The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued the ruling on October 14 in a lawsuit brought by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice against Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier.

The panel concluded that the law, known as House Bill 3, likely survives the applicable constitutional test in the challengers’ as-applied First Amendment claim. It also rejected their facial challenge at this stage because they had not demonstrated that the law’s unconstitutional applications substantially outweighed its valid ones.

The decision removes the preliminary injunction that had prevented Florida from enforcing the challenged provisions. However, it does not end the litigation or resolve every possible constitutional challenge to restrictions on children’s social-media use.

Court reverses injunction blocking enforcement

Florida enacted HB 3 in 2024, with the law taking effect on January 1, 2025. The industry groups challenged it before it took effect, arguing that its restrictions interfere with the First Amendment rights of platforms and users.

In June 2025, a federal district court in the Northern District of Florida concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims and issued a preliminary injunction.

The state appealed. The 11th Circuit had already stayed that injunction while it considered the case, allowing enforcement to proceed during the appeal.

In its October 14 opinion, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s conclusions that the industry groups had standing to bring the case and that the federal court did not need to abstain because of a related state proceeding. But it reversed the preliminary injunction on the as-applied claim and vacated it on the facial challenge.

The court then returned the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The practical effect is that Florida can enforce the challenged provisions while the litigation continues, unless another court order or later ruling changes that position. The ruling should not be described as a final judgment resolving every legal issue raised by the challengers.

What Florida’s law requires

HB 3 does not apply to every website or online service. The statute defines a covered social-media platform through several criteria.

A service must allow users to upload content or view content or activity from other users. At least 10% of its daily active users under 16 must spend an average of two hours or more per day on the service on days they use it. The platform must also use algorithms that analyze user data to select content and have at least one of five specified features.

Those features are infinite scrolling, push notifications, personal interactive metrics such as likes and shares, autoplay video, and live-streaming.

The statute excludes services whose exclusive function is email or direct messaging in which content is shared only between the sender and specifically identified recipients.

For platforms that meet the definition, the age rules differ by group. Children younger than 14 may not create accounts. Users aged 14 or 15 may create accounts only with parental or guardian consent.

Covered platforms must also terminate accounts held by children who fall within the prohibited age groups, subject to the law’s procedures for disputing an account termination. The statute requires deletion of personal information associated with terminated accounts, unless another legal requirement calls for retention.

Although the law does not prescribe one universal age-verification method in the cited section, platforms must determine which users fall under its age restrictions and whether the required parental consent exists.

Law carries financial penalties for violations

Florida’s statute authorizes the state Department of Legal Affairs to pursue enforcement actions against platforms for knowing or reckless violations.

The law permits civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, along with reasonable attorney fees and court costs. It also allows punitive damages when a platform’s noncompliance involves a consistent pattern of knowing or reckless conduct.

The statute separately permits a minor account holder to bring a civil claim for a knowing or reckless violation. Such a claim may result in damages of up to $10,000, along with court costs and reasonable attorney fees as ordered by the court.

These provisions make the appellate ruling consequential for covered services. However, the ruling itself does not establish that any particular platform has violated the law or determine liability in a separate enforcement action.

First Amendment dispute remains central

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association argued that HB 3 restricts lawful online expression. They contend that social-media platforms host protected speech and that restricting access to them can limit the ability of minors to receive information and participate in public discussion.

NetChoice said it was disappointed with the ruling and was evaluating its legal options. Paul Taske, director of the organization’s Litigation Center, said the law imposes digital identification requirements as a condition for accessing lawful online speech.

Florida defended the law as a measure to protect children from harmful patterns of social-media use. The state argued that features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay and push notifications can encourage compulsive use and that minors are particularly vulnerable to the effects.

The appeals court treated the law as a content-neutral regulation affecting speech and applied intermediate scrutiny to the as-applied claim. Under that standard, the court concluded that the law likely survives constitutional review.

That conclusion does not mean the court independently established that social media causes addiction in every user. Its task was to assess the law under the constitutional standard and the evidence presented in the litigation.

Facial challenge fails under the court’s analysis

The court also considered the challengers’ facial challenge, which sought to invalidate the law more broadly rather than only in particular applications.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody v. NetChoice, the 11th Circuit said the challengers had not adequately examined the full range of services and circumstances covered by the statute. The court found that they had not shown that unconstitutional applications substantially outweighed constitutional ones.

That ruling reflects the burden the court applied to a facial challenge. It does not establish that every possible application of HB 3 is constitutional, nor does it eliminate the possibility of further legal disputes over how the statute applies to particular services or circumstances.

The court’s separate treatment of the facial and as-applied claims is important to understanding the decision. The preliminary injunction was reversed for the as-applied claim and vacated for the facial challenge, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Further litigation could change the legal position

NetChoice said it was evaluating its options following the October 14 ruling. The organization did not, in the statement reviewed for this report, confirm that it had filed a petition for rehearing or sought Supreme Court review.

The next steps depend on any further filings, court orders and proceedings in the district court. A new stay or injunction could affect enforcement, so the procedural status should be checked again before publication.

For now, Florida has regained the ability to enforce HB 3 under the appellate court’s ruling. The legal dispute over minors’ access to social media, parental consent and online expression remains unresolved in its entirety.

Reporting Credit: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for its October 14, 2026, opinion in Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Florida; the Florida Legislature for the text of Florida Statutes § 501.1736; and NetChoice for its public response to the ruling.

The post Florida Can Enforce Child Social Media Restrictions After Appeals Court Ruling appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by Japanese voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda, who sought the removal of TikTok videos that he said used generative AI to imitate his distinctive voice. The court said a human voice can be regarded, like a person’s likeness, as a symbol of individual personality and that unauthorized use can infringe publicity rights when the voice’s commercial appeal is being exploited.

The court nevertheless dismissed Tsuda’s request for the videos to be removed because the account and the relevant video data had already been deleted. Crucially, the judgment did not make a final determination that the specific videos had infringed Tsuda’s publicity rights.

Court establishes protection for voices

Presiding Judge Aya Takahashi wrote that a human voice is, like a portrait, a symbol of an individual’s personality.

The court further stated that unauthorized use of a performer’s voice may constitute a publicity-rights infringement when the voice has the ability to attract customers and the use is primarily intended to exploit that attraction.

That distinction is central to the ruling. The judgment does not create a blanket prohibition on artificial voices or every instance in which an AI-generated voice resembles a real person.

Instead, it provides a legal standard for circumstances in which a recognizable voice has commercial drawing power and that value is being used without authorization.

Case involved 188 TikTok videos

Tsuda, known for his work as a voice actor and for voicing Kento Nanami in Jujutsu Kaisen, filed the lawsuit after an anonymous TikTok account posted videos using narration that he said had been generated to imitate his voice.

According to the case record and reporting on the judgment, 188 videos were posted between July 2024 and September 2025. The videos covered subjects including urban legends and paranormal material, while the account had accumulated roughly 210,000 followers. Viewers posted comments noting similarities between the narrator’s voice and Tsuda’s.

Tsuda’s side argued that the distinctive qualities of his voice had been intentionally reproduced with generative AI and that the use exploited the voice’s ability to attract viewers.

TikTok’s position differed. The company argued that the narration used a generic male voice and that the person who posted the material had described the AI system as having been trained using a friend’s voice.

Court did not decide whether Tsuda’s rights were infringed

The outcome is therefore more legally specific than a simple finding that Tsuda “won” an AI voice-cloning case.

The court determined that voices can fall within publicity-rights protection and set out circumstances in which unauthorized use could constitute infringement. But because the disputed videos had already disappeared, the court did not need to determine whether the particular material actually satisfied those infringement requirements.

The judgment records that the account was deleted and that the relevant data had subsequently been removed from the operator’s servers. The court therefore rejected the request for deletion because there was no remaining material for the defendant to remove.

This means the ruling establishes an important legal interpretation without awarding Tsuda damages or ordering TikTok to remove the videos.

Japan had already been examining AI voice protections

The decision follows a separate Japanese government examination of how existing civil-law protections should apply to unauthorized uses of people’s images and voices generated with AI.

Japan’s Justice Ministry established an expert panel in April 2026 to examine civil liability involving unauthorized use of portraits, voices and related personal characteristics. The ministry published its report on Aug. 7, saying the review addressed publicity rights, personality-related protections, damages, injunctions and the application of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act to generative-AI cases.

The ministry’s work specifically considered the growing problem of unauthorized AI-generated reproductions of voices and images. Its published materials examined circumstances in which generated content could implicate publicity rights and other protections.

The timing gives the Tokyo judgment particular significance: the court has now provided a concrete judicial interpretation in an actual dispute involving an AI-generated imitation of a performer’s voice.

Ruling does not amount to an AI voice-cloning ban

The decision should not be interpreted as a Japanese ban on AI voice cloning.

The court’s reasoning focuses on the circumstances in which a person’s voice possesses commercial attraction and an unauthorized use is primarily directed at exploiting that value. It does not establish that every synthetic voice resembling a real person violates Japanese law.

Japan’s Justice Ministry’s earlier examination similarly distinguished between potentially unlawful uses and forms of expression such as entertainment or imitation that may fall outside publicity-rights infringement depending on the circumstances.

The legal question will therefore remain fact-specific, including issues such as how recognizable a voice is, whether it has commercial drawing power, how the AI-generated voice is used and whether the purpose of the use is to capitalize on that identity.

Significance for performers and AI developers

The ruling gives Japanese performers a judicially recognized route for asserting that the commercial value of their voices can receive legal protection.

That is particularly relevant to voice actors and singers whose professional identities depend heavily on distinctive vocal characteristics. It also has implications for companies developing or deploying synthetic-voice systems, advertisers, entertainment producers and social-media platforms that host AI-generated content.

At the same time, the decision leaves important questions open because the court did not determine whether the disputed videos themselves constituted an infringement.

The immediate precedent is therefore narrower than a general “voice right” statute: Japan’s existing publicity-rights framework can encompass a person’s voice when the legal conditions identified by the court are met.

A precedent shaped by the AI era

The Tokyo judgment is the first reported Japanese judicial decision to recognize protection for a person’s voice under publicity rights in a case involving generative AI.

Its significance lies less in the deletion dispute itself than in the legal principle articulated by the court. As generative AI makes convincing voice imitation easier to produce and distribute, the judgment provides Japanese courts, performers and technology companies with a clearer framework for considering when a recognizable voice has legally protected commercial value.

The case does not resolve every question surrounding AI-generated voices. But it establishes that, under Japanese publicity-rights law, a human voice can have legally protectable commercial value separate from the person’s physical likeness.

Reporting Credit: Tokyo District Court and official judgment; Japan Ministry of Justice; Kenjiro Tsuda’s legal representatives as reflected in court reporting; TikTok/ByteDance statements and court submissions where reported. Secondary reporting from Associated Press, Jiji Press/Nippon.com, Reuters and The Guardian was used for chronology and case background.

The post Tokyo Court Recognizes Voice Rights in Landmark AI Clone Case appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

SANTA FE, UNITED STATES — New Mexico has taken Meta Platforms’ Facebook to trial over allegations that the company misled users about how their personal information could be accessed and used by third-party applications, reviving a privacy fight that dates to the Cambridge Analytica scandal of the late 2010s.

Jury selection began September 8 in the First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe, with opening statements scheduled for September 9. The trial is scheduled to run through October 2, according to the New Mexico courts, although the schedule could change.

New Mexico is seeking civil penalties under the state’s Unfair Practices Act and an injunction intended to prevent similar conduct in the future. The state says the case concerns Facebook’s handling of data obtained through a personality-quiz application and its alleged failure to adequately inform or protect users from third-party access.

The trial comes nearly a decade after the Cambridge Analytica controversy became one of the defining privacy scandals of the social-media era.

What New Mexico alleges

The state’s case centers on allegations that Facebook failed to adequately protect users from an application that collected information from Facebook profiles.

According to the state’s case materials, data associated with approximately 87 million Facebook profiles worldwide was obtained through the application and ultimately provided to Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting company. New Mexico says approximately 350,000 New Mexico residents were affected.

The state alleges that Facebook’s representations and practices violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act.

Attorney General Raúl Torrez said when the trial began that the case concerns more than the exposure of private information. He accused Facebook of misrepresenting how user data was collected, shared and exploited.

Those statements are allegations advanced by the state. The jury will determine the claims based on the evidence presented at trial.

Why the case reaches court nearly a decade later

The New Mexico litigation is not a new lawsuit arising from the 2026 trial. The case is State of New Mexico ex rel. Raúl Torrez v. Facebook Inc., D-101-CV-2021-00132, filed in New Mexico state court in January 2021.

Its survival through years of litigation has become significant because several other legal actions connected to the Cambridge Analytica controversy have moved toward settlements or otherwise taken different paths.

A recent multistate settlement involving Meta included provisions concerning Cambridge Analytica-related claims. New Mexico, however, is not among the states releasing its claims through that agreement, leaving its separate case to proceed.

That makes the Santa Fe proceeding unusual.

While much of the original Cambridge Analytica legal fallout has moved through federal litigation and settlements, New Mexico is now putting its allegations before a state jury.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal

The underlying controversy emerged from Facebook’s relationship with third-party applications and the amount of information those applications could access.

The Cambridge Analytica controversy became public in 2018 after reports detailed how data obtained through a personality-quiz application had been transferred to the political consulting firm.

The episode triggered investigations and regulatory scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic and intensified questions about whether social-media platforms adequately understood or controlled the ways outside developers could obtain and exploit user information.

New Mexico’s case is narrower than the entire political and regulatory history surrounding Cambridge Analytica.

The question before the jury is whether Facebook’s conduct violated New Mexico law.

What the state wants from the trial

New Mexico is seeking the maximum civil penalties available under the state’s Unfair Practices Act for each violation that the jury determines occurred. The state is also seeking injunctive relief designed to prevent similar practices involving user information.

The exact financial exposure will depend on how the jury evaluates the evidence and how the applicable statutory penalties are calculated.

The state has argued that the number of affected users is substantial, including hundreds of thousands of New Mexico residents.

The case therefore has potentially significant financial consequences, but its importance extends beyond a monetary judgment.

A ruling against Meta could reinforce the ability of state governments to use consumer-protection statutes to challenge the handling of personal data by large technology platforms.

Meta’s position

Meta has disputed the state’s allegations.

The company has argued that its privacy and data-protection practices have changed substantially since the period at issue and that evidence concerning Facebook’s practices from the Cambridge Analytica era should be evaluated in that historical context.

The distinction is important because the trial concerns conduct associated with an earlier version of Facebook’s platform and its developer ecosystem.

The company now operates under a substantially different corporate structure and regulatory environment than it did when the Cambridge Analytica controversy emerged.

The trial will therefore require the jury to assess evidence concerning past conduct rather than simply judging the company’s present-day policies.

The case is separate from New Mexico’s other Meta trial

The Cambridge Analytica case should not be confused with a separate New Mexico lawsuit against Meta involving children and alleged harms from Facebook and Instagram.

That case, State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, Inc., D-101-CV-2023-02838, produced a $375 million jury verdict in March 2026 and a subsequent $567 million court-ordered payment and other measures in August, bringing the state’s total financial judgment in that separate case to $942 million.

The two cases address different allegations.

The 2026 Cambridge Analytica trial concerns privacy, data access and alleged violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

The earlier case concerned allegations involving child safety and the effects of Meta’s platforms on minors.

The distinction matters because the two proceedings could otherwise be incorrectly treated as one continuing lawsuit.

Zuckerberg and other former executives expected to feature

The current trial is expected to include video testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, according to the New Mexico Department of Justice. The state also identified corporate-propaganda experts Calum Matheson and Sam Woolley among its anticipated witnesses.

The witness schedule remains subject to change.

Their testimony could give jurors an opportunity to examine how Facebook’s leadership understood the company’s data practices and its relationship with outside developers during the period relevant to the case.

Why the trial matters beyond New Mexico

The case arrives at a time when governments are increasingly challenging the practices of the largest technology companies through state consumer-protection laws.

For New Mexico, the immediate question is whether Facebook violated state law through its handling and disclosure of user data.

For the wider technology industry, the case illustrates another route through which state governments can pursue accountability: rather than relying exclusively on federal privacy legislation or federal regulators, states can use their own consumer-protection statutes to challenge conduct involving technology platforms.

A verdict could therefore become relevant to future disputes over how companies disclose data practices, supervise third-party developers and communicate privacy risks to consumers.

But the legal significance will depend heavily on the jury’s findings and any subsequent appeals.

A delayed reckoning over digital privacy

The trial also demonstrates how long the legal consequences of a major technology scandal can take to reach a courtroom.

Cambridge Analytica became a global symbol of the risks created when personal information collected for one purpose is used for another. The controversy helped shift privacy from a technical issue discussed largely by specialists into a mainstream political and consumer concern.

New Mexico’s lawsuit now asks a narrower question: whether Facebook’s conduct violated a particular state’s consumer-protection law.

Nearly a decade after the scandal first became public, that question is finally being tested before a jury.

The trial is expected to last about four weeks. For New Mexico, the immediate objective is a judgment over alleged violations involving its residents’ data. For Meta, the proceeding represents another test of how its earlier data practices will be judged under state law.

The outcome could determine not only whether New Mexico wins its case, but also how far state consumer-protection laws can reach when governments challenge the privacy practices of global technology companies.

Reporting Credit: New Mexico Department of Justice, for the state’s trial filings, official statements and description of the allegations and requested remedies; New Mexico Courts, for the official case status, trial schedule and court records; State of New Mexico court filings, for the legal claims and procedural history.

The post New Mexico Takes Meta to Trial Nearly a Decade After Cambridge Analytica Scandal appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The conference, known as RightsCon and organized by the advocacy group Access Now, was scheduled to take place in the capital, Lusaka, bringing together thousands of activists, policymakers and technology leaders. According to reporting by The Associated Press, organizers said the event was canceled days before its opening after Zambian authorities signaled it could only proceed if Taiwanese civil society representatives were excluded.

Diplomatic Pressure Builds Around Taiwan Participation

Access Now said it refused requests to bar Taiwanese delegates or limit discussions, describing the move as foreign interference. The organization stated it had been informed that Chinese officials objected to Taiwan’s presence at the summit, which focuses on digital rights, censorship and global governance.

The cancellation highlights Beijing’s long-standing position that Taiwan should be excluded from international forums under its “One China” policy, which views the island as part of its territory. Analysts say such pressure has increasingly extended beyond formal diplomacy into civil society events and multilateral gatherings.

Regional Stability Tested by Expanding Influence

Zambia, which maintains close economic and political ties with China, has historically supported Beijing’s diplomatic stance on Taiwan. Observers note that the decision reflects the broader influence China exerts in parts of Africa, where infrastructure investment and financial cooperation often shape foreign policy alignment.

The abrupt cancellation also disrupted plans for one of the world’s largest digital rights conferences, expected to host participants from more than 150 countries. Organizers warned the move could have lasting implications for international collaboration on issues such as online freedom, surveillance and artificial intelligence governance.

International Response Intensifies

Human rights groups and Taiwanese officials have criticized the decision, framing it as a setback for global civil society and freedom of participation. Taiwan’s government said the episode reflects ongoing efforts to limit its international presence, while advocacy organizations called for greater accountability from host governments facing external pressure.

The incident follows other recent cases in which Taiwan’s international engagements have been disrupted, including travel restrictions attributed to diplomatic pressure from Beijing.

Strategic Stakes Rise for Global Governance

The cancellation of the Zambia summit underscores a widening contest over participation in international forums, where geopolitical rivalries increasingly shape access and representation. Analysts say such developments risk fragmenting global cooperation on transnational issues, particularly in areas requiring multi-stakeholder engagement.

As countries navigate competing diplomatic relationships, the episode raises broader questions about the independence of international platforms and the ability of civil society actors to operate without political constraints.

The outcome points to a growing intersection between geopolitics and global advocacy spaces, with implications likely to extend beyond Africa to future international events and partnerships.

The post China Pressure Forces Zambia to Cancel Rights Summit, Escalating Taiwan Dispute appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: September 28, 2025, 22:15 EDT

YouTube has announced plans to reinstate accounts previously banned for violating its now-retired rules on COVID-19 and election misinformation. Parent company Alphabet Inc. confirmed the move in a letter to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, saying the change reflects its commitment to free speech and recognition of the role creators play in civic debate.

Policy Shifts After Pandemic and 2020 Election

During the pandemic and in the aftermath of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, YouTube enforced strict rules against false claims regarding public health and voting. These measures included removing videos that disputed the legitimacy of the election and banning creators who repeatedly violated misinformation policies.

In 2023, YouTube ended its policy that prohibited videos claiming widespread fraud in the 2020 election or earlier U.S. presidential elections. By 2024, the platform also phased out its specific COVID-19 content rules, folding them into its broader medical misinformation policy, which governs misleading claims about health and treatments.

Restoring Access for Creators

The reversal means that banned creators—many of whom built large audiences and relied on the platform for revenue—will have the opportunity to rejoin. According to the Associated Press, affected accounts include prominent conservative voices such as Dan Bongino, who now serves as deputy director of the FBI.

Alphabet’s letter emphasized that YouTube would continue to support “free expression on its platform, particularly as it relates to issues subject to political debate.” The company framed the decision as a balance between content moderation and ensuring diverse viewpoints remain accessible.

Political Pressure and Free Speech Debate

The decision comes after years of political scrutiny. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and other congressional Republicans have criticized tech platforms for allegedly stifling conservative viewpoints under pressure from the Biden administration.

Alphabet’s attorneys claimed that senior officials in the Biden administration “conducted repeated and sustained outreach” urging the removal of pandemic-related videos, some of which did not technically violate company policy. “It is unacceptable and wrong when any government, including the Biden Administration, attempts to dictate how the company moderates content,” the letter stated, adding that Alphabet has defended its moderation practices on First Amendment grounds.

Broader Industry Trend

YouTube’s rollback is part of a wider shift across major technology companies. Platforms like Meta and X (formerly Twitter) have also scaled back pandemic-era rules that limited health-related discussions. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has previously said the Biden administration pressured his company’s staff during the pandemic, while Elon Musk has accused federal agencies of attempting to influence moderation decisions at Twitter before his acquisition.

The Supreme Court weighed in on the issue in 2024, ruling in favor of the Biden administration in a case brought by Republican-led states challenging the federal government’s role in addressing controversial online content. The decision left open questions about how far the government can go in encouraging platforms to remove posts without infringing on free speech.

Impact on Online Creators and Monetization

For creators who depend on YouTube’s monetization system, the policy change carries major implications. Access to YouTube’s Partner Program, which generates income through advertising, is a critical revenue stream for influencers and independent media outlets. Reinstating banned accounts could restore livelihoods that were disrupted by past enforcement actions.

While Alphabet has not outlined the full process for reinstatement, the move suggests that previously banned creators will be allowed back under current rules, provided they comply with YouTube’s existing community guidelines.

Unanswered Questions and Future Oversight

As of Sunday, YouTube had not released details about how quickly reinstatements will occur or whether conditions will be placed on returning accounts. A spokesperson for the platform did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The decision underscores the ongoing tension between moderating harmful content and maintaining free expression online. As election cycles and public health debates continue, platforms like YouTube are likely to face renewed scrutiny over where they draw the line.

Source: AP News – YouTube to start bringing back creators banned for COVID-19 and election misinformation

The post YouTube to Reinstate Creators Banned Under Expired COVID-19 and Election Policies appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In an age where artificial intelligence can clone your face and voice in seconds, Denmark is taking a bold stand: give every citizen the legal right to control their own likeness.

Danish Culture Minister Jakob Engel-Schmidt has proposed a new law that would treat a person’s face and voice as their property—meaning if someone’s features are used in an AI-generated deepfake, they can demand it be taken down.

“Technology has outpaced legislation,” Engel-Schmidt told CNN. “We shouldn’t accept a world where people are run through a digital copy machine and misused for all sorts of purposes.”

A Personal Copyright Over Your Identity

Under the proposed law, individuals—whether celebrities, artists, or private citizens—would have the right to request takedowns of AI-generated content that imitates their appearance or voice without consent.

That could have a big impact in an era where viral deepfakes are becoming more common, especially in the entertainment industry. Engel-Schmidt pointed to artists who’ve found AI-generated music online that mimics their voice, fooling fans into thinking it’s authentic.

One high-profile example: Celine Dion warned her followers earlier this year about deepfake content circulating online that appeared to be her singing—but wasn’t.

Artists Are Already Speaking Out

The music world is increasingly alarmed by generative AI. In April 2024, over 200 artists—including Billie Eilish, Katy Perry, the Jonas Brothers, Kacey Musgraves, J Balvin, and Miranda Lambert—signed an open letter demanding protections against AI impersonation in the music industry.

Denmark’s plan could be one of the first national laws to answer that call.

Engel-Schmidt says the bill has already earned cross-party support in parliament and is expected to pass this fall. But that’s just step one.

“Once it’s law, we’ll look at adding real consequences—like fines—for companies that don’t comply with takedown requests,” he said.

Balancing Free Speech and Human Dignity

The minister is careful to note that this isn’t about censorship.

“We’re champions of free speech,” he said. “But people should have the right to say yes or no to being used by generative AI.”

So far, Engel-Schmidt hasn’t formally approached major tech platforms about the proposal—but he says those conversations are coming.

“It’s in their interest, too, to make AI work for humanity—not against artists, public figures, and everyday people.”

A Global Push for Deepfake Accountability

Experts say Denmark’s approach is part of a growing global movement to regulate generative AI and protect against its misuse.

“Deepfakes pose both individual and societal risks,” said Athina Karatzogianni, a professor of technology and society at the University of Leicester. “They threaten personal rights and also damage the democratic values of equality and transparency.”

With generative AI rapidly evolving, Denmark’s proposal may become a model for other countries trying to navigate the same ethical minefield.

Source: CNN – Denmark plans to thwart deepfakers by giving everyone copyright over their own features

The post Denmark Moves to Give Citizens Legal Control Over Their Face and Voice appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As Iran plunged into yet another nationwide internet blackout last week, people trying to reach loved ones inside the country were met with something deeply strange—and more than a little unsettling.

Instead of connecting with family or friends, callers from abroad were greeted by a robotic voice delivering a cryptic, feel-good message:

“Hello, and thank you for taking the time to listen,” the voice begins.
“Life is full of unexpected surprises… sometimes joyful, sometimes challenging. The key is to find the strength within to overcome these challenges.”
The message continues for nearly 90 seconds, encouraging the listener to close their eyes and picture a peaceful, happy place.

Confusion and Concern as the Messages Spread

Reports of this mysterious recording began circulating widely on Wednesday and Thursday—right after Iranian authorities imposed tight nationwide restrictions on internet access, citing vague “security concerns.”

With apps like WhatsApp blocked, many people abroad turned to traditional phone calls to reach those inside Iran. That’s when the strange messages began—only when calling mobile numbers, not landlines, and notably not heard when using internet-based apps.

For many Iranians, the bizarre voicemail was a red flag. Some assumed the recordings were the result of an Israeli cyberattack. Others were convinced the Iranian government was behind it.

Experts Weigh In: Government Interference Likely

According to Alp Toker, founder of NetBlocks, a group that tracks global internet governance, this kind of message is no accident. He believes it’s part of a broader censorship strategy by the Iranian regime.

“When the internet is cut, the phones need to go somewhere—and that’s often a fallback message,” Toker explained.
“Sometimes it’s an ad for vacation packages. Sometimes, it’s just nonsense. This one looks like it was slapped together quickly, using a basic text-to-speech system.”

Toker said it fits the profile of a national gateway-level voicemail, the kind used when a call can’t be completed. In this case, though, it appears someone manually configured the message, possibly using pre-AI automation tools.

A UK-based telecom expert who analyzed the recording told CNN the call appears to be “hijacked after the second ring,” suggesting interference at the network level—before the phone even connects. The expert requested anonymity, citing safety concerns.

No Official Word from Iran or Israel

So far, neither the Iranian nor Israeli government has commented on the mysterious messages.

What’s clear is that they surfaced during a time of heightened tension and tight information control. Iran has a long history of cutting internet access during political unrest or military conflict, and these recent disruptions were no different.

Internet Access Partially Restored, But Not Fully

By Saturday, NetBlocks reported that international internet access was partially restored in Iran after nearly 62 hours of severe disruption. Still, connectivity remains far below normal levels, making it difficult for people inside the country to freely communicate or access independent news.

Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency initially reported that full service would be back by 8 p.m. Saturday, citing the communications minister. But in a confusing twist, Tasnim later contradicted its own report—again quoting the same minister.

According to Iran’s communications ministry, Iranians abroad are now being told to use domestic messaging apps to contact their families—though these apps are widely seen as monitored or controlled by the regime.

A Pattern of Control

This isn’t the first time Iran has tightened the digital leash. During the nationwide protests of 2022, authorities shut down the internet multiple times to stifle dissent and limit outside exposure.

Now, with tensions rising again, both inside and outside the country, it appears the playbook hasn’t changed.

Source: CNN – ‘Life is full of unexpected surprises’: People trying to call Iran meet mysterious voice message

The post “Life Is Full of Surprises”: Iran Callers Hear Strange Recording appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In a groundbreaking shift that could reshape how social media operates in Latin America, Brazil’s Supreme Court is poised to make tech platforms like Meta, X (formerly Twitter), and Microsoft legally responsible for what users post on their platforms.

The ruling, which is still in progress, already has support from a majority of the court’s 11 justices — enough to effectively pass. Once finalized and published, it will mark a significant departure from the current legal framework and bring Brazil’s tech regulation closer to that of the European Union.

Why This Matters

The move comes amid growing concerns over illegal and harmful content circulating online — from child exploitation and violent content to the spread of misinformation and political extremism. Justice Gilmar Mendes cast the sixth and deciding vote on Wednesday, opening the door for users and victims to sue social media platforms and demand compensation for harmful content posted by others.

Supporters of the measure argue that platforms must take greater responsibility for moderating what’s shared. But critics warn the ruling could severely chill free speech and disproportionately impact smaller companies that don’t have the legal resources to comply.

A Divided Court — and a Divisive Issue

Justice Flávio Dino, who initiated Wednesday’s votes, cited disturbing examples of how violent content spreads unchecked online — including posts celebrating school shootings. “Social media hasn’t brought out the best in humanity,” Dino remarked grimly.

On the other side, Justice André Mendonça — the lone dissenter so far — warned that holding platforms directly accountable could suppress critical voices. “Freedom of expression on social media is essential for holding powerful institutions to account — including governments, political elites, and the platforms themselves,” Mendonça wrote in his opinion.

Legal Context and Political Tensions

Under Brazil’s current law, platforms are only liable for content if they fail to remove it after receiving a court order. This new ruling would change that, placing the burden on companies to act before a judge intervenes.

This legal pivot comes at a tense moment in Brazil–U.S. relations. American officials — including Secretary of State Marco Rubio — have floated possible visa restrictions for foreign authorities accused of censoring U.S. citizens. One of the figures reportedly under scrutiny is Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, known for pressuring platforms to follow Brazil’s digital regulations.

Fallout and Unanswered Questions

Even if this ruling becomes law, Brazil’s Congress could still pass legislation to override it. Meanwhile, the court has yet to outline exactly how the new standard of liability will be implemented.

Alvaro Palma de Jorge, a legal scholar at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in Rio, said platforms must be proactive: “They can’t just wait for a court order anymore. They need to adopt safeguards to prevent harm before it happens.”

But not everyone is on board.

The Brazilian Chamber of Digital Economy, which represents tech companies and startups, warned that this decision could stifle competition. “Big companies can absorb the legal costs. Small, national platforms can’t,” the organization said in a statement, adding that the move may “raise barriers to innovation and limit user freedom.”

A Step Toward EU-Style Regulation?

Brazil’s approach now closely mirrors the European Union’s efforts to rein in the influence of big tech through strict digital accountability laws. Whether this model can work in Brazil — a country with a large, polarized online population and intense political debate — remains to be seen.

For now, though, the message is clear: Brazil is no longer willing to let social media platforms take a hands-off approach to harmful content.

Source: AP News – Brazil’s Supreme Court justices agree to make social media companies liable for user content

The post Brazil’s Top Court Votes to Hold Social Media Platforms Liable for User Posts appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Streaming services didn’t kill piracy. They may have accidentally brought it back.

Just a decade ago, music piracy seemed like a fading memory. Services like Spotify and Apple Music gave millions easy, affordable access to nearly every song imaginable. Why risk viruses or lawsuits when you could stream legally for $10 a month?

But in 2025, piracy is back—and it’s thriving.

From Reddit threads to Facebook groups, there’s a growing conversation among listeners frustrated with the current state of streaming. The reasons are complex but familiar: rising costs, missing content, and the feeling that music lovers are getting less while paying more.

Here are six major reasons why piracy is once again gaining traction.

1. Streaming Prices Have Skyrocketed

What was once a budget-friendly $9.99 is now pushing $12 or more per month—and that’s just for a basic plan. Want lossless audio or family sharing? You’re looking at additional fees.

With music now competing for wallet space alongside Netflix, game subscriptions, and cloud storage, even loyal users are questioning the value. For students and younger fans—who often have the deepest connection to music—piracy is increasingly seen as the only affordable option.

2. People Want to Own Their Music Again

Streaming gives the illusion of access, but not ownership. One day your favorite song is there—next day, it’s gone due to licensing changes.

Unlike the days of ripped CDs and MP3 libraries, today’s listeners are locked into apps. Even premium subscribers can’t download files for real use. DJs, producers, and collectors especially feel the limitations.

Piracy offers a solution: downloadable, permanent files you can organize, backup, and use however you want. For many, it’s not about being cheap—it’s about control.

3. Major Gaps in Streaming Libraries

Think streaming covers everything? Think again. Many albums are incomplete, some artists are missing entirely, and international or underground music is often unavailable due to regional restrictions.

Looking for a rare B-side or a niche genre? Legal platforms rarely deliver. So fans turn to piracy—not because they want to, but because it’s the only place to find what they love.

4. Pirated Music Often Sounds Better

Ironically, pirates are beating streaming services at their own game: sound quality.

While some platforms now offer hi-res or lossless audio, it often depends on your connection or device. Meanwhile, pirated files come in pristine FLAC, WAV, or 24-bit formats ready for any sound system.

And unlike streaming, these files are yours to keep, edit, or mix—no strings (or DRM) attached.

5. Streaming Has Become Less User-Friendly

Streaming used to solve all the music industry’s problems. Now, it’s repeating them.

Fragmented catalogs, disappearing tracks, rising costs, and tighter restrictions have made once-beloved platforms feel clunky and limited.

Piracy in 2025 doesn’t mean sketchy torrents—it means sleek apps, YouTube rippers, and invite-only communities that mimic Spotify, only better. These platforms are fast, easy to use, and often more functional than the legal alternatives.

When piracy becomes the smoother experience, it’s not hard to see why users drift back.

6. Piracy Helps Fans Discover Rare Music

Streaming algorithms are built to feed you hits, not hidden gems. If you’re into obscure B-sides, bootlegs, or rare international releases, good luck finding them legally.

That’s where piracy shines.

Private trackers and online music forums act like digital archives, curating unreleased demos, out-of-print vinyl rips, and long-lost albums. For collectors and curators, it’s not about stealing—it’s about preserving and sharing what might otherwise be lost forever.

In a world where music is increasingly rented, not owned, piracy sometimes feels more like a cultural service than a crime.

A Final Note: Support the Artists

We do not endorse music piracy. Artists deserve to be paid for their work. This article is meant to explore why piracy has resurfaced—not to promote it.

If you love music, support it through legal and ethical channels. Buy albums, attend shows, and subscribe when you can. But also understand: the return of piracy says less about people being cheap—and more about an industry that’s lost touch with its listeners.

Source: Headphonesty – 6 Reasons Why Music Piracy Is Making a Comeback in 2025

The post 6 Reasons People Are Downloading Music Illegally Again appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In South Korea, deepfake porn is wreaking havoc on the lives of countless individuals, with devastating consequences for its victims. This cutting-edge technology allows malicious actors to manipulate images and videos, creating fake explicit content that feels alarmingly real. For many, the nightmare begins when they learn their faces have been digitally superimposed onto pornographic material without their consent.

Ruma, a university student, experienced this harrowing invasion of privacy in 2021. While enjoying lunch one summer day, she opened her phone to find it flooded with messages. What she saw shocked her to the core: photos of her face, taken from her social media accounts, had been edited onto naked bodies and shared in a Telegram chat room. The comments accompanying these images were deeply demeaning, taunting her with insults. The harassment didn’t stop there. The anonymous sender threatened to distribute the images more widely and boasted that the police would never catch them. For Ruma, it felt like her world had been turned upside down.

Sadly, Ruma’s experience is far from unique. In a society where digital sex crimes have already plagued South Korea—ranging from hidden cameras in public places to blackmail in online chat rooms—the rise of deepfake pornography presents a new and terrifying threat. The crisis is particularly severe in schools, where over 900 students, teachers, and staff reported being victims of deepfake sex crimes in 2022 alone. These figures don’t even account for university students, who have also been affected by this growing menace.

To combat this crisis, South Korea’s government has taken action. In response to the widespread issue, an emergency task force was created, and new legislation was passed in September 2022. The law now mandates severe penalties for those who create or distribute non-consensual deepfake pornography—up to seven years in prison for offenders. Possessing or viewing such material can lead to up to three years behind bars, or a fine of up to 30 million won (roughly $20,000). Despite these legal advancements, the reality is grim. In 2022, police only arrested 23 people out of the 964 deepfake-related sex crime cases reported. Many victims, including Ruma, have had to take matters into their own hands.

Ruma, who was just 27 years old when her ordeal began, said the incident completely shattered her trust in the world. “It broke my whole belief system about the world,” she explained. “The fact that they could use such vulgar, rough images to humiliate and violate you to that extreme extent really damages you almost irrevocably.”

Despite being told by police that they would struggle to get the necessary data from Telegram, she decided to take action. After hearing that other investigations had stalled due to difficulties in identifying suspects, she sought the help of activist Won Eun-ji. Known for her role in exposing South Korea’s largest digital sex crime network on Telegram, Won stepped in to help. Using a fake Telegram account, she infiltrated the chat room where the deepfake images of Ruma circulated. For nearly two years, Won gathered evidence, carefully engaging with users before coordinating with police for a sting operation.

The operation ultimately led to the arrest of two former students from Seoul National University (SNU). One of them was sentenced to nine years in prison for creating and distributing the deepfake material, while the other received a 3.5-year sentence. However, Ruma’s fight is far from over. “I didn’t expect the ruling to align exactly with the prosecution’s request,” she said. “I’m happy, but this is only the first trial. I don’t feel entirely relieved yet.”

Ruma’s case sheds light on the far-reaching and devastating impact of digital sex crimes. In many instances, the police have been slow to act, leaving victims to fend for themselves.

One high school teacher, identified only as Kim for her privacy, shared her own distressing experience. In July 2023, she learned from a student that explicit, digitally altered photos of her were circulating online. These images, which manipulated her appearance and added her face to nude bodies, were a cruel violation of her privacy. “My hands started to shake,” Kim recalled. “When could this photo have been taken, and who would upload such a thing?”

The police’s response to Kim was no more reassuring. They explained that identifying the perpetrator could only be done by requesting user information from Twitter (now rebranded as X). With concerns about the process taking too long, Kim and a colleague, also a victim of secret filming, launched their own investigation. Eventually, they discovered that the culprit was a quiet, introverted student—someone they never would have suspected.

Kim’s case highlights the lack of empathy often shown by the public toward victims of deepfake pornography. “I read a lot of articles and comments about deepfakes saying, ‘Why is it a serious crime when it’s not even your real body?’” she lamented. The societal apathy surrounding digital sex crimes only makes it easier for perpetrators to exploit their victims, often with little fear of consequence.

Activists like Won argue that South Korea’s long-standing failure to enforce laws against digital exploitation has fueled the growth of a toxic online environment. The rise of “acquaintance humiliation”—where perpetrators share manipulated photos and personal information of women they know—has left many victims living in constant fear for their safety.

The responsibility also lies with online platforms, which continue to be hotspots for illegal activities. Telegram, in particular, has been criticized for its failure to moderate content and share user data with authorities. While the company announced plans to crack down on illegal content and has begun cooperating with South Korean authorities, there are still significant concerns. In January 2023, police in Seoul successfully obtained data from Telegram, leading to the arrest of 14 people involved in a major deepfake pornography ring. While this marks a small victory, many victims feel that the fight is far from over.

For victims like Ruma and Kim, the fight against digital sex crimes is far from over. They continue to push for stricter punishments for perpetrators and more support for victims. “No matter how much punishments are strengthened, there are still far more victims who suffer because their perpetrators have not been caught,” Ruma said. “There’s a long way to go.”

As the South Korean government and activists work to address this growing crisis, the battle against deepfake pornography will require ongoing vigilance, stricter enforcement, and a societal shift to ensure that victims receive the justice they deserve.

Source: CNN – Deepfake porn is destroying real lives in South Korea

The post How Deepfake Porn is Destroying Lives in South Korea appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.