U.K. Premiere of “Live Not By Lies” Shines Spotlight on Erosion of Freedom in the West 

  • Feature premiere of timely documentary highlights erosion of freedom of expression in Britain, including through recent prosecutions of citizens who have silently prayed near abortion facilities 

  • NYT Bestselling author Rod Dreher, film writer/director Isaiah Smallman, and victims of state censorship including Adam Smith-Connor (convicted for silent prayer) to attend black tie evening on Monday 30th June 

LONDON (26 June 2025) – On 30 June, thought leaders, journalists, and advocates for liberty will gather in London for the U.K. gala premiere of Live Not By Lies, a powerful new documentary from Root/Cause and Angel Studios.  

Based on the bestselling book by Rod Dreher, the documentary issues a stark warning about the quiet rise of authoritarianism in Western democracies—an erosion of fundamental freedoms long thought secure. 

The exclusive screening of the film in central London will be opened with remarks from public commentator Konstantin Kisin, reflecting on his family’s experience as dissidents living under the Soviet Union.  

"Live Not By Lies exposes disturbing parallels between Soviet-era totalitarian regimes and the ideological pressures mounting today in the United Kingdom and beyond."

- Isaiah Smallman, Filmmaker

The documentary screening will be followed with a panel discussion and opportunity for dialogue with leading voices on freedom of speech, conscience, and association, including bestselling author Rod Dreher and filmmaker Isaiah Smallman. 

“Live Not By Lies exposes disturbing parallels between Soviet-era totalitarian regimes and the ideological pressures mounting today in the United Kingdom and beyond. Through chilling testimony and rigorous analysis, the film compels viewers to consider the real cost of staying silent in the face of encroaching censorship and compelled ideology,” commented filmmaker Isaiah Smallman.  

“As we witness what’s happening in the streets and courtrooms of today’s West – where citizens face prosecution for voicing their beliefs online, or even praying silently in their heads near abortion facilities – this documentary is a timely reminder that the right to free expression must be zealously defended,” added ADF International spokesperson Lois McLatchie Miller, featured in the film discussing the legal organisation’s cases defending individuals prosecuted for peaceful expression in abortion facility “buffer zones”. 

Amongst other examples, the documentary examines the story of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who was arrested in 2022 for praying silently near an abortion facility in Birmingham.

Vaughan-Spruce was charged, tried, found innocent, and re-arrested weeks later for the very same activity. After several months of investigation, with support from ADF International, Vaughan-Spruce received £13,000 compensation from police. However, attempts to criminalise silent prayer continue across the country.  

The event is by invitation only. Media interested in covering the premiere and panel discussion are encouraged to contact Lois McLatchie Miller by June 27th.  

Trailer below:

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

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

Pictured: Lois McLatchie Miller, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce

UN Expert Report Calls on Governments to Prohibit “Gender Transition” for Children  

UN undermines parents' rights by pushing gender ideology.
  • UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls calls on states to ensure the terms “women” and “girls” refer exclusively to biological females, and to enshrine this definition in law.
  • Report further calls for a prohibition on the social, legal, and medical “transition” of children who claim to experience gender dysphoria, among other safeguards
UN undermines parents' rights by pushing gender ideology.

GENEVA (25 June 2025) – A new report presented today by Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, warns that states are failing to address both persistent and newly emerging forms of sex-based violence, including in relation to gender ideology.

The report, entitled “Sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues,” urges governments to reaffirm legal protections for women and girls based on their female biological sex, in accordance with their international human rights obligations. 

In response to an “international push to delink the definition of men and women from their biological sex,” the report outlines concerns around the removal of sex-specific language and its negative impact on the legal recognition and protection of women’s rights. Bringing together submissions from 180 stakeholders, including ADF International, the report holds that these developments result in violations of women and girls’ human rights. 

The report calls for states to “ensure that the terms ‘women’ and ‘girls’ are only used to describe biological females and that such a meaning is recognized in law.” Further, it urges the prohibition of the prohibition of legal and social transitioning of children who claim to experience gender dysphoria, “as well as their subjugation to experimental, irreversible medical interventions related to gender reassignment.”  

“This report delivers a timely and urgent message as international awareness solidifies around the dangerous human rights implications of gender ideology, especially its impact on the well-being and healthy development of children. The report underscores how the erosion of legal clarity around sex, an objective and immutable biological reality, has had devastating implications for the dignity, safety and rights of women and girls."

- Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International

 

“This report delivers a timely and urgent message as international awareness solidifies around the dangerous human rights implications of gender ideology, especially its impact on the well-being and healthy development of children,” responded Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International. “The report underscores how the erosion of legal clarity around sex, an objective and immutable biological reality, has had devastating implications for the dignity, safety and rights of women and girls. As the Special Rapporteur told governments at the UN Human Rights Council today, ‘you cannot protect what you cannot define’. We urge all States to act without delay to implement the report’s recommendations”. 

Risks of puberty blockers to children highlighted by UN Expert

The report states: “The long-lasting and harmful consequences of social and medical transitioning of children, including girls, are being increasingly documented. They include: persistence or intensification of psychological distress; persistence of body dissatisfaction; infertility, early onset of the menopause and an increase in the risk of osteoporosis; sexual dysfunction; and loss of the ability to breastfeed in cases of breast mastectomy (to mention a few).” 

It further notes: “That has rightly led several countries, such as Brazil, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to change course and restrict children’s access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery on sexual and reproductive organs. Allowing children access to such procedures not only violates their right to safety, security and freedom from violence, but also disregards their human right to the highest standards of health and goes against their best interests.”  

The Special Rapporteur also explicitly calls for the protection of single-sex spaces for the protection of women, including in prisons and healthcare settings. 

Submitted under Human Rights Council resolution 50/7, the report draws from state submissions, recent case law, and existing human rights frameworks, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).  

A global push against harmful gender ideology

This publication follows a recent decision by the US Supreme Court in United States of America v. Skrmetti to uphold a Tennessee law protecting children from gender-ideology experiments, demonstrating a global shift toward dismantling gender ideology. 

In the United Kingdom, the closure of London’s Tavistock Clinic and the publication of the Cass Review signaled a clear rejection of gender ideology experimentation on young people. 

As highlighted in a recent amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court from 17 international parental rights organisations, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia are among the list of European countries that have taken legislative, judicial, or administrative steps to protect minors from gender ideology.

In Latin America, Chile moved to ban gender “transition” for children in May, following bans in Argentina and Brazil.

“Governments have an obligation under international law to eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination against women and girls. This requires urgent and concerted action to reverse the harms caused by the ongoing erasure of their sex-based rights under the pervasive influence of gender ideology. Practices of so-called ‘gender transition’ for minors must be prohibited under the law, and every effort made to uphold the dignity, integrity, and future for every woman and child,” Mazzoli added.

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

The Digital Services Act and Online Speech in Europe

Paul Coleman at EU Parliament

Given the wide array of anti-speech laws throughout EU countries, the DSA allows the worst laws in any individual country to restrict speech across the entire bloc

Picture of Paul Coleman
Paul Coleman

Executive Director, ADF International

X-twitter Linkedin

We are living in an unprecedented time in Western history for freedom of expression. With the fall of the Soviet Union, some made the claim that the “End of History” had arrived.

An era in which free speech would flourish in a world of liberal democracies and free markets. But it’s now clear that such hopes were sadly misplaced, and European societies are moving in an alarming direction.

Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago. The internet is the frontline in this assault on free speech in Europe, particularly through the Digital Services Act, which I will come to shortly.

How We Got Here

But how did we get here? How did we get from the “End of History” and liberal democracy’s promise of free speech for all to the censorship crisis we face today?
Two words that perhaps are not often mentioned favourably in this parliament go a long way in explaining the antecedents of the current effort to control online discourse: Brexit and Trump.

As the honorary Brit at this event, I hope you will forgive me for saying the “b-word”. But all jokes aside, those two democratic votes in 2016 sent shockwaves through the political and media establishment, who then scrambled to understand what went wrong at the ballot box, and how no one saw it coming.

And rather than examining whether perhaps some of their mistaken beliefs about reality, assumptions about the citizenry, or missteps in governance may have been responsible for these seismic votes, those in power decided to blame so-called “misinformation” instead.

In other words, the people were tricked. Hundreds of millions of citizens were so prone to manipulation and brainwashing that they stupidly, wrongly, and ignorantly voted the “wrong” way. And such wrong voting must never happen again if democracy is to be saved. Hence, with no sense of irony whatsoever, the claim that democracy must be saved through censorship took hold – here in Brussels and across the Western world.

The European establishment’s response to outcomes it did not foresee or desire was stark and immediate, as new draconian anti-speech laws came into effect. Let me outline a few: 

  • 2016: The EU Code of Conduct against “illegal online hate speech” was announced without any discussion or debate.
  • 2017: New national legislation such as the German Network Enforcement Act came into force.
  • 2018: The EU launched a world first with its Code of Practice on Disinformation – targeting online platforms.
  • 2019: The UN launched its Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech.
  • 2020: Covid-related provisions censored free speech around the world.
  • 2021: The European Commission announced a plan to make so-called “hate speech” an EU-wide crime.
  • 2022: In came the Digital Services Act, with most of its provisions coming into force in February 2024.

"Severe" Threat to Online Speech

Year after year, the relentless drive towards more and more speech restrictions continues – and it’s almost always under the guise of banning so-called “hate speech” and “mis- and disinformation.” These deliberately vague and subjective terms are rarely, if ever, defined in the legislation that seeks to ban them. And I am convinced that the lack of any meaningful definition is a design feature, not a bug.

And that brings me to the DSA itself – what I consider to be the most severe threat yet to free speech online. So, what precisely is so worrisome about this regulation?
The DSA purports to create “a safe online environment” by requiring very large online platforms, such as X or Meta, to remove “illegal content”.

This sounds ok so far. But when we look closer, the problems become apparent.
What, after all, is “illegal content”? Surely a law that runs to over 100 pages would define such a pivotal term in the most precise language possible?

Sadly not.

Article 3(h) gives us the circular definition that “illegal content” is anything that is not in compliance with EU law or the law of any Member State, now or at any point in the future. In other words, the DSA writes a blank cheque for censorship.

Given the wide array of anti-speech laws throughout EU countries, the DSA allows the worst laws in any individual country to restrict speech across the entire bloc.
And what happens in such a scenario?

European Commission's Power Over Regulation

Under the Act, the European Commission can impose crippling fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover on platforms that refuse to censor content – which could amount to billions of Euros.

The Commission can also restrict access to a platform within the EU or suspend its operations, showing the massive power this Act gives them over private companies. Since companies are threatened with huge fines if they do not censor enough speech, and there is no penalty whatsoever for censoring too much speech, what do we think these companies will end up doing over time?

Moreover, individuals across the EU could have their speech limited under the most draconian “hate speech” laws in any individual EU country due to the act.
The case of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, one of ADF International’s clients, gives a harrowing example of what censorship under the DSA could look like in practice.

Six years ago, Päivi posted a picture of a Bible verse and expressed her Christian views on sexuality on X. She was criminally prosecuted for alleged “hate speech” and has been unanimously acquitted in two trials. But the state prosecutor has appealed the case again. And shockingly, her case—in which she faces trial for posting online—is now pending before Finland’s Supreme Court.

Now, under the DSA, deeply problematic national laws restricting speech—like the “hate speech” legislation used to prosecute Päivi —could be broadly applied across the EU by this simple principle:

If it’s considered illegal in one place, it could be in every place. And I do mean every place.

The United States Weighs In

Even though the DSA is an EU regulation, since the internet is global and most speech platforms are global companies, its effects will not be confined to this continent. Vice President of the United States, JD Vance, already raised his concerns about the perilous state of freedom of expression in Europe during his Munich Security Conference speech.

Notably, the US has taken specific exception to this act, with both the US State Department and House Judiciary Committee raising concerns over it, and they have good reasons for doing so.

To name just two: Firstly, many of the companies the DSA targets, such as X and Meta, which could face massive fines for refusing to censor content, are American.

Secondly, we have already seen an example of a senior EU politician trying to use the act to censor speech in the United States.

Last summer, then-European Commissioner Thierry Breton shockingly wrote to Elon Musk ahead of his X interview with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, warning him not to breach the DSA in the conversation.

It is conceivable that in the future we could see more efforts like this to extend EU censorship to silence speech outside Europe. All those who care about free speech should not accept a transatlantic divide on this indispensable liberty, where the US recommits to freedom of expression—as it has under the new administration—while Europe tramples on it. I want to now offer concrete recommendations on how the censorial effects of the DSA can be addressed, as people in this room are in a real position to take action.

It is thankfully the case that freedom of expression is guaranteed in Article 11 of the EU Charter, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

According to these and the jurisprudence of the ECHR, any limitations to free speech must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. And so, serious questions can and should be raised about whether the DSA is compatible with these binding obligations to protect freedom of expression. It is my strong view, as you may have guessed from this speech, that it is not. So, what can be done about this?

Member states could initiate an action for annulment before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Through this, the whole or parts of the DSA could be declared inapplicable, if they are deemed to infringe on the EU Charter or Treaties.

Conclusion: The DSA Has a Far-Reaching Censorial Impact

The same question, of considering whether the DSA is compatible with binding obligations to protect free speech, is key for the upcoming DSA review, in which the Commission must evaluate the act in view of other legal commitments.

It is imperative that every opportunity is taken in the review, which must occur by mid-November this year, to raise concerns about the censorial impact of the DSA.

This could be accomplished through written or oral questions to the European Commission and even by inviting Commissioner Henna Virkkunen to discuss the legislation in the European Parliament. After all, if the Commissioner is as in favour of freedom of expression as she claims to be, why would she refuse?

It is vital to include representatives of civil society, tech companies and digital rights groups in such conversations, as they can share their invaluable expertise on this important issue.

As elected representatives of your people, you are also in an excellent position to bring the public’s attention to the grave risks to free speech posed by the DSA. The truth is that every single European’s rights are jeopardized by this legislation. The more the public is aware of and speaks out about this, the more pressure the Commission will feel. And the more likely we are to defeat this law.

I want to close by emphatically stating that freedom of expression is essential for any society, and especially for democracies, to flourish. Those in positions of power turn to censorship because they don’t trust democracy.

They fear the people will choose to speak and vote in a way that they object to.
But this censorial impulse must be rejected. There is a rich history of valuing free speech on this continent. Europeans can and must draw on that tradition again today.

.

Brazilian Mother’s Right to Homeschool to Be Argued Before State Court

  • Brazilian local authorities prosecuted Regiane Cichelero for homeschooling her son and threatened to remove him from her custody if she continued.  
  • Oral arguments for her case will be heard at the highest court in the state of Santa Catarina; ADF International coordinating defense, highlighting international human rights protections for homeschooling. 

Santa Catarina, BRAZIL (30 June 2025) —  On July 1 the highest court in the state of Santa Catarina will hear oral arguments for the case of Regiane Cichelero, a Christian mother in Brazil who was prosecuted for homeschooling her son. ADF International is supporting her legal defense, which challenges the state’s attempt to penalize parents for exercising their right to direct their children’s education, a right firmly protected under international human rights law. 

Cichelero began homeschooling her son in 2020 after public schools closed during the COVID-19 pandemic. When schools reopened, she continued teaching him at home, believing it to be the best choice for providing quality education in accordance with her family’s religious values.  

Following her decision to homeschool, local authorities fined her over $20,000 USD, and a judge threatened to remove her son from her custody if she did not enroll him in a public school.  

No parent should fear state punishment for choosing to homeschool their child.egiane made a lawful and conscientious decision to teach her son at home. We are hopeful that the court will affirm her rights and take an important step toward protecting parental rights in Brazil."

- Julio Pohl, Legal Counsel for Latin America at ADF International

“No parent should fear state punishment for choosing to homeschool their child,” said Julio Pohl, ADF International’s Legal Counsel for Latin America, which is supporting Cichelero’s legal defense. “Regiane made a lawful and conscientious decision to teach her son at home. We are hopeful that the court will affirm her rights and take an important step toward protecting parental rights in Brazil.” 

Background

Over 70,000 children are currently homeschooled in Brazil. International human rights law protects the rights of parents to make choices concerning the type of education that their children receive.  

Article 26.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”. In addition, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights holds that states must respect the right of parents “to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions”.    

Leading up to her court date, Cichelero stated, “It is my role as a mother to provide the best education I can for my son. The state’s decision to penalize me has made it difficult to fulfill that duty. But I look forward to this hearing, and I am hopeful for a decision that affirms the right of parents to direct their children’s education. No parent in Brazil should fear the risk of fines or even of losing custody of their child simply for making the best choice for their family.”  

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

US Supreme Court Upholds State Law Protecting Children from Gender-Ideology Experiments  

  • High Court sides with Tennessee law that regulates harmful drugs, surgeries attempting to “transition” children
     
  • Ruling in United States v. Skrmetti will help protect 26 similar state laws

WASHINGTON (18 June 2025) – In a landmark victory for children’s health and science-based medicine, the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday upheld Tennessee’s law protecting minors from harmful and life-altering drugs and surgeries. The ruling in United States v. Skrmetti will help protect 26 similar state laws and return common sense to America’s medical system. 

The Court held that Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, a bipartisan law passed in 2023, is constitutional. The law prohibits health care providers from providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or potentially irreversible surgeries to encourage children to live as the opposite sex.  

"States are free to protect children from the greatest medical scandal in generations—and that’s exactly what states like Tennessee have done."

- Kristen Waggoner, CEO and President, Alliance Defending Freedom

The ruling signals that American states have broad constitutional authority to ban dangerous so-called “gender transition” procedures and interventions for minors, and it aligns the U.S. with a growing international movement to protect youth from gender ideology.  

“No one has the right to harm a child,” said Alliance Defending Freedom CEO and President Kristen Waggoner. “The Biden administration and ACLU asked the court to create a ‘constitutional right’ to give children harmful, experimental drugs and surgeries that turn them into patients for life. This would have forced states to base their laws on ideology, not evidence—to the immense harm of countless children. The court’s rejection of that request is a monumental victory for children, science, and common sense. States are free to protect children from the greatest medical scandal in generations—and that’s exactly what states like Tennessee have done.”  

Tennessee’s law is “plainly rationally related” to the state’s findings that administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors with gender dysphoria “can lead to the minor becoming irreversibly sterile, having increased risk of disease and illness, or suffering from adverse and sometimes fatal psychological consequences,” the court wrote in its opinion. The law is also rationally related to “the State’s objective of protecting minors’ health and welfare.” 

Background

Currently, 26 states, in addition to Tennessee, have enacted comparable laws in the U.S to protect children from gender-ideology experiments. The High Court decided to review the case United States v. Skrmetti after the Biden administration appealed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that upheld Tennessee’s law. ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court in October 2024, urging it to let state legislatures protect children from these experimental medical procedures.    

The Court’s decision follows a global shift toward dismantling gender ideology. In the United Kingdom, the closure of London’s Tavistock Clinic and the publication of the Cass Review signaled a clear rejection of gender ideology experimentation on young people. As highlighted in an amicus brief to the Court from 17 international parental rights organisations, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia are among the list of European countries that have taken legislative, judicial, or administrative steps to protect minors from gender ideology. In Latin America, Chile moved to ban gender “transition” for children in May, following bans in Argentina and Brazil. 

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