The Von Der Leyen commission is talking about VPN bans and this sparked outrage online. The proposals are made "for the collective good", "social harmony over human rights", "protecting children".

How are they supposed to protect the people by violating GDPR? How are they supposed to protect young people if they are stripping away their rights? They are trying to indoctrinate the EU youth with conservatism, they're trying to weaken the civic society, they're trying to transform Europe into Singapore.

What the EU Commission isn't telling you about the plans:

- Violation of the Freedom of expression.

- Youth rights violation.

- Privacy violation.

- Mass Surveillance infrastructure.

Independent journalism needs support. Independent outlets aren't as strong as the mainstream ones.

This image says more than 1000 words on the situation in the UK.

We are witnessing how the UK is turning into a Dictatorship, like Singapore, where laws are made to sacrifice human rights for social harmony.

Benjamin Franklin once said:"The one who is willing to sacrifice the freedoms for security, doesn't deserve freedom nor security ".

The social media ban in the UK is one the most pervert effects of the Nanny State.

The last form of the Nanny State is Vote-Free Generation, which works like Smoke-free Generation.

We don't want to be like Asia, where humans aren't free. We have to remain European.

Education is the real solution. We should avoid having the same fate as Singapore. Because of Brexit, UK became Singapore.

VOX DIGITAL IS A DIGITAL DEMOCRACY WATCHDOG.

THE DIGITAL PEOPLE'S OUTLET. THE VOICE OF THOSE OPPRESSED BY DIGITAL CENSORSHIP IN EUROPE.

Independent journalism needs support. Follow Vox Digital for more articles about Digital Rights and the Situation in Europe.

The sinister plot by politicians to become Big Brother and control your every single click.

THE ATTACK ON FREEDOM: WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

* Copying Australia: Politicians are desperate to completely ban social media for teenagers.

* The Secret Plan: They know kids will easily bypass the ban, so they want to outlaw VPNs.

* Mass Surveillance: This insane move turns the free internet into a North Korean-style control grid.

WHY THIS IS A NIGHTMARE FOR YOUR DIGITAL RIGHTS?

* Goodbye Privacy: Without a VPN, your banking details and private chats are exposed to everyone.

* Pure Censorship: The government gets to decide exactly what you can and cannot see online.

* Punishing Everyone: To stop a few teenagers, they are destroying the rights of millions of citizens.

SECURITY IS NOT A CRIME: A VPN IS A VITAL CYBERSECURITY TOOL, NOT AN ILLEGAL WEAPON.

* The Failed Aussie Model: Neighbors proved that tech bans only destroy freedom, not actual risks.

* The Real Solution: We need digital education in schools, not internet police on our screens.

[Independent journalism needs support. Follow Vox Digital for more investigations on digital rights]

For the record, the American people are completely within their rights to make a class-action lawsuit against the government for failing in its obligation to uphold its end of the bargain according to the written contract as of 1789. That's what the Supreme Court is there for. When all else fails, the Supreme Court belongs to the American people as a final recourse when the other two branches step outside of their boundaries.

Seeing as people bring class action lawsuits against corporations, and a certain gentleman sued his own government and won, the people of North Carolina, or any other state, are well within their rights to bring a class-action lawsuit against their state representatives anytime those representatives fail in the obligations to the people who elected them. The same thing has been done numerous times, and in different forms. Think the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, suffrage in the 19th-20th century, immigration and voting reform in the 1880s, Trust-Busting around the turn of the 20th century, Erin Brokovich, any movie with Hilary Swank, that kind of thing.

If this was something the people of North Carolina themselves were voting on, it would be less of an issue. Say two-thirds of the people voted to call abortion murder, okay, fine and fair enough, that's the majority of the people in North Carolina agreeing that they don't want abortion.

What makes this an issue is that it is the state itself voting for whether or not abortion is classifiable as murder. If the state decides that abortion is murder, the people of North Carolina have no say. If the state decides that abortion is not murder, the same thing applies; that is, the state making a declaration regardless of what the people of North Carolina want.

Basically, this is the same issue we're seeing across the board. The people vote for a representative, and the representative votes for the state, leaving the will of the people out of the equation except for the role they play in casting a vote. The vote the people cast, rather than acting as a concentration of the will of the people, is a concentration of the will of the state by co-opting the people's participation. Call it vote laundering, the people's will goes into the machine, and gets converted into the will of the state.

But it's really something worse than that. The vote of the people is a kind of currency. By voting, the people invest their currency in the expectation of a return. Instead, the invested currency is used to benefit the state. Like if someone invested money in a business and the business used that investment as collateral to do something the investors hadn't agreed to.

Something along those lines would be the basis for a class-action lawsuit against the state via the Supreme Court. The judge could throw it out, but that would put the state in jeopardy of losing the tacit acquiescence of the people. In a case like this, if the people brought a class-action lawsuit against the legislature, it would be up to the legislature to prove that they were acting according to the will of the people. If it turns out that the state was acting according to the will of the people, good deal, that's what the Supreme Court is there for. If it turns out that the state was acting in its own interest contrary to the will of the people, awesome, that's what the Supreme Court is there for.

The people vote for the president to act as representative of the country, they vote for senators to represent their state, and they vote for representatives to vote for the local interests. When all else fails, the Supreme Court belongs to the American people as a final recourse when the other two branches step outside of their boundaries. is to redress the balance, and that is best accomplished when the people themselves bring the breach of contract to the attention of the court directly. And the balance of responsibility returns to its equilibrium.