ties to the US Department of Defense and other governmental entities further highlight the intricate web of collusion between private and public sectors in controlling the narrative.

The Biden Administration’s Playbook: How the CCDH Informed US Policy

The influence of the CCDH extends far beyond the UK. In the US, the Biden Administration has used the CCDH’s playbook to justify its own crackdown on free speech. The infamous “Disinformation Dozen” report, published by CCDH in 2021, claimed that twelve individuals were responsible for 65% of anti-vaccine content on social media.[^12] This report, despite its flaws and wildly exaggerated statistics, was seized upon by the Biden Administration as justification for pushing Big Tech companies to censor truthful vaccine-critical content.[^13]

President Joe Biden himself referenced the Disinformation Dozen in a public statement, accusing social media platforms like Facebook of “killing people” by allowing these individuals to spread misinformation.[^14] This marked a turning point in the administration’s war on dissent, as it began to actively pressure tech companies to deplatform individuals who questioned the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines and other pandemic-related policies.[^15]

In a set of extraordinary emails obtained by America First Legal via FOIA requests,  the CCDH (an unregistered foreign agent) was found offering White House and State department officials help in pressuring Big Tech platforms to censor content it deemed ‘disturbing,’ effectively using the highest office of the country to launder and execute an agenda diametrically opposed to the civil rights of American citizens. 

The Criminalization of Speech: The UK Online Safety Act and Its Global Impact

The UK Online Safety Act 2023 is perhaps the most dangerous development in this global censorship plot. Ostensibly designed to protect the public from harmful online content, the Act grants the UK government unprecedented power to regulate speech on social media and other platforms. The key to this legislation is its focus on platforms that have significant UK user bases or pose risks to UK users, even if they are based abroad.[^16]

While these platforms are not physically within the UK, the Online Safety Act imposes extraterritorial measures, giving OFCOM, the UK communications regulator, broad authority to enforce compliance. If platforms fail to mitigate what the government considers “illegal” or “harmful” content, they could face severe penalties. More troubling, however, are the provisions for international cooperation in law enforcement, meaning that UK authorities could request the extradition of individuals, including US citizens, if they are deemed to have violated the Act.[^17]

This means that an American citizen could face extradition and criminal prosecution under UK law, even if the speech in question is protected by the First Amendment in the US. The potential for such cross-border enforcement poses a grave threat to free speech, setting a precedent that governments can collaborate to suppress dissent worldwide. For more details, visit the legislation page.[^18]

 

Is “Online Safety” Legislation a Trojan Horse for Totalitarian Control In the US? 

Moreover, the UK’s Online Safety Bill, and the CCDH’s STAR FRAMEWORK: Global Standard for Regulating Social Media Companies, are likely being used to influence legislation in the US. 
 

  1. Indeed, a battery of new bills share similar goals to the UK’s Online Safety Bill in terms of regulating online content, addressing harmful speech, and protecting users—particularly minors—from harmful material. However, while the UK Online Safety Bill has broad-reaching implications for speech, the U.S. versions affect speech indirectly, being outwardly focused on issues such as child safety, platform accountability, and combating disinformation. Nonetheless, like the UK Online Safety Bill which used “safety,” and “child safety,” in particular, to rally political support, these ostensibly noble justifications have a significant dark side, as far as their potential to compromise privacy and their increased integration of governmental policing and surveillance back doors into Big Tech. 

Here are some notable U.S. bills that share similarities with the UK’s Online Safety Bill:

 

1. KIDS Online Safety Act (KOSA)

  •  Objective: Protect minors online by requiring platforms to provide more tools to safeguard their data, allow parental controls, and reduce exposure to harmful content.
  •  Key Provisions: It compels platforms to limit the promotion of content related to suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, and bullying. Platforms would also need to release data to researchers for studies on how their algorithms affect mental health.
  •  Similarities: Like the UK bill, KOSA emphasizes protecting children and enforcing rules that could restrict certain types of harmful speech and content directed at young audiences.

2. The EARN IT Act (Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act)

  • Objective: Combat the online exploitation of children by creating a commission that establishes best practices for online platforms. It would also reform Section 230 to remove liability protection for platforms that host child abuse material.
  • Key Provisions: Platforms would be held accountable if they don’t follow the best practices for child safety. Critics worry it could lead to increased surveillance and censorship on the internet.
  •  Similarities: Both acts target harmful content like child abuse material but risk enabling broad censorship measures under the guise of public safety.

3. Platform Accountability and Transparency Act (PATA)

  •  Objective: Increase transparency and accountability for social media platforms by requiring them to share data with qualified researchers and the government. 
  •  Key Provisions: This bill would force platforms to explain their moderation policies and the inner workings of their algorithms, particularly when it comes to moderation decisions involving disinformation and hate speech.
  •  Similarities: Similar to the UK’s focus on oversight and accountability, PATA aims to shed light on how platforms moderate content, though it focuses more on research and transparency than direct regulation of speech.

4. SAFE TECH Act (Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism, and Consumer Harms Act)

  • Objective: Reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to hold platforms accountable for hosting harmful or illegal content.
  • Key Provisions: Platforms would no longer be immune from lawsuits for enabling cyberstalking, targeted harassment, discrimination, or content related to harmful products.
  • Similarities: Like the UK’s Online Safety Bill, SAFE TECH would increase liability for platforms and their role in allowing harmful content to be spread. This could indirectly lead to the platforms becoming more censorious.

5. The Digital Services Oversight and Safety Act

  • Objective: This bill focuses on creating a new federal agency responsible for overseeing online platforms, particularly to address misinformation and harmful content.
  • Key Provisions: The agency would enforce transparency and accountability, potentially requiring online platforms to disclose how they moderate content and handle disinformation.
  • Similarities: The bill echoes the UK’s focus on government oversight and enforcement when dealing with online platforms and harmful content.

6. The Digital Accountability and Transparency to Advance Privacy (DATA Privacy) Act

  •  Objective: While primarily focused on data privacy, this bill would introduce new regulations on platforms to protect personal data and increase transparency in how user information is used.
  •  Similarities: Both the DATA Privacy Act and the UK’s Online Safety Bill emphasize the importance of platform accountability, although this bill focuses more on the privacy aspect than direct speech moderation.

7. Honest Ads Act

  •    Objective: Increase transparency for political advertising on social media platforms to prevent foreign interference and disinformation.
  •    Key Provisions: Platforms would be required to disclose the sponsors of political ads and store records for public viewing.
  •    Similarities: Like the UK bill’s interest in combatting disinformation, this act is primarily aimed at regulating online political content to ensure transparency.

8. Algorithmic Accountability Act

  •    Objective: Requires companies to assess the potential societal harms caused by their algorithms, including how they affect free speech, disinformation, and civil rights.
  •    Similarities: This act shares the UK bill’s focus on platform accountability for how their algorithms affect content moderation and the spread of harmful information.

Common Themes Between U.S. and UK Legislation

  • Protection of Minors: Both the UK and U.S. are increasingly focused on protecting children from harmful content, often citing mental health and online safety as justifications.
  • Platform Accountability: The UK Online Safety Bill and the various U.S. bills often hold platforms liable for the content they host, moving away from blanket immunity for tech companies.
  • Combating Disinformation: Governments in both countries use disinformation as a key reason to push for tighter content controls, especially around sensitive topics like health and elections.
  • Transparency and Oversight: Both legal frameworks emphasize the need for more transparency in how platforms moderate content, the role of algorithms, and how they handle harmful content.

Each of these U.S. bills brings to the forefront the ongoing debate about how to regulate the internet in the name of safety, often mirroring efforts seen in the UK and EU to address the challenges of harmful speech and disinformation. While there are differences in approach, the overarching overt goals are strikingly similar: ‘balancing free speech with safety, accountability, and transparency online’ – but at what cost? And what if any are the hidden agendas? 

NATO, CIA, and the Global Censorship Network

The CCDH’s reach extends far beyond the US and UK. Through its connections to the Atlantic Council and NATO, the organization is part of a global network that seeks to control speech and suppress dissent across borders.[^19] The Atlantic Council, which has received millions of dollars in funding from the US Department of Defense and other governmental entities, plays a central role in advising governments on how to monitor and suppress online speech.[^20]

The Atlantic Council’s board also includes seven former CIA officials, further highlighting the deep connections between the organization and intelligence agencies.[^21] These individuals, who have experience in propaganda and psychological operations, are now using their expertise to silence voices that challenge the dominant narrative. This raises serious concerns about the role of intelligence agencies in shaping public discourse and suppressing dissent.[^22]

The involvement of non-democratically elected bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) only adds to the gravity of the situation.[^23] Both organizations are pushing for international treaties and regulations that would further criminalize speech under the guise of maintaining public safety. The WHO’s proposed Pandemic Treaty, for instance, would give it the authority to control the narrative during future pandemics, potentially criminalizing speech that questions government responses or promotes alternative health solutions.[^24]

The Disinformation Dozen: A Case Study in Modern Censorship

Perhaps the most telling example of this global censorship plot is the CCDH’s targeting of the Disinformation Dozen—a group of twelve individuals who the organization claimed were responsible for the majority of anti-vaccine content online.[^25] Despite the fact that the report was riddled with errors and exaggerated statistics, it was seized upon by governments and Big Tech companies alike as justification for deplatforming and censoring these individuals.[^26]

The Disinformation Dozen includes doctors, scientists, and health advocates who have raised legitimate concerns about the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines and government pandemic policies.[^27] These individuals have been deplatformed, defamed, and in some cases, even threatened with legal action for daring to challenge the official narrative.[^28]

This case is emblematic of the broader trend towards the criminalization of dissent. By labeling these individuals as “disinformation spreaders,” the CCDH and its allies have sought to silence them and remove them from the public square. But the targeting of the Disinformation Dozen is just the beginning. As governments and NGOs continue to push for more draconian speech laws, it is clear that all citizens are at risk of having their rights curtailed.[^29]

Censorship of Vaccine Injuries: A Threat to Informed Consent

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of this global censorship campaign is its targeting of true stories about vaccine injuries and deaths. The TwitterFiles reveal that the “Virality Project,” a collaboration between Stanford Internet Observatory, NYU, University of Washington, and the Atlantic Council’s DFR Labs, explicitly recommended that social media platforms take action against “stories of true vaccine side effects” and “true posts which could fuel hesitancy.”

This deliberate suppression of factual information about vaccine risks represents a grave threat to the principle of informed consent, a fundamental human right enshrined in the Nuremberg Code. By censoring real accounts of adverse reactions, governments and tech companies are effectively depriving individuals of their right to make informed medical decisions.

The email above is discussed further in: A ‘Vast Censorship Enterprise’ Funded by Taxpayers Knowingly Suppressed Vaccine Injury Content

The implications of this censorship are far-reaching. Not only does it violate the basic tenets of free speech, but it potentially covers up what could be a massive number of vaccine injuries and deaths. This coordinated effort to control the narrative around vaccine safety raises serious questions about the true extent of adverse reactions and the integrity of public health policies.

Moreover, this censorship campaign undermines the very foundation of scientific inquiry and medical ethics. Open discussion and transparent reporting of all potential risks and benefits are crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring the safety of medical interventions. By suppressing true stories of vaccine injuries, authorities are not only violating individual rights but also potentially endangering public health on a global scale.

As Matt Taibbi pointed out in his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, “This is the Censorship-Industrial Complex at its essence: a bureaucracy willing to sacrifice factual truth in service of broader narrative objectives. It’s the opposite of what a free press does.” 

 

The revelation that true vaccine injury stories were targeted for censorship underscores the urgent need for transparency, accountability, and the protection of free speech in matters of public health. It serves as a stark reminder that the battle against censorship is not just about preserving abstract rights, but about safeguarding lives and ensuring that individuals can make informed decisions about their own health and well-being.

The Ruby Files: AI Algorithms and the Death of Free Speech

Recent discoveries from the Ruby Files reveal yet another disturbing dimension of the global censorship machine. According to the Ruby Media Group, CCDH and other government-linked agencies have deployed sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to monitor, flag, and suppress content in real time across platforms like Twitter and Facebook.[^30] These AI tools are designed to detect “problematic” speech—including dissenting opinions on vaccines, health policies, and other contentious topics—and automatically censor them without human intervention.[^31]

The Ruby Files expose the dire consequences of these AI-driven censorship systems. What was once a manual process of flagging content for review has now been replaced by automated algorithms that can rapidly identify and suppress speech deemed dangerous by governments and organizations like CCDH. The AI tools, which were deployed under the guise of combating disinformation, have turned into a full-scale assault on free speech.[^32]

The consequences are chilling. AI systems, once deployed, lack the nuance and context that human moderators provide, leading to the indiscriminate silencing of voices that should be protected under free speech laws. As more governments and platforms adopt these AI-driven censorship systems, the space for dissent and open discourse will only continue to shrink, threatening the very foundation of democratic societies.[^33]

The Digital Services Act: Europe’s Censorship Superweapon

A highly relevant parallel to the UK’s Online Safety Act is the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a comprehensive legislative framework designed to regulate digital platforms under the guise of addressing disinformation, hate speech, and other harmful content. Much like the UK legislation, the DSA poses significant threats to free speech in Europe by granting governments and regulators unprecedented powers to control online content.[^34]

The DSA allows for heavy fines and penalties for platforms that fail to comply with its regulations, much like the UK’s OFCOM enforcement under the Online Safety Act. What makes the DSA especially concerning is its ability to enforce its regulations across national borders, effectively acting as a “censorship superweapon” that gives the EU sweeping power over online discourse beyond its own member states.[^35]

This raises concerns that the DSA, much like the UK Online Safety Act, could serve as a blueprint for other regions to implement similarly draconian censorship laws. The increasing coordination between global bodies, such as the WHO, EU, and NATO, in promoting these laws suggests that a global censorship regime may be closer than we think.[^36]

Grassroots Resistance: Fighting for Health Freedom and Informed Choice

As governments and powerful organizations attempt to silence dissent and control the narrative around health issues, several grassroots organizations have emerged as powerful advocates for informed choice, parental rights, and medical freedom. These grassroots groups are at the forefront of the battle against censorship and the erosion of bodily autonomy.

Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) is a nonprofit organization that empowers individuals to stand up for their health rights. SHF provides resources, action campaigns, and educational materials to help citizens engage with lawmakers and protect their medical freedom. Their work spans various issues, from vaccine choice to opposing mandatory medical interventions.[^37]

Children’s Health Defense (CHD), founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is another key player in the fight for health freedom. CHD works to end childhood health epidemics by exposing causes, eliminating harmful exposures, holding those responsible accountable, and establishing safeguards to prevent future harm. They have been instrumental in challenging vaccine mandates and exposing conflicts of interest in health agencies.[^38]

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is one of the oldest and most respected consumer-led organizations advocating for informed consent protections in vaccine policies and laws. NVIC provides well-researched, fact-based information to the public about vaccine science, policy, and law. They have been at the forefront of resisting efforts to censor vaccine-related information online.[^39]

The World Council for Health (WCH) is a global coalition of health-focused organizations and civil society groups that seek to broaden public health knowledge and sense-making through science and shared wisdom. Founded in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the WCH challenges the narrative of global health authorities and advocates for individual sovereignty, informed consent, and health freedom. Their work includes producing evidence-based guides on various health topics and fostering international collaboration among health freedom advocates.[^40]

The Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO) Through educational reports, legal assistance, and public policy analysis concerning developing threats to digital liberties, the FFO seek to provide nonpartisan insights and assistance to all peoples taking a stand for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the free exchange of ideas online. 

The National Health Federation (NHF) stands out as the world’s oldest health-freedom organization, established in 1955. As the only health-freedom organization accredited by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, NHF plays a crucial role in advocating for health freedom at the international level. The organization works tirelessly to protect individuals’ rights to choose their preferred path to health, opposing mandatory medication and defending access to natural health options. NHF’s efforts extend to challenging restrictive food and supplement regulations, advocating for clean food and water, and promoting education about the benefits of natural health approaches.[^41]

The Greater Reset is a grassroots movement that offers an alternative to the top-down, centralized visions proposed by organizations like the United Nations and World Economic Forum. The movement organizes events and provides resources aimed at helping people find community and liberty. Their focus on practical steps and knowledge for co-creating a world that respects individual liberty, bodily autonomy, and freedom of choice aligns closely with the broader health freedom movement.

Americans for Health Freedom (AHF) is a grassroots coalition that stands up for the right to health freedom and informed medical choice. AHF works tirelessly to protect individuals’ rights to access natural health options and defend against government overreach, particularly when it comes to mandated medical interventions. Their advocacy for bodily autonomy and free speech is especially critical in today’s climate, where those who question dominant health narratives face deplatforming, censorship, and even legal action

These organizations, along with many others, form a robust network of resistance against the global censorship regime. They provide crucial platforms for dissenting voices in the medical and scientific communities, offer legal support to those facing censorship or discrimination, and educate the public about their rights. If you represent a grassroots organization, and would like to be added to this list, or to participate in a coalition, please contact us at info@greenmedinfo.com.

Conclusion: The Battle for Free Speech and Health Freedom

The revelations from America First Legal paint a deeply troubling picture of the future of free speech. The Biden-Harris administration, in close coordination with the UK’s Counter Disinformation Unit, CCDH, and international bodies like NATO and the G7, is actively working to criminalize dissent and silence voices that challenge the dominant narrative. The rise of AI-driven censorship systems, the UK Online Safety Act, and other legal frameworks represent a global assault on civil liberties

However, hope remains. Organizations like Stand for Health Freedom, Children’s Health Defense, Americans for Health Freedom, and the World Council for Health are leading the charge to push back against these draconian measures. By supporting these groups and staying informed, we can fight to preserve our fundamental rights to free speech, informed consent, and open discourse.

Don’t forget to join us for the Emergency Livestream on Monday, September 16th at 12 PM Eastern on Unite.live. This critical event will feature Dr. Ben Tapper, Ty and Charlene Bollinger, Dr. Joel Bohemier, and Sayer Ji, who will provide deeper insights into the global plot to silence free speech and offer actionable steps to protect your rights. This is your opportunity to get informed, empowered, and ready to stand up for free speech before it’s too late.

The fight for free speech and health freedom is not just a battle of ideas—it’s a struggle for the very essence of human liberty. As we face this global threat to our fundamental rights, remember that every voice matters, every action counts, and together, we can preserve the freedoms that form the bedrock of a just and open society

Mark Your Calendars:

Monday, September 16th, 12 PM EasternExclusively on Unite.live – Link to Watch and Bookmark

Join us live and get informed, empowered, and ready to stand up for free speech before it’s too late.

This is your chance to hear from the world’s leading voices on freedom, censorship, and civil rights—don’t miss it