The other day I stumbled across a fascinating discussion about a European Citizen Initiative aimed at curtailing government censorship powers across the EU. Someone had drafted a comprehensive proposal to push back against the increasing digital authoritarianism we’re seeing across Europe, and they were looking for help to get it formally submitted to the European Commission.

Reading through the discussion, what struck me most was how this initiative tackles multiple fronts of the digital rights battle simultaneously. It’s not just about free speech – though that’s certainly a cornerstone. The proposal also addresses age verification requirements, the infamous “chat control” proposals, and the nebulous concept of moral-based censorship that governments love to hide behind when they want to silence inconvenient voices.

The Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision allowing states to limit access to online pornography has been rattling around in my head for days now. What started as discussions about “protecting children” has quickly revealed itself to be something far more concerning - the systematic dismantling of internet freedom, one state at a time.

The predictable partisan split on the court tells us everything we need to know about how politicised the highest judicial body in America has become. When someone pointed out the irony of certain justices’ own histories with pornography, it perfectly encapsulated the hypocrisy at play here. We’re seeing “rules for thee, but not for me” written into constitutional law.