| A new set of censorship rules issued by the Israel Defense Forces is raising alarms over media freedom and public transparency.
Brigadier-General Kobi Mandelblit, Israel’s chief censor, declared on Wednesday a mandate requiring prior approval for any reporting on where missiles or drones have struck, no matter the platform or location of publication.
According to the statement, “any person who prints or publishes printed matter or a publication regarding the location of a strike or hit by enemy war materiel, including missiles of any kind and UAVs, in the media or online (including social media, blogs and chats, etc.)” must now submit that material to the military censor for approval before it is released.
This directive applies to both domestic and international reporting, online and offline.
Mandelblit emphasized that he is also banning “the printing or publishing of any publication that has not been submitted to the Censor, or which has been submitted to him and his instructions have yet to be received or have been received and not adhered to.”
Framing the move as a matter of national security, he stated that violating the order is “liable to severely harm the security of the state,” and warned that offenders will be charged, the Jerusalem Post reported.
The sweeping nature of the restrictions, especially in a digital era where information spreads rapidly across borders, places significant power in the hands of military authorities to control narratives and limit the public’s access to real-time facts.
The breadth of the order effectively criminalizes independent reporting on attacks unless pre-approved by the state. |
| 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 becoming a supporter today. 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 becoming a supporter. Each membership not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you. Become a Supporter Today |
| A hearing took place today, before US District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch against the Department of Justice.
The case seeks records related to the “Twitter Files,” particularly those involving Hunter Biden’s laptop and allegations of censorship.
The only matter still pending is the FBI’s withholding of records detailing two meetings between agency officials and Twitter representatives from the Biden administration.
Judicial Watch initiated the lawsuit in April 2023, targeting the DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The legal action followed the FBI’s failure to respond to a December 2022 FOIA request for communications between FBI personnel and key Twitter figures; including Yoel Roth, Vijaya Gadde, and Jim Baker, from June 2020 to December 2022.
These individuals were involved in discussions about suppressing the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story, as disclosed in journalist Matt Taibbi’s December 2022 “Twitter Files.”
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, expressed strong disappointment: “It is frustrating beyond belief for Judicial Watch to have to go to federal court for basic information on Biden’s abuse of the FBI, using Twitter to censor and monitor Americans.”
Through a mix of FOIA requests and legal action, Judicial Watch continues to document extensive censorship efforts that affected tens of millions of Americans.
In November 2024, it obtained DHS records showing a widespread campaign, by both government and private groups, to police and suppress social media posts concerning election fraud in 2020.
Additional records from June 2024, released through Judicial Watch litigation, revealed that just before and after the 2020 election, state officials flagged alleged misinformation and sent it to entities like the Center for Internet Security, CISA, and the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP); a DHS-backed nonprofit known for targeting online election discourse.
In December 2023, DHS documents exposed coordination between CISA and the EIP to conduct “real-time narrative tracking” on major social media platforms in the run-up to the 2020 vote.
Similar records surfaced in November 2023, showing EIP’s influence over platforms such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, Pinterest, and Reddit to suppress “disinformation.” |
| The University of Oregon is facing the financial consequences of an unconstitutional attempt to suppress speech after a federal judge ordered it to pay $191,000 in legal fees to Portland State University professor Bruce Gilley.
The order, issued by US District Judge John V. Acosta, follows a settlement reached in March 2025 in which the university acknowledged Gilley’s comments should not have been censored and agreed to implement major policy reforms.
The legal fees, which will be covered by UO’s insurer United Educators, include $147,070 awarded to the Institute for Free Speech (IFS) and $43,930 to the Angus Lee Law Firm.
These payments, combined with more than $533,000 that the university had already spent on its own legal representation by late 2024, push the cost of defending its actions to at least $724,000.
That figure excludes further expenses accrued since November.
These high costs are directly tied to UO’s decision to support its DEI officials after they blocked Gilley for replying “all men are created equal” to a university post on X.
This fee award reflects the substantial resources required to vindicate fundamental constitutional rights in the digital age, as well as the vigor with which the University of Oregon chose to defend unconstitutional policies,” said Del Kolde, IFS Senior Attorney.
“The university made a costly decision to prioritize DEI principles over constitutional principles, aggressively litigating this case for nearly three years rather than acknowledging the obvious, that blocking someone for quoting the Declaration of Independence violates the First Amendment.”
The conflict began in June 2022, when Gilley reposted a UO “racism interrupter” message and added the phrase from the Declaration of Independence.
After UO’s Division of Equity and Inclusion blocked him, Gilley challenged the move in court. A July 2024 preliminary injunction restricted the university from blocking or muting its posts, and the legal proceedings culminated in a settlement requiring the university to overhaul its social media practices.
Under the agreement, UO must now end viewpoint-based censorship, establish an appeals process for blocked users, provide annual First Amendment training to social media staff, and operate under court oversight for 180 days to ensure compliance. |
| A landmark £2.31 million ($3.1 million) fine has been issued against 23andMe by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), responding to a security failure that compromised the genetic and personal profiles of more than 155,000 UK users.
This penalty follows a separate settlement of $30 million reached in the United States after a broader data breach impacted millions more.
The breach stemmed from a credential stuffing attack in 2023, where cyber intruders used login details previously leaked in unrelated data breaches to infiltrate 23andMe’s systems.
Once inside, attackers accessed a wide array of intimate data, ranging from names and locations to racial background, health reports, and genealogical connections.
This method of attack has become increasingly widespread, exacerbated by lax password reuse and the rise of automated credential testing tools.
A joint probe by the UK and Canadian privacy authorities uncovered a troubling pattern of negligence.
Despite growing industry consensus around multi-factor authentication (MFA) as a baseline standard, 23andMe had not implemented it.
Investigators also flagged the company’s slow reaction to a massive login attempt targeting one million accounts in a single day during July 2023, a missed red flag that could have limited the scope of the breach.
UK Information Commissioner John Edwards criticized the firm’s lack of preventative action, stressing the uniquely permanent nature of genetic data. “The exposed information was profoundly damaging,” he said. “Unlike passwords or credit card numbers, this type of personal data cannot be changed or reissued once compromised.”
The ICO’s decision to impose the maximum allowable fine reflects the seriousness of 23andMe’s security lapses.
It also signals a broader shift in regulatory posture, as UK data authorities bolster oversight of biometric and genetic data. |
|
|
| Thanks for reading,
Reclaim The Net |
|
|