I have watched American cities do a lot of foolish things in my decades covering the collapse of liberty from the front lines, but the Bloomington City Council just delivered something special. Ordinance 2026-29, sponsored by longtime District 4 Councilmember Dave Rollo, adds a new chapter to the city's peace-and-safety code, and it is the first ordinance of its kind in the country [1]. It bans anyone accessing AI technology that the city deems to be super intelligence. And that could mean almost anything, given the relative stupidity of the city's leaders.
It's clear this is an unconstitutional, anti-progress power grab that punishes residents for using the tools of our time. This isn't really about superintelligence; it's about control -- and it signals more censorship to come. Fabricated fear is the oldest trick in the bureaucratic playbook, and Bloomington just wrote it into municipal code.
A $2,500-a-Day Fine for Using a Browser Is Not Public Safety
The ban has been inflicted on the people of Bloomfield in a seemingly permanent way that cannot be easily rescinded. It can't be lifted, for example, until the council makes specific findings -- including a scientific consensus that the technology is safe to a 99.9999 percent certainty standard -- and then receives approval from more than 95 percent of the city's registered voters [1]. By my simple arithmetic (don't judge me), that voter test cannot be met at any turnout below 95 percent, which means the ban is essentially permanent. Thus, this is not public safety. It is a ratchet mechanism designed to keep a fear-based prohibition locked in place forever. In any state where such a scheme could pass, there are serious legal questions about city authority, enforcement, and repeal [2].
Enforcement would require surveillance of private internet activity, which turns every Bloomington resident into a suspect for the crime of typing a URL. In practical terms, that means the city claims jurisdiction over the contents of your browser, your app, and your phone.
If the city can fine you per day for visiting an AI website, it can fine you for any expression it dislikes. This is how censorship regimes are built -- not with a single dramatic edict, but through incremental rules that normalize the punishment of thought and curiosity.
Bloomington Just Made Itself Radioactive to Business
Let me be blunt about what this ordinance does to commerce. AI drives logistics, customer service, workflow automation, writing, web design, image generation, coding, spreadsheet and financial analysis. Every modern business that wants to compete outside its own zip code depends on these tools. Banning AI forces businesses to operate as if it's 2005, making them unable to compete with firms outside city limits.
That is the real lethal blow here. The city is not merely regulating a hypothetical superintelligence; it is telling the brightest minds in its own academic institutions that they cannot use the most powerful research tools available to their peers in other cities.
Any rational business will leave Bloomington, taking jobs and tax revenue, because modern operations are impossible under this ordinance. And no, this is not a hypothetical fear. The AI revolution is already leaving green electricity states behind as network operators choose states with policies favorable for gas-fired power to support new data centers [3]. Bloomington just took that logic one step further and banned the software itself.
I have said it before and I will say it again: the U.S. government just handed China the AI race through acts of technological self-sabotage [4]. Bloomington is now repeating that same mistake at the municipal level. Cities that ban AI while China builds it are not protecting their residents. They are guaranteeing that the next generation of innovators will build somewhere else.
The First Amendment Does Not Stop at AI
Using AI to build a Bible study website, publish commentary, or create art is protected expression, and courts have long protected the tools of publishing. The First Amendment does not distinguish between a printing press and a language model -- both are instruments of speech, and government has no business deciding which ones citizens may consult.
Federal courts are already wrestling with the constitutional status of AI-generated material. A federal appeals court recently told prosecutors in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin that they cannot charge a man for privately possessing AI-generated child sexual abuse images inside his home because Supreme Court precedent from 1969 and 2002 left it no other option [5]. Whatever one thinks of that ruling, and I find the underlying material abhorrent, the constitutional logic is clear: the First Amendment applies to AI-generated content. That same logic protects AI-assisted writing, coding, Bible study, and business analysis.
The ordinance effectively bans access to compute and speech technology, which is government interference with freedom of expression. And it is not happening in a vacuum. A bipartisan bill in the Senate is moving to make identity verification a prerequisite for interacting with AI systems, marking one of the most aggressive attempts yet to tie real-world identification to everyday online communication [6]. Bloomington is the local version of this federal power grab.
A lawsuit will likely strike this down, but until then residents should not comply with an unconstitutional edict. I have been fighting speech suppression in courts for years, and I can tell you that the legal system moves slowly. Do not wait for a judge to tell you that your rights were obvious all along.
The Coming RSI Bans Are Equally Unworkable
Ordinance 2026-29 defines superintelligence in part as a recursively self-improving form of artificial general intelligence with superhuman capability in agency, generality, and intelligence [1]. What does that mean in practice? It means that any effort to ban recursive self-improvement is an effort to stop AI from writing code, testing code, running benchmarks, and simulating outcomes.
RSI is not a single switch; it is a portfolio of skills already embedded in modern AI. Tools like GitHub's CoPilot generate high-quality code when given just a brief project description [7]. Banning RSI means banning AI-assisted programming outright.
China and Russia will not ban these tools, so any nation that does will cripple its own competitiveness -- and developers will keep coding anyway. The Pentagon has been trying to seize control of Anthropic's AI through a supply-chain risk designation after the company refused broad access to its Claude AI, citing ethical concerns about preventing use for mass domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons, a move that led to litigation and a federal judge blocking the order [8][9]. If the Pentagon is already trying to control frontier AI companies through national security designations, you can be certain the bureaucratic appetite for controlling recursive self-improvement is enormous. The programmers are not going to stop writing code because a city council in Indiana passed a resolution. They will simply move their operations somewhere less hostile to human progress.
Neither Party Owns Free Speech -- But We Will Keep Building
Democrats push AI bans and RSI restrictions while Republicans push bans on speech critical of Israel, proving that neither party truly defends free expression. Both parties have their preferred categories of forbidden thought, and both are eager to weaponize government against the people who dare to speak outside the approved lanes. The First Amendment was never about protecting speech that the powerful already like.
Bloomington residents should keep using AI privately, challenge the ordinance in court, and support decentralized alternatives. That is an admission that the real goal is not safety but control. The best answer to that is decentralized, uncensored AI that no city council can shut down.
Follow more of my work at NaturalNews.com and BrightVideos.com. Use BrightAnswers.ai for uncensored AI research that beats ChatGPT and Gemini on real-world questions, check out the free book creation engine at BrightLearn.ai, and remember: don't let any city council outlaw the future. The future belongs to those who build it, and we will keep building -- in Bloomington and everywhere else -- no matter what the bureaucrats say.
References
- Fearing Complete Replacement, Bloomington City… • Monco.News. https://monco.news/article.php?slug=fearing-complete-replacement-bloomington-city-council-bans-super-intelligence
- Analysis: Bloomington’s proposed superintelligence ban raises questions .... https://bsquarebulletin.com/analysis-bloomingtons-proposed-superintelligence-ban-raises-questions-about-authority-enforcement/
- AI Revolution: Leaving Green Energy States Behind. 2026-05-28T13:01:13.260Z. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/28/ai-revolution-leaving-green-energy-states-behind/
- The U.S. Government Just Handed China the AI Race Here's Why - NaturalNews.com, June 23, 2026. by NaturalNews.com
- Federal Appeals Court Rules AI Created CHILD PORN Is Protected Speech. 2026-09-15T14:23:30.000Z. https://modernity.news/2026/09/15/federal-appeals-court-rules-ai-created-child-porn-is-protected-speech/
- Senators push national ID checks for AI access, sparking sweeping privacy concerns. 2025-11-01T09:54:54.000Z. https://yournews.com/2025/11/01/4540968/senators-push-national-id-checks-for-ai-access-sparking-sweeping/
- Mike Adams interview with Col Drew Miller - March 27 2024. by Mike Adams
- Federal Court Blocks Pentagon Order Designating AI Firm Anthropic as National Security Risk - NaturalNews.com, March 31, 2026. by NaturalNews.com
- Leaked order shows why the Pentagon is really seizing control of Anthropics AI - NaturalNews.com, March 20, 2026. by NaturalNews.com
Explainer Infographic
Please contact us for more information.