The French Greens and other left-wing parties now want to make sure that news stories are not used for ideological purposes by the “far right,” claiming that certain media outlets are causing a “moral panic” around immigration due to migrant murders.

According to a parliamentary amendment tabled on June 25, 2025, by a group of Green and left-wing MPs in the National Assembly, news stories of actual events that have happened, and actual lives lost, are being improperly used by the right.

Another post from the French Observatory for Journalism ,wrote: “BREAKING NEWS | Green and left-wing deputies submit an amendment to REDUCE the coverage of crime stories in PUBLIC media. The authors believe these stories are used for ‘political exploitation;’ the text cites the murders of Lola and Thomas.”

The amendment calls for public media outlets to “conduct an editorial review of the role of news stories in news coverage.”

French National Rally parliamentary leader, Marine Le Pen, wrote in response to the new amendment.

“Political control and the concealment of information are hallmarks of totalitarian ideologies. The Greens, who have been drifting toward the far left for years, are taking a new and alarming step in this tendency to curb freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democratic societies. The French must be aware that their right to know is now clearly threatened by these fundamentally anti-liberty measures,’ she wrote on X.

The text put forward by the left cites the case of 13-year-old Lola, who was raped and murdered in Paris by an Algerian female migrant with a deportation order in 2022, as well as Thomas, who was murdered by a gang of migrants in Crépol in 2023.

The authors of the amendment claim that these news stories were then rehashed with “racialist semantics” by politician and leader of the Reconquête party in France, Éric Zemmour, and other allegedly radical right-wing figures.

The amendment denounces the creation of concepts such as “Francocide” and “savagery” in relation to these crimes. It also specifically cites the influence of French news outlets like CNews, Valeurs actuelles, and what it claims is the “fascism sphere” of news reporting.

The politicians who launched the amendment denounce that these factual news stories were used for “political gain,” to the detriment of neutral reporting.

They denounce the structuring of a media space close to the far right, accused of exploiting news stories to advance a vision of security and identity.

A number of social media users reacted negatively to the tabled amendment.

“Move along, there’s nothing to see. They don’t want the French to know what’s happening all over the country, that’s for sure counterproductive for them. Promoting diversity and ethno-cultural replacement when we know the consequences,” wrote one user.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/french-left-wing-mps-introduce-amendment-reduce-coverage-migrant-crime-stories

>>23280142

The annual championships may charm a world audience with its cultivated celebration of grass court tennis, strawberries and a nostalgic evocation of English fair play, but for neighbours this image, as carefully manicured as its famous lawns, is virtually shredded. From a highly controversial planning application to a woke offer of 1,000 free tickets for refugees, local Wimbledonians feel excluded as never before from the international spectacle on their doorsteps.

Nowhere in the mainstream media’s fawning previews of Wimbledon 2025 has there been mention of the battle commencing next week in a quite different London court. On July 8th, just as the tournament heats up in its final week, a determined group of local activists is challenging the basis of planning permission granted by the Mayor of London’s office to the All England Lawn Tennis Club in the High Court. Save Wimbledon Park will be pinning its hopes on a judicial review. The group which has fought the plans tirelessly has secured pro bono legal support, but is still crowdfunding towards the £200,000 necessary to take their case to the High Court.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-do-1000-refugees-get-free-wimbledon-tickets-while-long-suffering-locals-get-none

A federal judge has determined that leaders of Yardley Borough, Buck’s County, Pennsylvania, unlawfully silenced a resident when they deleted his comment from the local government’s Facebook page.

The controversy centers on Earl Markey, a corporate trainer and active member of the local Republican committee.

In October 2022, Markey posted a comment on the Yardley Boro Facebook page urging voters to back a referendum that would have trimmed the borough council from seven members to five.

His comment was sharply critical of a sitting councilman.

Markey wrote, “Appointed Councilman Matt Curtin wants to raise property taxes by two mills. Stop unelected, out of touch investment bankers, like Matt Curtin, from volunteering our hard-earned money for higher taxes. Vote YES on the referendum to reduce the size of the Yardley Borough Council.”

Not long after, the comment disappeared.

The borough’s manager, Paula Johnson, labeled the post a personal attack. Council President Caroline Thompson approved its removal.

Markey saw this as a clear act of censorship and took legal action, filing a lawsuit against Thompson, Johnson, and the borough. He also named two other officials who were eventually removed from the case.

“For me that crossed a line,” Markey said. He described the deletion as “censorship by public officials.”

Although borough leaders tried to defuse the matter by letting Markey repost his comment, reimbursing his legal filing fee, and drafting a revised social media policy, Markey pressed forward with the lawsuit.

The proposed policy stated that the borough’s Facebook page was meant for moderated discussions and was not to be considered a public forum. It outlined rules allowing the removal of misleading statements or personal attacks.

Yardley officials argued that they were acting in their official capacity and believed the law surrounding First Amendment protections on government social media pages was unclear at the time.

The judge wrote: “At some point, a constitutional violation must shift from being not clearly established to clearly established. If courts continually granted qualified immunity solely on the basis other courts granted qualified immunity, even though those earlier courts found the same conduct violated the Constitution, constitutional law would remain in stasis.”

Judge Mark A. Kearney rejected that argument. He pointed out that by the time the comment was deleted, at least five appellate courts had found that deleting or blocking comments on government-run social media pages constitutes unlawful viewpoint discrimination. “A resident undoubtedly enjoys the right to appropriately criticize his local borough government officials under the First Amendment without fear of government censure,” Kearney wrote.

https://reclaimthenet.org/judge-yardley-officials-illegally-deleted-criticism-on-facebook