Sandra Finley

Jan 212025
 

The pardon, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2014, addresses “any offenses” Fauci committed during this period, including in his former capacities as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, member of the White House COVID-19 Response Team and chief medical adviser to Biden.

anthony fauci and gavel and question mark

In the final minutes of his administration, former President Joe Biden preemptively pardoned Dr. Anthony Fauci, in what The New York Times called “an extraordinary effort by an outgoing president to derail political prosecutions by an incoming president.”

The pardon, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2014, addresses “any offenses” Fauci committed during this period, including in his former capacities as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, member of the White House COVID-19 Response Team and chief medical adviser to Biden.

 

Fauci told The Hill he will accept the pardon.

“Issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense,” Biden said, according to ABC News. “Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country.”

Biden said the pardon was a response to “exceptional circumstances” within which public servants like Fauci “have been subjected to ongoing threats and intimidation for faithfully discharging their duties.”

“Even when individuals have done nothing wrong — and in fact have done the right thing — and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances,” Biden said, according to the Times.

Preemptive pardons aren’t unprecedented, but they’re rare, said Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland. Holland questioned the need for a preemptive pardon, given that there hasn’t been a criminal investigation or any criminal conviction.

 

Trump responds to ‘disgraceful’ pardons

In a response shared via text message with ABC News, President Donald Trump called Biden’s pardons, which also included several members of his family, “disgraceful.”

According to Reuters, Trump said the pardons make the recipients “look very guilty.” Trump’s deputy chief of staff for communications and personnel said the pardons “will go down as the greatest attack on America’s justice system in history.”

Naomi Wolf, Ph.D., journalist and CEO of Daily Clout called the Fauci pardon “shocking and entirely predictable.” She said it constitutes “evidence of Biden’s awareness of Fauci’s criminal behavior and actions.”

Wolf, author of “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity,” said the pardon also “raises serious questions about Biden’s complicity in many medical murders.”

Several of Fauci’s alleged medical crimes were listed in a statement by the Independent Medical Alliance — formerly the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. These include coercing millions of people into getting the COVID-19 vaccines and discouraging the use of alternative treatments such as ivermectin, and collaborating with social media platforms to censor posts questioning the vaccines.

Mark Zuckerburg over fb and ig logos Notice of being unpublished fb and ig

Tell Mark Zuckerberg 
to Restore Our 
Facebook Account!
Sign the Petition

“The entire world is asking why Anthony Fauci needed a pardon if he’s supposedly done nothing wrong,” Independent Medical Alliance spokesperson Lynne Kristensen said in the statement. “In fact, Fauci led the ivory-tower medical establishment in a shameful COVID response that served as a wake-up call to front-line doctors across the globe.”

Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., a frequent critic of gain-of-function research, said Fauci’s pardon was backdated to 2014 because that year “is the start date of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant that funded the reckless research in Wuhan, China, that caused COVID.”

“Fauci violated federal policies on gain-of-function research and enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research, committed conspiracy to defraud and perjury, used federal funds to commit crimes and caused a pandemic that killed 20 million and cost $25 trillion,” Ebright told The Defender. “The pardon is a travesty.”

Fauci told ABC News he was grateful for Biden’s pardon.

“I really truly appreciate the action President Biden has taken today on my behalf,” Fauci said. “Let me be perfectly clear … I have committed no crime, you know that, and there are no possible grounds for any allegation or threat of criminal investigation or prosecution of me.”

But for Jeffrey Tucker, director of the Brownstone Institute, “The pardoning of Fauci might help him personally now and he appears grateful. But it also cements in the public mind the worst-possible perception of his work and legacy.”

Ebright cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent. “The law of the land is absolutely clear. The Supreme Court ruled in Burdick v. United States, in 1915, that acceptance of a pardon implies an acknowledgment of guilt.”

Jan 212025
 

Good for the U.S.  – – Can we apply enough pressure to get Canada out of it, too?

 

Citing the WHO’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic,” President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the organization. The process won’t be complete until January 2026.

who logo and word "withdraw"

Listen to this article

00:00/10:58

Within roughly 8 hours of taking his oath of office, President Donald Trump on Monday signed an order to withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO).

Trump’s executive order cited numerous reasons for pulling the U.S. out of the WHO, including:

“The organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic … and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”

The WHO also “continues to demand unfairly onerous payments” from the U.S., the order stated. “China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.”

Commenting on the news, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland told The Defender:

“I applaud President Trump’s decision to leave the World Health Organization. It hasn’t been transparent, based on science, or serving the U.S. interest in public health.

“The World Health Organization is not a reformable institution. Its proposed Pandemic Treaty is a nightmare and would lead to more gain-of-function research and pandemics.”

Holland said she hopes the move “will lead to a global reconsideration of how to handle public health and international crises.”

Public health physician and biotech consultant Dr. David Bell told The Defender, “WHO needs a radical shake-up.”

Bell, a former medical officer and scientist at the WHO, said the WHO needs a “massive downsizing” and “to return to basic public health rather than the profit-driven false agenda of rising pandemic risk that WHO has embarked on.”

For instance, Bell criticized recent WHO efforts to push the mpox vaccine in Africa, diverting resources from addressing far more deadly health issues, such as malaria, malnutrition, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.

“If WHO does not respond by a total reversal of direction and values,” Bell said, “then we should hope that this withdrawal goes forward and others join.”

Trump’s move came as no surprise. As early as December 2023, his transition team was pushing for an exit from the WHO on day one of the new administration.

U.S. law requires a one-year notice and the payment of any outstanding fees when the country withdraws from the WHO. That means the final full withdrawal will take effect in early 2026.

Monday’s executive order came as a follow-up to Trump’s efforts during his first presidential term to withdraw from the WHO.

Mark Zuckerburg over fb and ig logos Notice of being unpublished fb and ig

Tell Mark Zuckerberg 
to Restore Our 
Facebook Account!
Sign the Petition

In July 2020, Trump moved to officially withdraw the U.S. from the WHO by submitting a notice of withdrawal to the United Nations’ (U.N.) secretary-general.

The withdrawal would have taken effect July 6, 2021. However, Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, who on Jan. 20, 2021, retracted Trump’s withdrawal notification letter.

Monday’s executive order revoked Biden’s letter. It also said the secretary of state would immediately inform the U.N.’s secretary-general — again — of the U.S. intention to withdraw.

The order also revoked another order Biden issued in January 2021 that called for a U.S. federal response to COVID-19 that included “engaging with and strengthening the World Health Organization.”

U.S. government personnel or contractors working “in any capacity” with the WHO will be recalled and reassigned, the order stated.

Investigative journalist Whitney Webb cautioned against reading too much into Trump’s withdrawal from the WHO.

She wrote in an X post:

“To be fair, Trump also left the WHO in mid-2020 and then just redirected what was once WHO funding to the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine alliance. While leaving the WHO is positive, it is not the slam dunk some are advertising, especially considering Gates’ recent comments on Trump’s enthusiasm for his ‘vaccine innovation’ proposals.”

 

U.S. is WHO’s biggest funder

The U.S. is by far the WHO’s largest financial backer, Reuters reported, providing roughly 18% of the organization’s overall budget.

The WHO’s most recent budget, for 2024-2025, was $6.8 billion.

The next-largest state donor — when combining mandatory fees and voluntary contributions — is Germany, which provides around 3%, Reuters said.

Germany’s health minister today said that leaders in Berlin will try to talk Trump out of his decision.

When asked about Trump’s order, Guo Jiakun — a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry — said today at a regular press briefing that the WHO’s role in global health governance should be strengthened, not weakened.

“China will continue to support the WHO in fulfilling its responsibilities, and deepen international public health cooperation,” Jiakun said.

The WHO said in a statement that it regrets Trump’s decision. “We hope the United States will reconsider.”

Magnifying glass and an envelope

Do you have a news tip?We want to hear from you!

Contact Us

WHO pandemic treaty would have ‘no binding force’ in U.S.

Although the full withdrawal by the U.S. from the WHO won’t take effect until January 2026, Monday’s executive order said U.S. negotiations on a WHO-led pandemic treaty or amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) will cease immediately.

Independent journalist James Roguski pointed out on Substack that there aren’t any negotiations underway.

Negotiations stopped last May when negotiators failed to submit final texts for the two documents before the May 24 deadline.

Instead, member states on June 1, 2024, agreed to a smaller package of amendments.

Monday’s order closes the door to the possibility that the U.S. might resume negotiations during the next year — or implement the few IHR amendments passed last June. Trump’s order stated:

“While withdrawal is in progress, the Secretary of State will cease negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the amendments to the International Health Regulations, and actions taken to effectuate such agreement and amendments will have no binding force on the United States.”

Roguski said Trump should go further by issuing a letter that revokes the amendments the WHO adopted on June 1, 2024, and clarifies that the U.S. “is also exiting the International Health Regulations.”

In May 2024, 22 state attorneys general said in a letter that they would refuse to comply with a WHO-led pandemic treaty or IHR amendments. They cited concerns about national sovereignty and civil liberties.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender she was “delighted” by Trump’s announcement.

Terhorst said that she and other international lawyers who worked to stop the WHO’s “power grab” discovered that the U.S. delegation had been the “primary force behind the power grab.”

This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.

The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.

Please Donate Today

Trump also signs order to end gov’t censorship

Other orders signed Monday include one that restores free speech and ends federal censorship of U.S. citizens.

“Over the last 4 years,” the order said, “the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.”

It continued:

“Under the guise of combatting ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.

“Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

That can’t happen anymore, the order said.

Citing the First Amendment, the order outlined what will now be the policy of the federal government when it comes to free speech. The government’s job is to:

(a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech;

(b) ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen;

(c) ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; and

(d) identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.

No federal agency, department or worker can use government resources for an activity that contradicts that job, the order said.

The order also called on state attorneys general to investigate whether the Biden administration engaged in censorship of Americans’ views. It directed them to write a report about its findings that includes “recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken based on the findings.”

It is unclear how the order may affect ongoing litigation related to federal censorship.

That’s because the order’s final clause states that the order is not intended to — and does not — “create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”

On Jan. 6, CHD petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.

“The record in CHD v. Meta,” Holland said, “clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”

CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg told The Defender she is “certainly pleased” to see the new administration take quick action to address the “rampant censorship by the government over the past four years and to investigate governmental wrongdoing.”

“However,” Rosenberg said, “CHD’s censorship cases will continue. We have provided the courts with substantial evidence of wrongdoing by the government and by social media companies against CHD.”

“The executive order — while a significant positive step — does not remedy the harms done to CHD,” she added.

Jan 202025
 

I recommend:

 

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/the-peoples-study/vaccines-are-not-safe–vt/

 

. . .    rhetoric surrounding vaccine injuries and how the mainstream narrative is one of denial when it comes to adverse events. Jennifer also shares how the education system influenced her view on immunizations and reveals the life experience which changed that perspective and initiated her involvement in the medical freedom movement.

Jan 202025
 

IF WE ARE WRONG,    have a dialogue and show us where we err.

I think it is more beneficial to hear what these “Davos” (WHO)  people are saying, than to simply denounce them.

There are SO MANY compelling stories  (in my mind they are “testimonies”)  – – that never stop coming.   And they are ALL different.

Keep sharing the stories so more people are AWARE of the lies.   Try this one,  or any number of others.   The recent postings are from Vermont.

2023-09-21 Dr Reider “Covid Shots Are Killing My Family”. The People’s study. CHD

 

Is it my imagination?    I thought that these Davos guys sounded a little shaky,  their body language wasn’t top-of-their-game??

I sure hope that their vaccine agenda is unravelling, and it’s not my imagination.

 

/Sandra

 

 

 

DAVOS WATCH: World Economic Forum Annual Meetings | Jan. 20

Jan 202025
 

Young constitutional lawyer, Sarah Miller, has set out 3 simple grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.   They are below, in the TDF  posting.  Some of you will know,  I am a fan of Sarah Miller’s.

BACKGROUND:

Good interview of Sarah.

https://www.rebelnews.com/appeal_could_see_pastor_artur_pawlowski_exonerated_on_all_covid_19_charges?utm_campaign=buzz_05_02_24&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel

What happened?   . . .

2022-07-22 Unanimous ruling, Alberta Court of Appeal re Artur Pawlowski. Government actions unconstitutional. (covid-related)

Unanimous ruling by Alberta’s Court of Appeal is a total legal, moral and constitutional victory for Artur Pawlowski and his brother Dawid.

In short, Alberta’s top judges ruled that:

            • the court order that was used to arrest and jail Pawlowski was flawed and therefore illegal;
            • all of the punishments that flowed from that — such as being fined and jailed — were without basis. Pawlowski’s fines will be returned to him;

The additional bizarre, authoritarian penalties — banning him from going on speaking tours; requiring him to read a statement denouncing himself any time he criticized the government — were revoked, and deemed unconstitutional.

= = = =  = = = = =  = = =

IMPORTANT PLAYER,  YOUNG LAWYER SARAH MILLER    . . .    more (see the posting)

And now, 2025-01-20,   an Appeal has been launched to the Supreme Court of Canada, also by Sarah Miller.   TDF  report.

Please scroll down.  There’s more than the Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada  (Sarah Miller) in today’s report from TDF.

 

NEWS RELEASE

TDF lawyers ask Supreme Court to hear Pastor Pawlowski’s appeal

With TDF’s help, Pastor Artur Pawlowski is seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada following his criminal convictions.

CALGARY: During the Coutts Border Blockade in 2022, Pastor Pawlowski gave a speech to a crowd inside a pub, expressing support for the protesters. He was subsequently arrested, charged with multiple criminal offences and ultimately spent 52 days in jail before being released pending trial.

At trial, counsel for Pastor Pawlowski, Sarah Miller, advanced three main defences. She argued:

  1. Pastor Pawlowski did not incite mischief because he never told the protesters to continue blockading the highway;
  2. Regardless of the interpretation of Mr. Pawlowski’s speech, section 2(b) of the Charter protects the right to freedom of expression, and thus, his speech was protected; and,
  3. Pastor Pawlowski should be able to rely on section 430(7) of the Criminal Code, which provides that a person does not commit mischief if they attend a place for the sole purpose of obtaining or communicating information.

Although Pastor Pawlowski never physically participated in the blockade, the trial judge convicted Pastor Pawlowski of inciting mischief and breaching his release order. He was sentenced to 60 days incarceration. However, due to the amount of time Mr. Pawlowski spent in custody prior to his trial, he did not have to return to custody.

The Democracy Fund and lawyer Sarah Miller appealed this decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal, but the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

TDF and Ms. Miller are now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Sarah Miller, commenting on the leave to appeal, said, “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court of Canada will grant Mr. Pawlowski leave to appeal his convictions. In our opinion, this is a matter of public interest which touches on constitutional principles and the importance of protest, strikes, and the ability of citizens to disagree with their government. It is important that the highest Court in Canada considers if or when an individual can be charged for giving a speech at a protest. Those involved in expressing discontent need to know the scope of the state’s authority to render the person liable for criminal charges. While Mr. Pawlowski spoke at a COVID-19 protest, which was and continues to be a highly contentious issue among Canadians, the issues in this case expand to all Canadians who wish to express themselves in democratic discourse and are of utmost importance. We look forward to receiving the Supreme Court’s decision on the leave application.”

TDF Litigation Director, Mark Joseph, said: “TDF has been steadfast in our support of Pastor Pawlowski, and we’re hopeful that our client will be vindicated. This case engages issues of free speech and peaceful protests: it’s of general import to Canadian democracy, and we’re hopeful that the Supreme Court takes it up.”

The legal costs of defending Pastor Pawlowski are substantial but The Democracy Fund is committed to pursuing this matter to the highest Court in Canada. You can help Pastor Pawlowski by making a tax-deductible donation to support TDF.

You Make a Difference – Support Change Today

Donations from our community help us fight for the constitutional rights of Canadians, and make this vital work possible.

If you’d like to contribute to this cause, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today.

DONATE NOW
Sentencing outcomes for two of the “Coutts Three” announced

The Court of King’s Bench in Lethbridge has delivered its sentencing for two of the “Coutts Three.” The sentences follow their convictions for mischief over $5,000 last April, arising from their involvement in the 2022 Coutts Border Protest.

Continue reading

 

 

Multiple Amish clients lose Quarantine Act ticket reopening, resulting in a potential $28K penalty

While lawyers from The Democracy Fund (TDF) have successfully reopened Quarantine Act tickets for many Amish clients, a court has recently denied the reopening applications for two married couples. Each couple faces fines of approximately $7,000 per ticket, totalling nearly $28,000 in COVID-related penalties.

Members of the Amish community in Grey County, Ontario, were convicted in absentia of various offences during the COVID-19 lockdowns. TDF is representing approximately 27 members of the community who are collectively facing $300,000 for allegedly failing to complete the ArriveCan app and other related violations.

TDF lawyers are now reviewing the court’s decision to determine whether there are grounds for appeal.

Continue reading

 

TDF and Williamson Law announce trucker ticket victory

The outcome in these cases represents an outstanding victory for civil liberty clients of The Democracy Fund. The Government attempted to bring charges against individuals and companies who allegedly had equipment parked on and near the highway during the Coutts Freedom Convoy protest.

In the face of a robust and steadfast defence, we were successful in having close to 50 charges withdrawn immediately. When the Crown sought to prosecute the remaining 11 truckers, we sought subpoenas for parties we believed had relevant knowledge of the underlying events. At that point, the Crown agreed that the remaining charges should be resolved for $1 each.

These cases show that a strong and vigorous defence is the best protection against charges levied by the Government against peaceful protestors.

Continue reading

 

 

 

 

 

The Democracy Fund · PO BOX 61035 Eglinton/Dufferin RO, Toronto, ON M6E5B2, Canada
Jan 202025
 

Sorry – – I can no longer send selected articles from Reclaim the Net.    They have good articles, so I’m not apologetic!  You can scroll thru for what you want.

CANADIAN:

Canadian Court Upholds Ban on Clearview AI’s Unconsented Facial Data Collection in British Columbia

 

2025 AGENDA

World Economic Forum Prioritizes “Disinformation” Over Economic and Global Stability Threats

 

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is gearing up for its Davos meeting, set to take place January 20-24, and the group has now released the Global Risks Report 2025.

The report is based on “insights” from the Global Risks Perception Survey that take into account the opinions of 900 “global leaders” across business, government, academia and civil society, the WEF said.

The report reflects the unrelenting drive still present in many corners of the world and among political elites to push what they consider “disinformation” to the top of this agenda.

And so the WEF paper talks about “armed conflict, environment, and disinformation” as “top threats” this year. And that, as the authors note, from their point of view leaves economic risks as having “less immediate prominence.”

Meanwhile, “mis/disinformation” is ranked higher as a threat and that has happened two years in a row. This reads like another instance of taking an alarmist approach to “disinformation” (which then comes in handy when pushing all sorts of controversial policies, affecting online speech, security, and technology development).

The WEF report elevates “disinformation” to a “persistent threat to societal cohesion and governance by eroding trust” – and even “exacerbating divisions within and between nations” and “complicating” ways to cooperate on ending international crises.

And, when AI is thrown into the mix in its “adverse” form – “disinformation” underpins rising geopolitical tensions.

The way the report frames the issue of disinformation, that seems to be the only thing standing in the way of world peace.

While creating high drama around “disinformation” is one piece of the puzzle, the WEF also looks at long-term threats, such as to the environment. This, according to the document, will be dominant over the next decade, and this is the language the group uses: “(…) led by extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse.”

With the threats presented like this, the “solutions” are also very much in line with the WEF mission: promote more and more globalization, even as many countries might be looking to what the group disapprovingly calls, “turning inward.”

Instead, the WEF wants them to essentially double down on globalization, allegedly as the only way to “prevent a downward spiral of instability.”

One of the goals the WEF promotes – and is also one of the five overall topics of this year’s Davos meeting – is “rebuilding trust.”

Now, if only this group would focus more on explaining how that trust was lost.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

 

You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.


Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.


Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.


Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.

Thank you.

LATEST ON TIKTOK

TikTok Restores Service After US Shutdown Amid Trump Deal

Barely half a day after TikTok went offline across the United States, the widely popular video-sharing platform is beginning to come back online. This swift reversal follows a statement from TikTok announcing its efforts to restore service, facilitated by new assurances from the Trump administration.
“In agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service,” the company confirmed. “We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive.”

TikTok’s abrupt shutdown came as a law targeting its operations in the US was set to take effect. The legislation, passed under President Joe Biden’s administration, required TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a nationwide ban. It also prohibited American companies from offering services essential to the app’s distribution or maintenance. As uncertainty loomed, TikTok ceased functioning late Saturday night and disappeared from the Apple and Google Play app stores.

In a dramatic turn of events, President-elect Donald Trump addressed the issue Sunday morning, promising executive action to delay the ban. He stated his intention to ensure TikTok’s return and suggested the importance of the app being operational for Americans to enjoy his Inauguration Day celebrations.

“Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday,” Trump wrote, adding that his executive order would confirm no legal repercussions for companies that facilitated TikTok’s operations before his intervention.

These reassurances appeared to be sufficient for TikTok and its partners, as users began regaining access to the app shortly after the announcement. While some devices experienced restored functionality, TikTok’s absence from major app stores persisted as of early Sunday afternoon.

Trump also floated an idea for a resolution to the app’s future in the United States, suggesting a joint venture that would grant the US a 50% ownership stake. TikTok has expressed willingness to collaborate, stating it is committed to working with the Trump administration on a long-term solution to ensure the app’s continued presence in the country.

In an NBC interview, Trump confirmed he is considering granting TikTok a 90-day extension to comply with the divestment requirement, a decision he plans to announce imminently. “The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done because it’s appropriate,” Trump remarked. “It’s a very big situation.”

As political wrangling continues, TikTok remains at the center of a contentious debate over free speech, economic interests, and national security.

TARGETING ONLINE SPEECH

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt Urges Israel to Combat Antisemitism Online, Calling for “Apollo Gold Pager” Ingenuity and Warning The Next War Will Be Fought Online

Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), used his appearance in the Knesset to emphasize what he described as the urgent need to combat antisemitism in the digital space, presenting it as a critical front alongside more traditional challenges faced by the Jewish community.

However, his remarks leaned heavily into the idea of targeting online platforms and reshaping how information flows, sparking concerns about potential calls for increased censorship in the name of addressing this issue.

In remarks delivered to the Knesset’s Committee for Immigration, Absorption, and Diaspora Affairs, Greenblatt outlined the rise in antisemitic incidents over the past 15 months and insisted that Israel and Jewish organizations worldwide must prioritize combating this trend online.

“Capturing TikTok might seem less meaningful than holding on to Mount Hermon. Libelous tweets certainly might seem less deadly than missiles from Yemen. But this is urgent because the next war will be decided based on how Israel and its allies perform online as much as offline,” he stated.

Greenblatt framed this digital battleground as essential to shaping perceptions and influencing outcomes globally, arguing that strategies must be reimagined. He called for creativity and innovation but stopped short of specifying what such efforts might entail. “It won’t be solved by the government just throwing money at the problem. It won’t be solved by the IDF spokesperson’s unit issuing updated talking points or suddenly using TikTok,” he said. While he spoke about the importance of “fresh thinking” and experimentation, his focus on online platforms raises questions about whether his approach could lead to demands for further restrictions on speech.

Greenblatt called for creativity in targeting online discourse, comparing it to Israel’s storied military ingenuity. “We need the kind of genius that manufactured Apollo Gold Pagers and infiltrated Hezbollah for over a decade to prepare for this battle. We need the kind of courage that executed Operation Deep Layer inside Syria and destroyed Iranian missile manufacturing capabilities to undertake this mission,” he declared.

The ADL’s role in monitoring and flagging what it defines as harmful online content has long been a point of contention, with many arguing that its initiatives curb free expression. Greenblatt’s comments appeared to lean into this dynamic, asserting that Israel and its allies need to prioritize their digital presence to effectively counter antisemitism. “The next war will be decided based on how Israel and its allies perform online,” he insisted.

Despite these alternative approaches, Greenblatt’s emphasis on the digital sphere stood out, particularly his assertion that governments and organizations must treat online spaces as strategic battlegrounds. While he avoided proposing concrete policies, his rhetoric suggests an inclination toward pressing tech companies and governments to take more aggressive steps in controlling the narrative on social media platforms.

Critics might view this as a potential push for censorship disguised as combating antisemitism, raising broader concerns about the implications for free speech. By framing the online fight as a war of strategic importance, Greenblatt’s remarks echo a growing trend where controlling information becomes as central as addressing physical threats — a shift that warrants careful scrutiny.

NEW RULING

Canadian Court Upholds Ban on Clearview AI’s Unconsented Facial Data Collection in British Columbia

Facial recognition company Clearview AI has suffered a legal setback in Canada, where the Supreme Court of British Columbia decided to throw out the company’s petition aimed at cancelling an Information and Privacy Commissioner’s order.

The order aims to prevent Clearview AI from collecting facial biometric data for biometric comparison in the province without the targeted individuals’ consent.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The controversial company markets itself as “an investigative platform” that helps law enforcement identify suspects, witnesses, and victims.

Privacy advocates critical of Clearview AI’s activities, however, see it as a major component in the burgeoning facial surveillance industry, stressing in particular the need to obtain consent – via opt-ins – before people’s facial biometrics can be collected.

And Clearview AI is said to subjecting billions of people to this, without consent. From there, the implications for privacy, free speech, and even data security are evident.

The British Columbia Commissioner appears to have been thinking along the same lines when issuing the order, that bans Clearview from selling biometric facial arrays taken from non-consenting individuals to its clients.

In addition, the order instructs Clearview to “make best efforts” to stop the practice in place so far, which includes collection, use, and disclosure of personal data – but also delete this type of information already in the company’s possession.

Right now, there is no time limit to how long Clearview can retain the data, which it collects from the internet using an automated “image crawler.”

Clearview moved to try to get the order dismissed as “unreasonable,” arguing that on the one hand, it is unable to tell if an image of a persons face is that of a Canadian, while also claiming that no Canadian law is broken since this biometric information is available online publicly.

The legal battle, however, revealed that images of faces of residents of British Columbia, children included, are among Clearview’s database of more than three billion photos (of Canadians) – while the total figure is over 50 billion.

The court also finds the Commissioner’s order to be very reasonable indeed – including when rejecting “Clearview’s bald assertion” that, in British Columbia, “it simply could not do” what it does in the US state of Illinois, to comply with the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

 

DATA GRAB AGENDA

UK Introduces Digital Driving Licenses and Online Digital ID Privacy Concerns

The United Kingdom is set to launch digital driving licenses this year, marking a significant step toward integrating technology into public services.

Simultaneously, it’s likely no coincidence that the country is preparing to implement stringent online age verification systems under its new censorship law, the Online Safety Act. While these initiatives aim to modernize services and protect users, their convergence raises critical questions about privacy, surveillance, and the future of digital identity in the UK.

Digital Driving Licenses: Convenience or a Gateway to Surveillance?

The Labour government has announced plans to introduce voluntary digital driving licenses, which will be accessible via a government app rather than existing platforms like Google or Apple Wallets. These digital licenses promise convenience, allowing users to present identification for voting, purchasing alcohol, or even boarding domestic flights. Physical licenses will remain available, and the government insists the digital option will not be mandatory. (Yet.)

However, critics argue that these so-called “voluntary” systems often become de facto mandatory over time, as more services require digital verification.

While the government touts advanced security measures such as biometrics and multi-factor authentication, these systems are not immune to breaches or misuse. The concentration of sensitive data in one app heightens risks of hacking and unauthorized access. Moreover, the integration of services such as tax payments and benefits claims could lead to a surveillance ecosystem where citizens are increasingly tracked and monitored.

Privacy advocates have expressed concerns that the normalization of digital IDs could gradually erode personal freedoms. For example, the ability to hide addresses might seem beneficial in certain contexts, but it also highlights the intrusive nature of these systems, which store more information than is typically required for identification. This level of data centralization poses significant risks to individual autonomy and privacy.

Online Age Verification: A Prelude to Widespread Digital ID?

Under Ofcom’s new guidelines, websites hosting adult content must introduce robust age verification systems by July 2025. These measures include intrusive technologies like photo ID verification and facial age estimation to ensure minors cannot access harmful content. While the initiative aims to safeguard children, critics fear it could erode online anonymity and set a precedent for broader surveillance measures.

Age verification systems risk creating a digital footprint for users, linking their identity to specific online activities. The Online Safety Act’s requirements for platforms to assess their accessibility to minors could pave the way for digital IDs becoming a universal requirement for accessing the internet. Such a shift could fundamentally alter how individuals interact online, turning the digital realm into a tightly controlled and monitored space.

Privacy advocates also warn of mission creep—the tendency for systems designed for one purpose to be expanded for others. Age verification tools could easily be repurposed to enforce broader controls, such as tracking users’ online behavior or restricting access to dissenting content. This not only threatens online anonymity but also raises concerns about free expression and the chilling effect of constant surveillance.

The simultaneous rollout of digital driving licenses and online age verification systems suggests a broader push toward integrating digital identity systems into daily life. While the government emphasizes convenience, these initiatives could blur the lines between voluntary and mandatory participation.

For example, the digital driving license app could be expanded to include age verification features for online services, effectively linking users’ offline and online identities. Such integration raises concerns about data privacy and the potential for misuse, particularly if these systems are later tied to other government databases or used for broader surveillance purposes.

Reclaim The Net is funded by the community. Keep us going and get extra benefits by becoming a supporter today. Thank you.
Become a Supporter

 

Thanks for reading,

Reclaim The Net

Jan 132025
 

 

Government House Leader Karina Gould
Government House Leader Karina GouldImage courtesy CBC
Government-funded research projects claimed ties between the Conservative Party and extremist groups, including German Nazis, under a federal initiative created to combat online disinformation, according to Access to Information records.

Blacklock’s Reporter says despite the controversy, Government House Leader Karina Gould, who launched the “Digital Citizen Initiative” in 2019, offered no comment.

One taxpayer-funded project alleged, “Efforts to reclaim Canadian history as a white, middle-class colonial space with firm cultural connections to Britain have jumped from fringe accounts into the mainstream and have been in evidence in the campaign rhetoric of the Canadian People’s Party and Conservative Party.”

Researchers also suggested the “normalization of fringe views” was amplified by right-wing media.

Carleton University received $99,115 for its project titled Triangular Hate: Digital Memory, Disinformation And Transnational Traffic Between Germany, The U.S. And Canada. The research aimed to document supposed links between opposition parties and “National Socialist ideology.”

“Our research has clearly shown us there is a strong interest among far-right and populist groups in Canada to weaponize Canadiana and Canadian history in the service of acquiring adherents and mainstreaming extremist ideas and hate,” researchers wrote.

Examples cited included “hate-promoting symbols such as the Canadian Red Ensign,” the national flag before 1965.

Carleton used its funding to host workshops for teachers, including members of the Ottawa District and Catholic school boards, to guide students in identifying alleged risks posed by protest movements like the 2022 Freedom Convoy.

“It is essential that high school students acquire media literacy and history training to recognize the manipulation of the past,” said a project summary.

The study claimed the Red Ensign was co-opted as an emblem of extremism during the convoy. “During the Trucker Occupation this was fully in evidence,” wrote researchers, asserting that the convoy mirrored patterns seen in extremist movements abroad.

Simon Fraser University received $95,500 for a related project, Understanding Hate Groups’ Narratives And Conspiracy Theories In Traditional And Alternative Social Media. This research also focused on the Freedom Convoy, labeling it as a hate movement despite no charges of hate crimes being brought against any participants.

“The power of right-wing extremists, conspiracy theories, moral panics, and populism to evoke social movements has become glaringly obvious in the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest that occupied the nation’s capital and various border crossings,” the researchers wrote.

Gould, who launched the Digital Citizen Initiative with $19.4 million in funding over four years, had previously said the program was designed “to help Canadians understand online disinformation and its impact on Canadian society.”

However, no parliamentary committee reviewed the projects or spending under the initiative.

Jan 132025
 

 

Staff Sgt. Richard Abbott
Staff Sgt. Richard Abbott Screen grab

An Alberta police officer suspended without pay for speaking at a Freedom Convoy rally has won his case in court, with an Edmonton judge ruling the punishment unjustified.

Justice James Nelson of Alberta’s Court of King’s Bench found the disciplinary action against Staff Sgt. Richard Abbott of the Edmonton Police Service flawed.

“Facts and evidence were garbled in justifying the suspension,” Nelson wrote. He noted that while police officers are held to higher standards limiting their freedom of expression, the specific circumstances of Abbott’s case did not support the penalty.

Abbott, a 26-year veteran with no prior misconduct, was suspended in 2022 after delivering a videotaped speech at a Freedom Convoy rally in Milk River, Alberta.

Then-Police Chief Dale McFee accused Abbott of breaching Police Service Regulations by engaging in political activity that could undermine public confidence in police impartiality.

“Your conduct of engaging in the political activity of the Freedom Convoy is likely to interfere with and adversely influence decisions you are required to make in the performance of your duties,” McFee wrote.

He claimed Abbott’s actions created a conflict of interest and could erode trust in the police’s ability to act impartially, particularly regarding protestors involved in illegal activities.

The Police Service mistakenly alleged Abbott attended and supported the unlawful border blockade at Coutts. Abbott successfully argued that he had only attended a peaceful protest miles away in Milk River, never endorsed illegal activities, and did not use social media to promote the movement.

Abbott expressed opposition to vaccine mandates and voiced support for the peaceful aims of the Freedom Convoy. This distinction proved significant, Nelson ruled, leading the Court to overturn the suspension.

The case highlighted broader concerns about law enforcement personnel sympathizing with the Freedom Convoy. Federal records noted that some RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces members had shown support for the movement.

An April 2022 RCMP memo acknowledged “former and current members participating in the protest,” though it did not specify numbers.

Similarly, Department of National Defence memos identified at least eight known Convoy sympathizers at military bases across the country.

While acknowledging the right of military members to personal opinions, the Defence Department characterized public support for the Convoy as a breach of its Code of Service Discipline, citing regulations on public commentary.

Jan 112025
 

 

 

At Reclaim The Net, we don’t rely on invasive advertising that compromises our values. Instead, we’re powered by those who believe in a freer internet — people like you. If you stand for free speech, a world beyond cancel culture, and the fight to reclaim privacy and civil liberties, join us. Become a supporter today. Gain exclusive access to extra content, tutorials, and guides.
SUPPORTERS

 

 

Meta Doesn’t Understand Free Speech

 

Meta’s latest promise to “restore free expression” sounds bold, but the reality is far more complicated.

Despite loosening some restrictions, Meta still tightly controls what users can say—banning everything from certain political discussions to sarcastic jokes and even dark humor aimed at public figures.

Strict policies against “dehumanizing language” and “allegations of serious immorality” blur the line between protecting users and silencing important conversations.

Today, we analyze the cracks in Meta’s policies – and there are a lot.

Become a supporter here.

Get the full breakdown here.

 

Become a Supporter

 

LAMENTS CENSORSHIP REDUCTION

 

 

Biden Slams Meta’s Move to Drop Controversial “Fact-Checkers”

 

President Joe Biden harshly criticized Meta’s decision to eliminate its professional fact-checking program in favor of user-driven community notes, labeling the move as “really shameful.” His comments, delivered during a press conference following a speech on economic progress, reveal a concerning push for increased control over online discourse.

Watch the video here.

Biden’s statements came on the same day Biden criticized Meta when Zuckerberg appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, revealing that the Biden administration had actively pressured Meta to censor content related to COVID-19. Zuckerberg disclosed that officials repeatedly contacted Meta, demanding the removal of memes and truthful posts critical of COVID-19 vaccines. He recounted how the White House would “call up our team and scream at them and curse” over content they deemed unacceptable.

Zuckerberg pointed to a specific incident where the administration pushed for the deletion of a meme featuring Leonardo DiCaprio pointing at a TV with a caption suggesting future legal actions over the COVID-19 vaccine.

Zuckerberg resisted, stating, “No we’re not we’re not going to take down humor,” emphasizing that his team would not remove content that was humorous and not factually false. Despite Meta’s history of censoring similar content, Zuckerberg insisted, “Basically, it just got to this point where we were like no, we’re not going to take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous.”

Zuckerberg also said that the Biden administration pressured for the censorship of truthful information.

“Basically, it just got to this point where we were like no, we’re not going to take down things that are true,” Zuckerberg said. “That’s ridiculous.”

Zuckerberg’s decision to dismantle the platform’s fact-checking system announced just before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, has drawn polarized reactions. While Democrats decry the change, Republicans, including Trump, have long accused Meta of silencing conservative voices.

Zuckerberg openly admitted that scaling back content moderation might allow more harmful content to circulate, but he also recognized the need to move away from biased oversight.

Biden criticized the autonomy of private tech leaders, stating, “The idea that, you know, a billionaire can buy something and say, ‘By the way, from this point on, we’re not going to fact-check anything.’ And you know, when you have millions of people reading, going online, reading this stuff … I think it’s really shameful.”

 

 

Reclaim The Net needs your help

 

You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.


Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.


Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.


Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.

 

Thank you.

 

Make a one-time donation

 

 

RIGHT ON TIME

 

 

Newsom Defends Wildfire Response, Tells Biden Online “Misinformation” Needs to be Combatted

 

Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) shifted focus to combating “misinformation” during a briefing on the devastating wildfires ravaging Los Angeles. The session included President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, with Newsom and Bass addressing concerns over their administration’s preparedness as the fires claimed at least 10 lives and destroyed countless homes.

Watch the video here.

Conducted in a hybrid format, the meeting saw Biden and Harris in the Oval Office while Newsom, Bass, and FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell joined via video call. Newsom described the unprecedented destruction fueled by what he called “hurricane-force winds, the likes of which we’ve never imagined in our lifetime.” He then pivoted to warn about the spread of misinformation related to the disaster.

“We’ve got to deal with this misinformation. There were hurricane-force winds of mis- and disinformation — lies,” Newsom stated. “People want to divide this country, and we’re gonna have to address that as well. And it breaks my heart, as people are suffering and struggling that we’re up against those hurricane force forces as well.”

Expressing frustration, Newsom added, “And that’s just a point of personal privilege that I share that with you because it infects real people that are out there. People I meet every single day, people the mayor has been meeting with, and they’re having conversations that are not the typical conversations you’d have at this time be in. And you wonder where this stuff comes from, and it’s very damaging as well, but we’re here to get the job done; to be here for folks to focus.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing a barrage of criticism from various quarters, highlighting several contentious issues, particularly related to a lack of preparation for combatting wildfires under his governance.

Newsom’s timing is ironic as Biden has been criticized heavily today for his previous attempts to police “misinformation” online.

On the same day Newsom appealed to Biden about online “misinformation,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg disclosed on The Joe Rogan Experience that the Biden administration pressured his company to censor COVID-19-related content, including truthful criticism of the vaccines.

Zuckerberg revealed that officials would “call up our team and scream at them and curse” over certain posts. A notable incident involved demands to remove a meme.

Zuckerberg emphasized, “Basically, it just got to this point where we were like no, we’re not going to take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous.”

This revelation, although not new, highlights a troubling pattern of government pressure on tech companies to suppress speech, raising serious concerns about censorship and the erosion of free expression. As wildfires continue to devastate communities, efforts to control narratives under the guise of combating misinformation risk silencing legitimate discourse. The public’s right to transparent and open communication remains more critical than ever in times of national emergencies.

 

FALSE

 

 

Mark Zuckerberg Falsely Claims “You Can’t Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowder Theater” To Justify Covid Censorship

 

In his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s early COVID-19 content moderation policies by invoking the often-quoted but inaccurate legal principle, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Zuckerberg cited this rationale to justify the platform’s censorship of certain information during the pandemic’s onset.

More: Yes, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater

“COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the beginning, it was – you know, it’s like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it’s – you know, even people who were like the most ardent First Amendment defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.

There are times when, if there is an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control,” Zuckerberg said.

This statement leans on a widely misunderstood legal argument. The phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” originates from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which was later overturned and criticized for its justification of speech suppression. Zuckerberg’s use of this outdated precedent is misleading and offers a flawed defense for restricting speech on Meta’s platforms.

Zuckerberg elaborated on his stance, expressing initial trust in government and health authorities: “So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, OK, you have this virus. It seems like it’s killing a lot of people. I don’t know. We didn’t know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, OK, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.”

However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the shifting narratives from health officials, which complicated content censorship decisions. “But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to, you know, in like – in the beginning, it was like, OK, there aren’t enough masks. Masks aren’t that important. To then it’s like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, all the – like, everything was shifting around. I – it’s become very difficult to kind of follow.”

The discredited legal metaphor has drawn criticism from free speech advocates. Such justification enables tech giants to overstep in moderating content, especially in moments of crisis when diverse perspectives are most crucial.

Equating speech to violence or danger is an easy excuse to censor controversial speech.

 

BUT DIDN’T CHALLENGE IT

 

 

Mark Zuckerberg Calls Biden Administration’s Pressure to Censor COVID-19 Content “Illegal”

 

In a candid interview on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg criticized the Biden administration’s approach to social media content moderation during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that government pressure to censor certain content “violated the law.”

Zuckerberg reflected on the role that platforms like Facebook played in moderating COVID-19 information, acknowledging that his company often deferred to government guidance when it came to implementing censorship policies. However, he expressed regret over how this deference contributed to suppressing truthful content.

“I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal,” Zuckerberg stated. He elaborated, emphasizing the distinction between private companies’ content moderation policies and government-imposed censorship. “The First Amendment doesn’t apply to companies in our content moderation. It’s more of an American ethos about how we think that best dialogue is carried out. But the First Amendment does apply to the government. That’s the whole point, is the government is not allowed to censor this stuff.”

Zuckerberg detailed instances where members of the Biden administration pressured Meta employees with aggressive tactics. “Having people in the administration calling up the guys on our team and yelling at them and cursing and threatening repercussions if we don’t take down things that are true is like—it’s pretty bad,” he said.

Joe Rogan responded, “It sounds illegal,” to which Zuckerberg agreed, stating, “I think that they had a kind of goal that they thought was in the interests of the country, and the way they went about it, I think violated the law.”

However, despite Zuckerberg’s acknowledgment of government pressure, Meta notably did not participate in the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which later evolved into Murthy v. Missouri. This lawsuit challenged the Biden administration’s coercion of social media companies to suppress certain viewpoints. Testimony from Meta about the administration’s pressure could have significantly strengthened the case, especially after the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs, the censored victims, lacked standing. If Meta, as the direct recipient of censorship demands from the Biden administration, had become a plaintiff, the case could have been bolstered.

Not only did Meta not go to court to challenge these censorship demands, but it was revealed that Meta even developed a special portal for the White House to flag content for removal. This direct channel facilitated the suppression of lawful speech.

Even after recognizing the legal and ethical issues, Meta continued to censor truthful information.

Additionally, Meta has faced ongoing criticism for its decision to ban former President Donald Trump from its platforms and for censoring the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop prior to the 2020 election.

 

Reclaim The Net is funded by the community. Keep us going and get extra benefits by becoming a supporter today. Thank you.

 

Become a Supporter

 

Thanks for reading,

Reclaim The Net