Foreign Censorship on U.S. Social Media Platforms – Australian Case Validates Vance’s Concerns

  • Melbourne Tribunal to hear “monumental” free speech challenge from 31st March-4th April
  • Musk’s “X” and Canadian “Billboard Chris” bringing case against Australian “eSafety Commissioner” for censoring online post criticizing gender ideology
  • VP Vance, Secretary of State Rubio have raised repeated concerns about the impact of censorial foreign governments on American-based social media platforms

MELBOURNE (27 March 2025) – The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne is set to hear a “monumental” free speech case next week, commencing March 31st, as concerns mount worldwide about online censorship.

Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), alongside Elon Musk’s U.S.-based social media platform “X”, will challenge the Australian authorities’ decision to censor an online post criticizing gender ideology across Australia.

The case demonstrates the tangible reality of global censorship concerns raised repeatedly by Vice-President J.D. Vance, both at a Munich Security Conference in February and in a press conference with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Speaking about free speech restrictions in the context of the UK, Vance said:

“We also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens.”

Speaking recently in Paris, Vance added that while “we want to ensure the internet is a safe place”, restrictions on online content should focus on protecting children from predatory abuse, rather than preventing “a grown man or woman from accessing an opinion that the government thinks is misinformation.”

The actions of the eSafety Commissioner demonstrate a concerning rise in censorship in the digital age – where bureaucracies can subjectively interpret which speech is deemed “offensive” or “wrong”, leading to the curtailment of free speech rights.

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which is backing Elston’s legal defence, said:

“The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronizing affront to the principles of democracy.

“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis.

“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”

Chris Elston, a.k.a “Billboard Chris”, commented:

“My case is an example of the free speech crisis here in Australia and across the West. More and more, the public is waking up to the fact that puberty blockers are a form of child abuse. Gender ideology can only thrive under censorship – when we are deprived of shining a light on the madness.”

THE CASE: Freedom of online speech in the balance

On 28 February 2024, Elston took to “X” to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED”.

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the appointment of Australian transgender activist Teddy Cook to a World Health Organization “panel of experts” set to advise on global transgender policy.

Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commissioner, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne.

Billboard Chris, with the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside Elon Musk’s “X”, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions. 

The case will be heard in Melbourne for five days on the week beginning March 31st.

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here. 

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

Top human rights court deems Evangelical church’s appeal inadmissible

Breccia di Roma church in Rome, Italy

  • Italian Christian community forced to pay tens of thousands in taxes or make “structural modifications” to their place of worship to satisfy the authorities’ demands that their space look more like “a conventional church”

  • Represented by ADF International, the church had filed an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights, which has rejected the case

Breccia di Roma church in Rome, Italy

Strasbourg/Rome (March 24, 2025) – In a blow to religious freedom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that the case of Breccia di Roma, an Evangelical church in Rome, is inadmissible. The church, represented by ADF International, had appealed to the Court after Italian authorities classified its place of worship as a “shop” due to its non-traditional appearance, which led to a demand for around 50,000€ in taxes and fines. 

Despite the church’s argument that the modest architecture of its place of worship does not detract from its use for religious practice and that the Italian Tax Agency’s classification violated its right to worship freely, the ECtHR has decided not to intervene. The decision effectively upholds the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling, denying the church the tax exemption granted to other religious buildings in Italy. 

“This ruling is disappointing, as it fails to recognize the right of churches to freely determine the manner of their worship. We continue to believe that the government has no right to dictate the appearance of a place of worship."

- Leonardo De Chirico, president of Breccia di Roma

Court dismissal despite strong legal case 

Even though the church went up to the highest domestic court claiming a violation of its religious freedom, the ECtHR denied hearing the case claiming “non-exhaustion of domestic remedies”. The Court provided no explanation as to why it does not consider the church to have “exhausted domestic remedies,” given that Breccia di Roma has no other domestic avenues left to pursue. The court also rejected the church’s claim of having been unjustly discriminated against, despite two lower instance courts in Italy having ruled in Breccia di Roma’s favor on this matter. The decision is final. Breccia di Roma must now pay tens of thousands in taxes or make “structural modifications” to their place of worship to satisfy the authorities’ demands.  

In recent years, “inadmissibility” has become the most common outcome of any application pending before the ECtHR. The court received 28,800 new applications in 2024, and 34,650 in 2023. At the same time, the court declared 25,990 pending applications inadmissible in 2024, and 31,329 in 2023.  

“It is highly regrettable that Breccia di Roma will not receive justice from the European Court of Human Rights.This religious group was unjustly discriminated against because its chosen place of worship does not look like a conventional church in the eyes of the authorities. The small community is now burdened with thousands of Euros in taxes from which other religious buildings in Italy are exempted."

- Dr. Lidia Rieder, Legal Officer for ADF International, which brought the church’s case before the ECHR

ADF International remains committed to advocating for the protection of religious freedom and ensuring that churches can operate without unnecessary discrimination based on their appearance or practices.

Breccia di Roma can be supported here.  

Case background 

The Evangelical Christian community, Breccia di Roma, which uses a former shop as it’s place of worship, obtained authorization to change the building’s intended commercial use – in part, so that the applicable taxation would align with the religious, i.e. non-commercial, nature of their activities.  

The Italian Tax Agency, however, claimed that the interior architecture of Breccia di Roma’s worship space was not sufficiently religious in appearance. Therefore, it required the church to pay commercial taxes. Despite winning in the lower courts, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation sided with the authorities. With no further avenues for justice in Italy, the church turned to the European Court of Human Rights, which has now declined to decide their case.   

“We don’t make money —we bring people together closer to Christ. Granted, our building does not match the Great Synagogue, a mosque, or any of the basilicas in Rome. Also, because our resources are limited, we meet in a comparatively unspectacular building. But why would a state punish us for that? Our church is not worse or less spiritual, just because our architecture is different,” De Chirico asserted.    

Further details on the case can be found here. 

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