Swiss Supreme Court suspends threat of criminal charges for parents who refuse to enable daughter’s “transition”, following appeal filing 

  • In July, Geneva’s highest court demanded parents, under threat of criminal charges, enable child’s legal “sex change” by handing over her identity documents 
  • Swiss Supreme Court has “frozen” threat of criminal charges following parents filing appeal in court last week, pending outcome of case 
  • ADF International backs parents’ legal challenge, which can be supported HERE

Basel (25 September 2024) – The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has suspended the threat of criminal charges against parents separated from their daughter for refusing to enable her gender “transition”.  

The decision was made following the parents filing an appeal at the court (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht) last week. The parents, with the legal support of ADF International, are appealing a ruling ordering them to facilitate their 16-year-old teenager’s legal “sex change” by handing over her identity documents.  

“As a parent you want to protect your children. The state should not have the power to criminalise loving parents who want the best for their child."

- Father

The parents, whose identity is being kept anonymous, were separated from their daughter over a year ago by court order after they objected to their child’s “transition”, in a case that has garnered  worldwide attention. A video of the parents explaining their harrowing story has been viewed over 66 million times.  

Speaking about the appeal, the father said: “Our hope lies now with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

“As a parent you want to protect your children. The state should not have the power to criminalise loving parents who want the best for their child.” 

The parents are appealing a July ruling from the highest court in the canton of Geneva, the Court of Justice.  

Before the intervention of the Supreme Court, the ruling meant the parents could have been criminally charged if they did not hand over their daughter’s identity documents for her recorded sex to be changed from female to male in the civil registry records, in a legal “sex change”. 

A legal “sex change” could lead the daughter down the path of harmful physical interventions of puberty blockers, “cross-sex” hormone drugs, and, ultimately, body-altering surgeries. 

Case background 

The case centres on parents who responded to the mental health struggles of their daughter, who expressed “gender confusion”, with care and support, including obtaining mental health care for her.   

Concerned their daughter was being pushed to make hasty and potentially irreversible decisions, the parents declined puberty blockers and explicitly rejected her school’s attempt to “socially transition” her.  

The school disregarded the parents’ wishes, “socially transitioned” the daughter and liaised with the state child welfare agency Service de Protection des Mineurs (SPMI), in a situation which led to a court ordering that the daughter be separated from her parents. 

The daughter now lives in a government shelter and the parents’ access to her is regulated by the state. 

Billboard Chris, a father of two who campaigns to defend children from gender ideology, today mentioned this case in a speech he gave at the UN, where he was hosted by ADF International, about the harms of gender ideology on children. 

Further case details can be found here. 

Appeal filed at Supreme Court 

In the appeal filed with the support of ADF International, the parents argue their daughter is not able to discern the implications of a so-called “sex change” under the law, which would make her vulnerable to an array of dangerous physical interventions, including puberty blockers and surgeries.  

Furthermore, they argue the long-term health consequences of “transitioning” cannot be fully assessed by a teenager, especially considering the outside influences, including from her school, to which she continues to be subjected. 

According to the parents, no psychiatrist or other medical professional has provided a conclusive assessment of their daughter’s ability to understand the consequences of her decisions, which is a fundamental requirement under the law.  

Additionally, they highlight that the daughter’s state-appointed lawyer failed to submit any medical certification regarding her capacity to discern the implications of her decision.  

The parents believe their daughter’s well-being, both mentally and physically, is in danger as she continues to reside in the government youth shelter. 

“Children who experience discomfort with their biological sex deserve to be treated with dignity and need compassionate mental health care, which these parents have gone to great lengths to provide. 

“Not only have these parents not had their concerns addressed by the court, but they have also endured a severe violation of their rights as loving parents, with the court transferring authority over their daughter’s medical care from them to the state, in addition to ordering that she reside in a government shelter. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to correct this grave injustice,” commented Dr Felix Boellmann, lead lawyer on the case for ADF International. 

The court is expected to take up to six months to reach a decision.  

Lower court judgment 

The decision in July by the Court of Justice confirmed a lower court’s ruling that the parents must hand over documents to enable their daughter’s “sex change” under the law.  

The Court of Justice based its ruling on Article 30b of the Swiss Code Civil, which does not require parental consent when a child capable of discernment is over 16 years of age.  

During the trial, the state child welfare agency failed in its duty to raise concerns about the child’s decision-making capacity.   

The court held a legal “sex change” could be considered in isolation from other steps to physically “transition”. However, the recent Cass Review in the UK demonstrated there is a clear path from “social transition” to irreversible medical interventions.  

Protecting children requires respecting families  

The parents’ legal team asserts that the ability to withhold the personal documents required for the daughter’s legal “sex change” is crucial to protect her from further harm posed by so-called “gender affirmative treatment”.  

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court is the last domestic recourse for the parents.  

Dr. Boellmann stated: “Safeguarding children from harmful agendas requires respect for the rights of parents. No child should be separated from their loving parents by the state. It is imperative that the Court recognizes, clearly and decisively, that the parents are the primary decisionmakers when it comes to the best interest of the child.  

“Now the court needs to step in to defend the wellbeing of this child, and in so doing, all other children in Switzerland. The Court must abide by Switzerland’s international human rights obligations to protect both the child and parental rights.” 

Read more about the background of the case here.  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

“Hate Speech” Element Dropped from Censorial Irish Bill

What's the purpose of "hate speech" laws? Text with Irish flag. "Hate speech" elements were dropped in Sept. 2024.

Inform yourself about the Irish “hate speech” bill, and you’ll find the censorial truth.

UPDATE 21 September 2024: In a win for free speech, the Irish government dropped “hate speech” from proposed legislation. ADF International briefed Irish lawmakers on the dangers and, in June, gathered free speech advocates in Dublin to oppose the draconian “hate speech” bill.

Hate speech laws in Ireland increase censorship

Censorship. It’s an elusive term animated throughout history with growing relevance today. “Hate speech” laws loom large over Western political and social conversations. Blasphemy laws criminalize faith-based speech and belief in countries like Nigeria and Pakistan. By now, almost everyone is aware of censorship.

Some may think of George Orwell’s 1984; others, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Censorship takes many forms – like book burning and imposing “newspeak” – but Ireland now leads the dystopian cause with its hotly debated “hate speech” bill.

And so, as the state-driven tide of censorship sweeps the world, Europe stands at the forefront of the ongoing conversation. Why? Because almost every Western nation has introduced “hate speech” laws enabling authorities to enforce penalties for certain speech they deem unpopular or unorthodox.

These laws are introduced under the guise of combatting “a rise of hate”, or offensive speech that can make people feel insulted or uncomfortable. But criminalizing speech is not the answer. Rather, allowing more robust speech that facilitates open debate instead. That’s why we stand against so-called “hate speech” laws like the proposed one in Ireland.

“Hate speech” dropped from new law – what it means

Thankfully, the Irish government has indicated it will not proceed with the most censorial elements of the proposed “Hate Speech” Bill.

With the world watching, the people of Ireland said ‘no’ to state censorship, and it’s working.

The Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill 2022, currently stuck in the Irish Senate, will proceed without the draconian speech elements that had previously been advanced. Remember, incitement to hatred remains illegal under existing law.

Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has recognized that there is a lack of consensus on the proposed bill’s “hate speech” restrictions.

The Minister for Justice is reported as saying: “The incitement to hatred element [of the bill] does not have a consensus, so that will be dealt with at a later stage.”

Pro-censorship actors may seek to bring in a separate new law in the future.

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

The Irish “hate speech” bill seeks to criminalize the possession of material “likely” to incite hatred. This includes memes and photos saved on devices, with up to five years of jail time. Yes, photos on personal devices. Yet, there is no clear definition of what “hate” entails.

Therefore, this is a dangerous trajectory. ADF International highlights the dangers of the “hate speech” bill while briefing Irish lawmakers on how to uphold freedom of speech.

What are “hate speech” laws?

So-called “hate speech” laws are ambiguously worded laws that criminalize certain speech beyond what is acceptable in a democratic society.

Despite having no basis in international law, all European Union Member States have vague and subjective “hate speech” laws. The United Nations, EU, and Council of Europe concur that “hate speech” lacks a universally agreed-upon definition. Nonetheless, the European Commission seeks to make “hate speech” an EU-wide crime on the same list as trafficking and terrorism.

These laws, with the wrong police and prosecutor, can be weaponized against any person and any form of speech. Thus, explicitly violating the state’s obligation to protect free speech.

Do “hate speech” laws deter hate?

The short answer is no. But because “hate speech” laws rely on vague terms such as ‘insult,’ ‘belittle,’ and ‘offend,’ they are inconsistently interpreted and arbitrarily enforced. Oftentimes, the threat of serious criminal penalties accompanies charges.

Rather than combat hate, the criminalization of speech based on subjective criteria creates a culture of fear and censorship.

An offence is considered hateful in reference to the hearer or reader, making it subjective with little to no regard for the content of the speech itself. They are incompatible with free societies. 

How the proposed Irish "hate speech" law is different than others

The Irish “hate speech” bill would move the needle further. If passed, we could expect commonplace prosecutions like Päivi Räsänen’s for posting a Bible verse on “X” in 2019 about her biblical worldview on marriage and sexuality. In fact, Ireland’s censorial law would go even further than Finland’s.

We’re ramping up public advocacy to expose the unprecedented dangers of what the Irish government is doing. All have the right to live and speak the truth without fear of censorship or retaliation. That’s why we’re asking Irish lawmakers to uphold their obligation to protect free speech under international human rights law.

Consequently, the Irish “hate speech” bill has two major facets that other laws like Finland’s do not include. For example:
  • It leaves the issue of gender open-ended by including a list of “protected characteristics” allowing for unlimited “gender identities” like ‘non-binary’ and ‘two-spirit’. These self-identities would receive protection supported by criminal law.

  • It allows authorities to criminalize private possession of memes or any content “likely” to incite violence or hatred “…against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics”.

This means “misgendering” someone could land you a criminal prosecution, fine or worse. If the Irish “hate speech” bill becomes law, Irish police would have the power to search phones, camera rolls, and emails for prosecutable content.

It’s paramount that we all spread awareness about the dangers of this bill.

Why Ireland is pushing this now

The Irish government claims that the law is necessary following rising incidents of violence in the country, which many tie to uncontrolled migration. But peace and security on the streets do not require “hate speech” laws suppressing peaceful speech.

With key terms deliberately undefined, how are we to know what kind of speech could be subject to prosecution? “Hate speech” laws are Western blasphemy laws by another name; both are state driven.

The thought of Irish police raiding homes and phones to seize banned books and memes invokes thoughts of Orwell and the darker moments of the last century. 

Our right to freedom of expression is protected by numerous international human rights treaties. The European Court of Human Rights even affirmed that the right to freedom of expression protects not just popular ideas but also those that shock, offend, and disturb.   

Yet, some argue that unpopular speech should be censored by the state. But where is the logical stopping point?

Have we learned nothing from Finland? 

“Hate speech” laws are detrimental to a society seeking to protect freedom of speech or thought. In Finland, we’ve supported Päivi’s defence for almost five years with two unanimous acquittals. She was charged with three counts of “hate speech” because of her “X” post, a pamphlet she authored for her church, and comments she made during a radio programme.

In January 2024, the state prosecutor appealed her case to the Finnish Supreme Court. On 19 April, the high court agreed to hear the appeal, so Päivi will face her third criminal trial in three years. However, the legal process is Päivi’s punishment because the state has unlimited funds to prosecute offenders of their “hate speech” laws. Prosecutions cost taxpayer funds, while reputations sometimes become irreparably harmed.

If Päivi’s now famous “hate speech” case took place in Ireland, she could be prosecuted for simply possessing the pamphlet she wrote for her church congregation on the biblical definition of marriage, even if it was never published online.

Ireland should be a place where important conversations about issues that matter – even about controversial and sensitive topics thrive. When these conversations are shut down, we all lose out.

Conclusion: Ireland must reject its new “hate speech” bill

In summary, “hate speech” laws leave the door wide open to state censorship and oppression. And yet, the Irish government has been moving forward with a new bill to criminalize “hate speech” since 2022.

This could be one of the most far-reaching clampdowns on free speech by a modern democracy. It implicates memes, jokes, and books. Instead of protecting free speech and public safety, this law is poised to set a draconian precedent of intolerance against those who express beliefs outside the state-approved orthodoxy. 

Unpopular speech needs the most protection, and in a free society, free speech is required. Individuals should be able to express their beliefs without fear or oppression. The Irish “hate speech” bill is a far cry from the liberal democratic ideals the Irish government claims to profess.

The Irish government has chosen to uphold freedom of speech.

TODAY: Trial begins for army vet who prayed silently near abortion facility

  • Father of two, who served in Afghanistan, faces criminal trial for praying silently in abortion “buffer zone” in Bournemouth – ADF UK supporting legal defence
  • Sir Edward Leigh, Miriam Cates react to “thoughtcrime” trial taking place at Poole Magistrates’ Court
  • UK Government to roll out “buffer zones” nationwide, imminently – human rights experts warn against plans to name “silent prayer” as a crime in buffer zone guidance

DORSET (17th September 2024) – Poole Magistrates’ Court will hear the case of Adam Smith-Connor, the father and army veteran criminally charged for praying silently near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, in a three day trial beginning TODAY – until 19th September.

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council filed the charges on the basis that Smith-Connor was praying within a censored “buffer zone” – an area covering several streets in the town – in which authorities have banned various expressions of pro-life or Christian belief, including through offering help to women in crisis pregnancies, or praying.

Read the full text of the Public Spaces Protection Order here. 

The defence contends that a mere thought cannot amount to a crime, and authorities must not criminalise citizens for the opinions or beliefs they hold in their minds on any given public street. 

"It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime."

- Adam Smith-Connor, facing trial on Tuesday for silently praying in a "buffer zone"

On the date in question, Smith-Connor prayed silently for approximately three minutes before being approached by police officers. The legal proceedings have continued for almost two years, and the trial is scheduled to take place for three days. 

The Council has so far run up legal fees – charged to the public purse – in excess of £34k to prosecute an offence carrying a maximum fine of £1k. 

"What is the nature of your prayer?"

Smith-Connor was issued a fixed penalty notice on 13th December 2022. The notice detailed that he had been “praying for his deceased son” a month earlier on 24th November 2022 near an abortion facility on Orphir Road in Bournemouth where an abortion facility censorship zone or “buffer zone” is in place. 

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

During their interaction with Smith-Connor, which was captured on video, officers asked the father of two, “what is the nature of your prayer?”

Smith-Connor, who now regrets having paid for an abortion for his ex-girlfriend in the past, was praying about his experience, about the child whom he lost, and for the men and women facing difficult decisions about abortion today. He prayed with his back to the facility to avoid any impression of approaching or engaging with women using the facility. 

A lack of clarity from police

Smith-Connor’s case has unveiled confusion amongst police officers regarding the permissibility of silent prayer in UK law.  

 In a filmed encounter with police on another occasion in which Smith-Connor had silently prayed in the same spot, officers had informed him that he was not breaking the law, remarking, “this is England and it’s a public place and you’re entitled to do that.” 

WATCH THE INTERACTION HERE.

“In various other circumstances, the police and the courts have made it clear that silent prayer is not a criminal act. And yet, BCP Council, which has already conceded that presence is not in itself an offence, has introduced a rights-restricting censorship zone, which they now argue extends to a ban on silent prayer,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, supporting Smith-Connor’s defense.  

“In permitting the prosecution of silent prayer, we are sailing into dangerous waters regarding human rights protections in the UK. Censorship zones are inherently wrong and engender unhelpful legal confusion regarding the right to free thought. Both domestic and international law have long established freedom of thought as an absolute right that must not ever be interfered with by the state.

“The Telegraph recently reported that Ministers are considering naming “silent prayer” as a crime in their “buffer zones” guidance – to do so would not only be a legal error, it could open up the floodgates to human rights violations similar to those experienced by Adam Smith-Connor,” he continued.

A series of British "thoughtcrime" trials

Smith-Connor’s case will mark the third in a series of high-profile cases in which citizens have been tried in court for praying silently in their heads within abortion facility “buffer zones”.  

In March 2022, charitable volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce and Catholic priest Father Sean Gough, were both found “not guilty” after facing criminal charges for similar actions to Smith-Connor. Read more. 

Though being found “not guilty” of breaching the censorship zone or “buffer zone” with her thoughts, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested a second time in March after she prayed silently in the same spot near the abortion facility once again. Six police officers attended the scene. In August 2024, police paid Vaughan-Spruce a settlement of £13,000 for her two unlawful arrests. 

Five councils across the UK currently have active “buffer zones” or censorship zones banning prayer and offers of charitable help to women on the public streets near abortion facilities. 

On 7th March 2023, the UK Parliament voted to roll out “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales as part of the Public Order Act 2023. The Labour Government are expected to implement the zones imminently. Last month, the Telegraph reported that Ministers are considering naming “silent prayer” as a criminal activity within the guidance of the new law.

Ahead of the trial, Adam Smith-Connor commented:

“Nobody should be prosecuted for silent prayer. It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime.

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”

Smith-Connor’s trial was originally scheduled to take place in November 2023, but was delayed by the Court. At Poole Magistrates’ Court, Smith-Connor delivered an emotional address to supporters – see below.

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor; Adam Smith-Connor praying outside Poole Magistrates Court with Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Jeremiah Igunnubole, ADF UK

Liz Truss, Michael Shellenberger, join over 100 free speech champions in condemning ban on “X” in Brazil 

  • International journalists, politicians and thought-leaders sign open letter to Brazilian congress: “Freedom of expression is not negotiable” 
  • Five Attorneys General, Lord David Frost, Eva Vlaardingerbroek, David Starkey CBE, Rod Dreher, Babylon Bee’s Seth Dillon, Senior UK, US, European and Latin American politicians and professors unite to call for ban on “X” to be overturned 

(12 September 2024) – Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, “Twitter Files” journalist Michael Shellenberger and over 100 international free speech advocates have joined an open letter condemning the suspension of “X” in Brazil in an open letter to the Brazilian congress.

Read the letter in full, which is now open to signature from members of the public, here.

The letter, signed by five US Attorneys General, three members of the UK House of Lords, Daily Wire’s Megan Basham, bestselling author Rod Dreher, podcaster Tammy Peterson, “Babylon Bee” CEO Seth Dillon, X “Spaces” host Mario Nawfal, former US Senator Sam Brownback, and leading academics including Princeton’s Dr. Robert P. George, emphasizes the importance of free speech following a severe censorial crackdown in Brazil. 

"Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere."

- Michael Shellenberger, author & journalist targeted for criminal investigation for reporting on the censorship efforts of Brazilian courts

The letter describes the shutdown of “X”, purchased by Elon Musk in 2022, throughout the country as “a dangerous escalation” of the “troubling trend of global censorship of speech.” 

Addressed to the Brazilian Congress, the letter continues: 

“There is no quicker path to the demise of democracy than the erosion of free speech. 

We urge the Brazilian government to restore the free flow of information, and respect the rights of its citizens to express their views without fear of retribution.” 

A violation of human rights

The initiative was coordinated by legal advocacy group ADF International, which has also written to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over Brazil under the American Convention on Human Rights) to demand its urgent intervention against the violation of free speech. 

The censorship crisis in Brazil reached a peak on Friday 30th August, when Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts that it had singled out for censorship.   

The decision threatened a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800 / almost $9,000) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via a virtual private network (VPN).  

The same Justice also has issued an order to freeze the assets of the company Starlink, a satellite internet provider. The company is a subsidiary of SpaceX, an entirely different company with different shareholders, following X’s refusal to comply with the censorship orders.

"If Brazil is allowed to continue in this authoritarian vein, other countries across the West could likely follow in its footsteps."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF International

Free speech is "not a privilege"

The letter, demanding the immediate restoration of free speech in Brazil, attracted signatures from sports star and advocate Riley Gaines, journalists Andy Ngo and Melissa Chen, public intellectuals Dr. Peter Boghossian and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, childrens’ rights campaigner Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), and historian David Starkey.  

Concluding, the letter reads: “Freedom of expression is not negotiable, nor is it a privilege – it is the cornerstone of every democratic society. We must defend it whenever it is under threat, whether in Brazil or anywhere else in the world.” 

Michael Shellenberger, the author and journalist behind “The Twitter Files,” signed the letter, having been targeted for criminal investigation for reporting on the censorship efforts of Brazilian courts. 

Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, which coordinated the open letter, said: 

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Every Brazilian has the fundamental human right to free speech. What Brazilian authorities are doing is directly in violation of both Brazilian and international law, and the global community must hold them accountable.   

If Brazil is allowed to continue in this authoritarian vein, other countries across the West could likely follow in its footsteps, imposing draconian orders to silence speech and banning digital meeting places. It is imperative that we use our voices to speak up for free expression while we have still have the freedom to do so.”  

Commenting on the censorial clampdown, Shellenberger said: 

“I am being criminally investigated by Brazilian authorities for exposing their attempts to censor. Brazil has reached a crisis point where a lone Supreme Court judge could wield his authority to shut down X in the country.    

Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere. It’s not only bad policy and bad politics, it’s a blatant violation of basic human rights for authorities to ban the speech of their own citizens. It’s inconceivable that human beings should be censored and silenced by other human beings simply because they disagree with their speech.” 

In May, Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil, also commented on the censorship taking place:

“The attempts by Judge Alexandre de Moraes to censor and silence the people of Brazil simply cannot stand. Our constitution specifically prohibits all censorship and guarantees the right to freedom of expression; these are not only constitutionally-protected rights, but basic, human rights that should be guaranteed and preserved for all Brazilians. Censorship has no place in a free society, and I implore all who are able to join me in vehemently opposing these kinds of restrictions.” 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Paul Coleman, Michael Shellenberger

Brazil, Elon Musk, X, and Censorship: What You Need to Know

freedom of speech is universal

The Brazilian Supreme Court blatantly violated free speech rights by banning X after the company’s chairman, Elon Musk, declined to censor disfavored views.

This story originally appeared in Alliance Defending Freedom on 6 September 2024

When Elon Musk bought Twitter (now known as X) in 2022, he did so with the stated purpose of restoring free speech on a platform that had been credibly accused of censoring disfavored views. And no matter whether one agrees with everything Musk has said or done since then, it is clear he has taken meaningful steps toward achieving that goal.

Unfortunately, many in the United States and around the world have opposed Musk’s attempt to advance free speech. This opposition has become painfully apparent in Brazil, where the country’s highest court is engaging in blatant and unacceptable censorship against Musk and X.

Brazil’s highest court violates free speech rights

In 2019, the Brazilian Supreme Court gave itself the power to carry out criminal investigations into “fake news,” defamation, slander, and threats against the honor of the Court. This was a dangerous abuse of power, and the consequences of such a draconian measure have now been laid bare.

Fast forward five years, and Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and Musk have been engaged in a dispute stemming from de Moraes’s demands that X censor messages the justice disfavors. On Aug. 28, 2024, de Moraes gave Musk 24 hours to name a legal representative for X in Brazil.

Musk declined to name a representative because Brazil had threatened the previous representative with jail time. On Aug. 30, de Moraes officially suspended X nationwide in Brazil. In addition, he froze the bank accounts of Starlink, another company partially owned by Musk that provides internet via satellite.

In his order suspending X, de Moraes said the platform presented a “real danger” of “negatively influencing the electorate in 2024, with massive misinformation, with the aim of unbalancing the electoral result, based on hate campaigns in the digital age, to favor extremist populist groups.”

In other words, the suspension was not solely motivated by X’s lack of legal representation. It was motivated, at least in part, by de Moraes’s fears that allowing certain speech on X might lead to an electoral result he personally would not like.

Despite de Moraes’s clear violation of free speech, the full Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the order on Sept. 2. Under the ruling, Brazilians who attempt to access X using a VPN will face a fine of around $9,000.

Supreme Court order flouted multiple laws

It takes only a basic understanding of free speech to see the major problems with this order. Once the government begins censoring or pressuring others to censor messages based on vague criteria and subjective terms like “misinformation,” it opens the door to widespread suppression of any views the government doesn’t like.

For this reason, national and international law protect free speech in Brazil, and the Brazilian Supreme Court clearly violated both.

First, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice.”

X is certainly a medium through which many Brazilians wish to express, think about, and discuss ideas. Recent estimates prior to the shutdown said roughly 40 million Brazilians use the social platform. By suspending X because it refused to censor information that they disliked, de Moraes and the rest of the court violated those users’ rights to engage in free expression on the platform.

In addition, Article 220 of the Brazilian Constitution states that “any and all censorship of a political, ideological, and artistic nature is forbidden.” But given de Moraes’s reasoning that X could “negatively” affect elections in 2024 to “favor extremist populist groups,” it’s hard to read the justice’s order as anything other than censorship of a political and ideological nature.

Brazilians, just like Americans, have the fundamental right to free speech, which is why ADF International did not sit idly by when the Brazilian Supreme Court issued its dangerous decision.

ADF International takes action

Following the illegal order, ADF International worked around the clock to respond. Within 24 hours, attorneys submitted a petition asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over Brazil) to intervene and defend free speech.

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas,” said Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Legal Advocacy for Latin America. “Intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is key because without free speech, all human rights are jeopardized.”

Musk himself even thanked ADF International for the quick and important work to defend free speech.

While Brazilian officials may claim to protect democracy, they are actually undermining it by manipulating what information citizens can share and access. Free speech is a fundamental right for all people worldwide, and we must continue defending it when it comes under attack.

Top human rights body called on to intervene against Brazil’s “extreme” censorship of “X”

  • Social media platform “X” suspended from use in Brazil in unprecedented state clampdown on free speech  
  • ADF International calls on Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to intervene

WASHINGTON, DC (2 September 2024) – In light of the unfolding censorship crisis in Brazil, legal advocacy organization ADF International has called on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to urgently intervene to protect freedom of speech. 

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas."

- Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s director of legal advocacy for Latin America

On Friday, Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts which it had singled out for censorship.  

The decision imposes a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800 / almost $9,000) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via a virtual private network (VPN). 

The same Justice has also issued an order to freeze the assets of the company Starlink, a satellite internet provider. The company is a subsidiary of SpaceX, an entirely different company in which Elon Musk is a minority shareholder, following X’s refusal to comply with the censorship orders.

On Monday 2 September, the Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the decision to ban “X” nationwide, further suspending the right to free speech online. 

Appealing to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to uphold freedom of expression, lawyers from free speech-supporting legal advocacy group ADF International petitioned the body – which has jurisdiction over Brazil under the American Convention on Human Rights– to intervene in the “dire” situation: 

“The blocking of X in the country is symptomatic of an endemic problem…it has dragged on for more than six years and has caused real damage to Brazilian democracy, producing a chilling effect on the majority of the population who, according to recent surveys, are afraid to express their opinions in public.” 

Musk thanked ADF International for its intervention. 

Read the full letter to the Commission here.  

State censorship of so-called “populist” views

The orders to censor online content are based on a pretext of combatting disinformation and fake news. Based on this pretext, the state has targeted conservative voices for censorship, including blocking pro-life messages during the 2022 election campaign, which contained a message contrary to the pro-abortion position held by then-candidate Lula da Silva.   

"Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere.

- Michael Shellenberger, journalist targeted for criminal investigation for reporting on the censorship efforts of Brazilian courts

Other targeted speech included repudiations of the Nicaraguan government’s suppression of religious freedom and the concern it could happen in Brazil, and criticism of Lula’s promotion of sexually explicit content in school curricula. 

“The most oppressive culture of censorship in the West”

Various journalists and public figures including journalist, Paulo Figueiredo, and bestselling American author, Michael Shellenberger, have already been targeted with secret criminal investigations for reporting on the authoritarian drift of the Brazilian courts and their censorship efforts.   

Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Legal Advocacy for Latin America, stated: 

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is key because without free speech, all human rights are jeopardized. We are particularly concerned that the Brazilian state is targeting Christian expression, including pro-life views and other faith-based speech.”

Michael Shellenberger, founder of Public, author, and professor, stated:

“I am being criminally investigated by Brazilian authorities for exposing their attempts to censor. Brazil has reached a crisis point where a lone Supreme Court judge could wield his authority to shut down X in the country.   

Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere. It’s not only bad policy and bad politics, it’s a blatant violation of basic human rights for authorities to ban the speech of their own citizens. It’s inconceivable that human beings should be censored and silenced by other human beings simply because they disagree with their speech. As the situation continues to deteriorate, my hope is that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will intervene rapidly in defense of the right of all to speak freely in Brazil”.  

Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil, said:

“The attempts by Judge Alexandre de Moraes to censor and silence the people of Brazil simply cannot stand. Our constitution specifically prohibits all censorship and guarantees the right to freedom of expression; these are not only constitutionally-protected rights, but basic, human rights that should be guaranteed and preserved for all Brazilians. Censorship has no place in a free society, and I implore all who are able to join me in vehemently opposing these kinds of restrictions.”   

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Michael Shellenberger; Tomás Henriquez