Tell your representatives to vote NO against the RESTRICT Act (S.686)
By Ethan Huff // Apr 04, 2023

Under the pretense of protecting national security, two United States senators, Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Tom Thune (R-S.D.), have introduced a bipartisan bill that, if passed, will mean the end of the First Amendment.

Touted by the media as the "TikTok ban," S.686 will supposedly stop foreign adversaries like communist China from interfering with and spying on Americans and American interests. The truth, however, is that its passage would spell the end of free speech online.

As stated in the bill, the RESTRICT Act gives the executive branch, meaning the presidency, the power to "[enforce] any mitigation measure to address any risk" regarding a "current, past, or potential future transaction" with what it deems to be a foreign adversary, i.e., communist China or Russia.

"It would also apply to taking action 'to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' including 'interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election,'" one media report states.

Those found to be in violation of these provisions face hefty fines of up to $1 million as well as a possible jail sentence lasting 20 years. All of this centers primarily around TikTok, at least on the surface, because the social media app is based out of China. But the reality is that the language of S.686 could be applied to pretty much any app or online activity.

"I think we should ban TikTok, but I'm a little more concerned with the RESTRICT Act," said Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), adding that he is "very worried" the RESTRICT Act will "creat[e], effectively, a PATRIOT Act for the digital age."

Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity's knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Use our decentralized, blockchain-based, uncensorable free speech platform at Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.

Have a look at the bill's language for yourself and let us know what you think about it.

(Related: Be sure to also check out our earlier coverage on the RESTRICT Act, which is a thinly disguised power grab by the federal government.)

Biden regime eager to see RESTRICT Act passed so it can target and punish its opponents

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a constitutional conservative much like his father, also commented on the RESTRICT Act, warning that it is a "Trojan horse" just like the PATRIOT Act was.

"Prepare for the Patriot Act for the internet," Paul tweeted.

In order to enforce the RESTRICT Act, the government will also pry into and spy on people's computers and smartphones, which is another violation of the Constitution that too few media outlets are addressing in their coverage of the bill.

"It gives the government the ability to go after anyone they deem as a national security risk at which point they can access everything from their computer to video games to their ring light," commented State Freedom Caucus Network communications director Greg Price.

As you might expect, the Biden regime is eager to see the RESTRICT Act passed, as it will allow for those who oppose its agenda to also be targeted. People caught criticizing the Biden regime online could be accused of threatening national security, allowing for large fines and prison time as punishment.

Amazingly, there is also very little to suggest that the RESTRICT Act would even do anything to stop actual foreign adversarial spying through apps like TikTok, which is supposed to be the purpose behind its passage.

"As it currently stands, the RESTRICT Act might result in action against TikTok but only after a drawn-out bureaucratic process in which unelected officials decide it could harm the U.S., six months after which a decision might be made to prohibit it, and the president might direct the attorney general to take legal action against it," wrote Samuel Mangold-Lenett for The Federalist.

The latest news about the status of the RESTRICT Act can be found at

Sources for this article include:

Take Action:
Support NewsTarget by linking to this article from your website.
Permalink to this article:
Embed article link:
Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use is permitted with credit to (including a clickable link).
Please contact us for more information.
Free Email Alerts
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more. © 2022 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published on this site. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

This site uses cookies
News Target uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using this site, you agree to our privacy policy.
Learn More
Get 100% real, uncensored news delivered straight to your inbox
You can unsubscribe at any time. Your email privacy is completely protected.