Australia Enforces Age ID Checks for Search Engine Users
December 29, 2025
Australia’s bid for digital safety inches closer to a license-to-browse internet.
Australia’s bid for digital safety inches closer to a license-to-browse internet.
The proposal reframes the internet not as an open forum, but as a registry of verified voices.
Virginia’s push to police teen screen time edges the internet closer to an era where every click comes with an ID check.
The collapse of the case marks a sharp rebuke of local authorities’ attempt to criminalize political satire in small-town Texas.
Sarah Rogers’ comments draw a new line in the sand between America’s First Amendment and Europe’s tightening grip on online speech.
Barrett’s comments cast the First Amendment as a safeguard against the moral fragility she sees in modern democracies.
By design or by speed, the legislation trims civil liberties into administrative details.
The court’s ruling pauses Texas’s attempt to turn app stores into gatekeepers of digital speech.
The unprecedented sanctions mark a turning point in how the US confronts foreign influence over its digital speech.
Victoria’s push to unmask online users marks a turning point where the rhetoric of safety begins to eclipse the right to speak without fear.
The bill hands the state unprecedented power to decide when words become weapons.
A meme shared from his living room turned a retired cop’s Facebook feed into a courtroom fight over free speech and government overreach.
Repealing Section 230 wouldn’t tame Big Tech; it would hand the keys of online speech to the few companies wealthy enough to survive the lawsuits.
US companies say the UK’s Online Safety Act forces platforms to police lawful speech under the guise of protecting users.
Lawmakers move to reclaim digital sovereignty as Washington confronts the global reach of Europe’s speech controls.
A push to regulate algorithms and online speech shows Ireland’s growing willingness to trade digital freedom for centralized control of information.
Schmitt’s move frames free expression as a matter of national sovereignty, challenging the reach of foreign governments into America’s online discourse.
A federal court’s rebuke of Louisiana’s digital ID law shows how efforts to “protect children online” can collide with the very freedoms they claim to defend.
Washington wanted an alliance on AI; London delivered a lecture on acceptable conversation.
Rokita’s lawsuit turns a technical impossibility into a moral crusade, treating internet privacy as collateral.
The real question is: “Who gets to define hate when the state writes the rules?”
Lawmakers promised to protect free speech by regulating nearly every way it can occur online.
After the Bondi Beach attack, Canberra’s push for tighter online controls is colliding with growing legal resistance over who decides what newsworthy content and Australians are allowed to watch.
The fight over Bill C-9 concerns “hate speech” and the struggle over who defines the boundaries of faith.
Australia’s bid for digital safety inches closer to a license-to-browse internet.
The proposal reframes the internet not as an open forum, but as a registry of verified voices.
Virginia’s push to police teen screen time edges the internet closer to an era where every click comes with an ID check.
The collapse of the case marks a sharp rebuke of local authorities’ attempt to criminalize political satire in small-town Texas.
Sarah Rogers’ comments draw a new line in the sand between America’s First Amendment and Europe’s tightening grip on online speech.
Barrett’s comments cast the First Amendment as a safeguard against the moral fragility she sees in modern democracies.
By design or by speed, the legislation trims civil liberties into administrative details.
The court’s ruling pauses Texas’s attempt to turn app stores into gatekeepers of digital speech.
The unprecedented sanctions mark a turning point in how the US confronts foreign influence over its digital speech.
Victoria’s push to unmask online users marks a turning point where the rhetoric of safety begins to eclipse the right to speak without fear.
The bill hands the state unprecedented power to decide when words become weapons.
A meme shared from his living room turned a retired cop’s Facebook feed into a courtroom fight over free speech and government overreach.
Repealing Section 230 wouldn’t tame Big Tech; it would hand the keys of online speech to the few companies wealthy enough to survive the lawsuits.
US companies say the UK’s Online Safety Act forces platforms to police lawful speech under the guise of protecting users.
Lawmakers move to reclaim digital sovereignty as Washington confronts the global reach of Europe’s speech controls.
A push to regulate algorithms and online speech shows Ireland’s growing willingness to trade digital freedom for centralized control of information.
Schmitt’s move frames free expression as a matter of national sovereignty, challenging the reach of foreign governments into America’s online discourse.
A federal court’s rebuke of Louisiana’s digital ID law shows how efforts to “protect children online” can collide with the very freedoms they claim to defend.
Washington wanted an alliance on AI; London delivered a lecture on acceptable conversation.
Rokita’s lawsuit turns a technical impossibility into a moral crusade, treating internet privacy as collateral.
The real question is: “Who gets to define hate when the state writes the rules?”
Lawmakers promised to protect free speech by regulating nearly every way it can occur online.
After the Bondi Beach attack, Canberra’s push for tighter online controls is colliding with growing legal resistance over who decides what newsworthy content and Australians are allowed to watch.
The fight over Bill C-9 concerns “hate speech” and the struggle over who defines the boundaries of faith.