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

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

“Sex is not confined to being a biological concept” rules Australian Court

  • Biological male “Roxanne Tickle,” who identifies as a woman, sued “Giggle for Girls” app and founder Sall Grover over female-only membership policy
  • Federal Court of Australia holds that Tickle was unlawfully discriminated against when rejected for membership on the women’s app; ADF International supported Giggle’s defence

SYDNEY (23 August 2024) – The Federal Court of Australia has ruled in Roxanne Tickle v. Giggle for Girls (“Tickle v. Giggle”) that “Roxanne Tickle,” a biological male who identifies as a woman, experienced unlawful discrimination when prevented from joining female-only networking app “Giggle.” 

The court found that Tickle experienced “indirect discrimination,” ordering $10,000 AUD in compensation and the covering of legal costs for Tickle. 

Tickle sued on the basis that, being “legally permitted to identify as female” and having had his birth certificate amended, he should be permitted into spaces reserved for biological women. The defence maintained that women have a right to single-sex spaces, both online and offline. 

“In ruling that Tickle, a biological male, was a victim of discrimination when prevented from joining a woman’s app, the court has delivered an egregiously flawed judgment that removes protections for women."

- Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who supported Giggle's defence

The Court rejected Giggle’s defence that Tickle was not unlawfully discriminated against, but instead disqualified from joining the app due to his male sex.  

In the judgment, the court stated “…sex is not confined to being a biological concept referring to whether a person at birth had male or female physical traits, nor confined to being a binary concept, limited to the male or female sex…”

ADF International supported Giggle’s defence on the basis that Australian law must uphold the truth of biological reality and in line with the protections for women enshrined in international human rights law.

At the time of the hearing, Katherine Deves of Alexander Rashidi Lawyers, legal representatives for the Respondent, said: “The stakes are high in this case. Women’s international human rights will be lost if “woman” now includes any male who identifies as such. This decision matters not just in Australia but also to the watching world.” 

Sall Grover, CEO of Giggle and respondent in the law suit, also commented at the time of the hearing:

“For decades, women’s movements have fought for the right to have female spaces in society. Yet today, the clock is being wound back.    

“I designed my app to give women their own space to network. It is a legal fiction that Tickle is a woman. His birth certificate has been altered from male to female, but he is a biological man, and always will be. A woman’s-only app isn’t about discrimination. It’s about freedom of speech, belief and association.    

“We are taking a stand for the safety of all women’s only spaces, but also for basic reality and truth, which the law should reflect.” 

Grover has previously said that she would appeal the court’s decision and will fight the case all the way to the High Court of Australia.

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which provided support for the case, reflected on the judgment: 

“In ruling that Tickle, a biological male, was a victim of discrimination when prevented from joining a woman’s app, the court has delivered an egregiously flawed judgment that removes protections for women. 

“Contrary to what the judge held, sex is never changeable. The judgment is a severe setback for women and girls, failing to uphold the basic truth of biological reality—that men cannot become women. Tickle did not experience unjust discrimination, but was simply disqualified from membership on the Giggle app because he is not a woman.” 

Court ignores international legal protections for women’s rights

The defence had argued that the Australian government acted unconstitutionally in amending the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 to include “gender identity” as a protected characteristic, against the purposes for which the Act was designed, and for which there is no basis in international law.   

The Court found that Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act section 5b, which prohibits discrimination on the ground of “gender identity,” is in line with the discrimination provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR makes no reference to “gender identity,” and instead prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.  

Further, the Court rejected the defence’s argument with regard to the disqualification of Giggle on the basis that Australia was obligated to protect women’s rights, including single-sex spaces, under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. 

“The judge has read in a faux right to protection on the basis of ‘gender identity’ in international law where none exists. The ICCPR is clear that discrimination is to be prohibited on the basis of sex. There is no mention of ‘gender identity’ in the treaty. 

The ruling is not only anti-women and disingenuous, but also it creates a dangerous precedent for conjuring up false rights to the detriment of real rights. Here the real rights in jeopardy are those of women. By ignoring Australia’s obligations under CEDAW to protect women’s rights, the court is positioning Australia in direct violation of its basic human rights obligations toward women,” stated Clarke. 

Challenges across Australia

Tickle v. Giggle is one of a number of legal proceedings in Australia challenging protections for women. Chris Elston, “Billboard Chris”, is in a legal battle with Australian authorities alongside “X”, after his tweet challenging gender ideology was censored by the E-Safety Commissioner. ADF International are supporting his case. 

Canadian street advocate, Billboard Chris, also awaiting court proceedings in Australia, commented on the judgment: 

“The judgment in Tickle v. Giggle turns back the clock on women’s rights and exposes the deep ideological distortions that have permeated our societies and our legal systems. It is a fiction that Tickle is a woman. While his birth certificate may have been altered, no man can ever become a woman.

“Preventing a male from joining a woman’s only app has nothing to do with discrimination. It’s about staying true to biological reality and women’s rights to their own spaces, both online and in real life. I hope further legal steps can be taken to correct this grave injustice and I stand with Sall Grover and the Giggle team.” 

Billboard Chris challenges gender ideology in Australia

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

Pictured: Sall Grover, Robert Clarke, Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), Katherine Deves

Internet sensation ‘Billboard Chris’ in legal battle for right to debate “harmful” gender ideology on “X”

Billboard Chris' case will be heard in Australia in March
  • Father of two, global campaigner, and internet sensation ‘Billboard Chris’ appeals Australian censorship orders, with support from ADF International
  • “X” post highlighting unsuitability of transgender activist serving on WHO “panel of experts” currently geo-blocked in Australia
Billboard Chris' case will be heard in Australia in March

MELBOURNE (10 July 2024) – ‘Billboard Chris’ – the activist known for wearing a sandwich board reading “children cannot consent to puberty blockers” and engaging in conversations in viral videos across the world – has mounted a legal defence of free speech in Australia, with support from ADF International.

Chris Elston, known as Billboard Chris, a Canadian father of two, took to “X” (formerly Twitter) on 28th February 2024 to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of a UN trans expert REVEALED”.

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

"As a father, I have grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s wellbeing...we need to be able to discuss it."

- "Billboard Chris", in a legal battle for free speech with support from ADF International

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 Commission, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Melbourne.

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

Members of the public are invited to join in supporting Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/supportbillboardchris 

“No child has ever been born in the wrong body. As a father, I have grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s wellbeing. This is a serious issue with real world implications for families across the globe and we need to be able to discuss it.

“Children struggling with distress regarding their sex deserve better than ‘guidelines’ written by activists who only want to push them in one direction,” Billboard Chris, engaging in a legal battle for free speech with support from ADF International.

Next steps

The legal team representing Elston have filed a statement of facts and contentions, and the evidence which Elston will rely on with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal now awaits the response from the eSafety Commissioner, due August 8th, before moving to set a hearing date.

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

“It is vital we challenge the global spread of censorship. We’re used to hearing about governments punishing citizens for their ‘wrong’ speech in parts of the world where strict blasphemy laws are still enforced – but now, from Australia, to Mexico, to Finland, we see Western governments increasingly take authoritarian steps to shut down views they don’t like, often by branding them as “offensive”, “hateful”, or “misinformation.”

“In a free society, ideas should be challenged with ideas, not state censorship. We’re proud to stand with Billboard Chris – and others around the world punished for expressing their peaceful views – in defending the right to live and speak the truth,” commented Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who is serving as part of Billboard Chris’s legal team.

“Vital we challenge the global spread of censorship”

The Australian case comes at a time of increased suppression of views shared on “X” at the hands of governments across the world.

In Mexico, former congressman Rodrigo Iván Cortés and sitting congressman Gabriel Quadri have been convicted of “gender-based political violence,” and placed on an offenders’ register, for Twitter posts. For expressing their views on biological sex, both have been ordered to publish a court-written apology on X every day for 30 days, 3 times a day, as a form of public humiliation. ADF International is seeking justice for both men at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

In Finland, parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, a former government minister and grandmother, is currently being prosecuted before the Supreme Court, having been criminally charged for “hate speech” for a 2019 Bible-verse tweet. She was charged under the Finnish criminal code’s section on “War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity,” carrying a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. ADF International is supporting her legal defence.

At the international level, the European Commission is advancing efforts to make “hate speech” an EU crime, on the same legal level as trafficking and terrorism. Initiatives such as the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation could have significant implications for how governments police speech, especially as European Commission VP Věra Jourová singled out X for “the largest ratio of mis/disinformation posts”.

In November 2023, free speech champions across the world signed an open letter to Elon Musk, coordinated by ADF International, requesting he back legal cases against government-enforced censorship of posts on X.

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

Ireland’s hate speech law could “censor the entire internet”, warns Michael Shellenberger 

  • Bestselling author & journalist warns Irish parliamentarians against “elite panic” shutting down public discourse 
  • New polling shows 1 in 4 Irish already feel they can’t speak openly in the pub 
  • “Irish Free Speech Summit”, supported by ADF International, highlights leading public voices challenging government censorship

DUBLIN (27th June 2024) – Global voices have united in concern about the “hate speech” bill pending before Irish parliament, as 1 in 4 Irish say they are worried about the erosion of free speech.

Speaking at the Irish parliament this month, “Twitter Files” journalist Michael Shellenberger stated clearly that “there is no hate crisis in Ireland” and that the case for censorship was brought about by “elite panic” trying to stifle open conversation and discourse among the Irish people. 

The bill would make it an offence to possess (for distribution) material that could lead to “hatred” in Ireland, with punishment of up to 5 years in prison.  

The bill would also impact the right to share views on social media across much of the world, with directors and executives of social media platforms with international HQs in Ireland (X, Facebook, and more) held accountable to the Irish government if found to be platforming undefined “hate speech”. 

"The world is watching Ireland. As the home of various international social media headquarters, the bill would have a global impact on what we can all discuss online."

- Michael Shellenberger, "Twitter Files" journalist & author

“The world is watching Ireland. The censorial “hate speech bill”, if passed, would not only shut down conversation nationally – as the home of various international social media headquarters, it would have a global impact on what we can all discuss online.

“A sweeping ban on undefined “hate” gives authorities the power to determine which viewpoints are acceptable to voice. World history warns us that such power can be easily abused,” said Michael Shellenberger, international bestselling author and journalist behind the “Twitter Files”. 

Far-reaching consequences

On the same day, giving the keynote address at the Ireland Free Speech Summit, which sold out amongst members of the public, Shellenberger suggested the goal of the bill may be to “censor the entire internet”.

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

The bill offers no clear definition of what “hate” entails. Experts warn this could pave the way for the criminal prosecution of a wide range of expression considered unfavorable by authorities.  

The bill would further make refusal to give a password to an electronic device a crime, which would allow authorities to search and possibly find materials that are “hateful”.

1 in 4 Irish concerned about right to free speech being eroded

New national polling commissioned by ADF International reveals a deep-seated concern amongst the Irish for the erosion of free speech, with a quarter revealing they already feel restricted in expressing their views and opinions in social settings like a pub, or in their place of work or study.  

In the survey, conducted by Whitestone Insight*, 90% confirmed that free speech was “very important” to them – while the Irish parliament debates  new and wide-ranging “hate speech” legislation, with egregious implications for the basic human right to free speech. 

“The proposed “hate speech” legislation would be one of the worst examples of censorship in the modern West. The bill purports to stamp out ‘hate speech,’ but fails to define what ‘hate’” is – allowing authorities to censor any speech the state opposes. 

That’s why voices from around the world are speaking up for the right to debate and discuss ideas – here in Ireland, and everywhere,” said Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International. 

Global voices speak out against censorship

At the 2024 Free Speech Summit in Dublin on 18th June, international free speech champions  gathered with politicians to highlight the issues at stake under the bill.  

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

“Father Ted” screenwriter Graham Linehan was among the famous faces gathered, challenging attempts to censor Ireland: 

“We’re all coming together with different viewpoints, beliefs, and perspectives – but we agree on one thing. We should be allowed to freely discuss and debate ideas in Ireland. Our free speech must not be curtailed by a censorial government. It’s essential that the parliament consider the draconian impact that the hate speech bill could have on Irish society – and keep the public square open for all,” said Graham Linehan, screenwriter of “Father Ted”, who is billed to speak at the Summit.  

Independent Senators Rónán Mullen and Sharon Keogan spoke out against the bill, with Mullen highlighting that thie bill is “far too vague”: 

“When it comes to democracy, I believe in it. When it comes to the right to test each other’s ideas, I believe in it. And we can’t do that if we’re operating under the chilling fear of giving offence to somebody who wraps that up as hatred, claims that it’s against the law, attacks you as a mob online, causes social media companies to take down your stuff so that you’ve failed to communicate before you even begin to try…If nobody was ever prosecuted under this law, the process itself would become the punishment,” said Mullen in his address. 

Also speaking up at the event were cleric and broadcaster Fr Calvin Robinson; Cambridge academic Dr. James Orr; Irish journalist Laura Perrins; Philosophy Professor Gerard Casey; feminist campaigner Laoise de Brún; GB News host Andrew Doyle; psychotherapist and Director of Genspect, Stella O’Malley; and international bestselling author Andy Ngo.

 

Speaking to censorship within the gender debate specifically, Genspect director and psychotherapist Stella O’Malley said: 

“I am finding the gender world increasingly hardline, and there is a lack of understanding about the importance of free speech, which is a cornerstone and a fundamental to a civilisation. We need to be able to speak about this freely rather than stumbling over what is the fashionable phrase to use right now.” 

For more information on the Ireland Free Speech Summit, click here. 

*Methodology note: Whitestone Insight surveyed 1,027 Republic of Ireland adults online from 15th-20th March 2024. Whitestone Insight is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables are available at whitestoneinsight.com. 

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

One in four Irish worried about losing right to free speech 

  • New polling reveals a quarter of Irish people feel they can’t speak freely in social settings, like in a pub
  • Global free speech champions to take the stage in Dublin at “Ireland Free Speech Summit”, voicing concerns about proposed “hate speech” bill

DUBLIN (18th June 2024) – New national polling commissioned by ADF International reveals a deep-seated concern amongst the Irish for the erosion of free speech, with a quarter revealing they already feel restricted in expressing their views and opinions in social settings like a pub, or in their place of work or study.  

In the survey, conducted by Whitestone Insight*, 90% confirmed that free speech was “very important” to them – while the Irish parliament debates new and wide-ranging “hate speech” legislation, with egregious implications for the basic human right to free speech. 

“The proposed “hate speech” legislation would be one of the worst examples of censorship in the modern West. The bill proports to stamp out ‘hate speech,’ but fails to define what ‘hate’” is – allowing authorities to censor any speech the state opposes. 

That’s why voices from around the world are arriving in Dublin this week to speak up for the right to debate and discuss ideas – here, and everywhere,” said Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International, and speaker about the implications of the bill at the Ireland Free Speech Summit. 

The most censorial proposal in the West 

The proposed Hate Speech Bill would make it an offence to possess (for distribution) material that could lead to hatred in Ireland, with punishment of up to 5 years in prison. It would further make refusal to give a password to an electronic device a crime, which would allow authorities to search and possibly find materials that are “hateful”. 

At the 2024 Free Speech Summit scheduled to take place in Dublin on 18th June, international free speech champions will gather with politicians to highlight the issues at stake under the bill.  

“The world is watching Ireland. The censorial “hate speech bill”, if passed, would not only shut down conversation nationally – as the home of various international social media headquarters, it would have a worldwide impact on what we can all discuss online, throughout the world. 

“A sweeping ban on undefined “hate” gives authorities the power to determine which viewpoints are acceptable to voice. History warns us that such power can be easily abused. The Summit is drawing together voices from across the globe to stand up for the rights of people everywhere to continue to have free, fair and open conversation,” said Michael Shellenberger, international bestselling author and journalist, who is billed to speak at the Summit.  

“The world is watching Ireland. The censorial 'hate speech bill', if passed, would not only shut down conversation nationally...it would have a worldwide impact on what we can all discuss online."

- Michael Shellenberger, international journalist & author, and speaker at the Dublin Free Speech Summit

Organised by Free Speech Ireland with support from ADF International, the event will bring together Irish and international free speech activists to discuss the importance of free expression in Ireland – and further afield. 

Independent Senators Rónán Mullen and Sharon Keogan are expected to take the stage, as well as leading academics including Cambridge Associate Professor Dr. James Orr. 

Also on the bill are cleric and broadcaster Fr Calvin Robinson; feminist campaigner Laoise de Brún; psychotherapist and Director of GenSpect, Stella O’Malley; international bestselling authors Michael Shellenberger and Andy Ngo; and “Father Ted” Screenwriter Graham Linehan.   

“The Summit is the very epitome of why we need free speech. We’re all coming together with different viewpoints, beliefs, and perspectives – but we agree on one thing. We should be allowed to freely discuss and debate ideas in Ireland. Our free speech must not be curtailed by a censorial government. It’s essential that the parliament consider the draconian impact that the hate speech bill could have on Irish society – and keep the public square open for all,” said Graham Linehan, screenwriter of “Father Ted”, who is billed to speak at the Summit. 

For more information on the Ireland Free Speech Summit, click here.

*Methodology note: Whitestone Insight surveyed 1,027 Republic of Ireland adults online from 15th-20th March 2024. Whitestone Insight is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables are available at whitestoneinsight.com.

 

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

Pictured: Dublin Free Speech Summit flyer; Lorcan Price, ADF International

Defence filed in Bible Tweet “hate speech” case headed to Finland’s Supreme Court 

  • Long-serving Parliamentarian and grandmother Päivi Räsänen to stand trial a third time for expressing Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality on “X” (formerly Twitter) 
       
  • Prosecution calls for tens of thousands in fines and censorship of MP’s Bible-Tweet; ADF International supports Räsänen’s legal defence  

HELSINKI (21 May 2024) – Former government minister and sitting Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen has submitted her defence to the Finnish Supreme Court ahead standing trial a third time for her Bible-verse tweet. 

The State prosecutor appealed the case despite the Christian grandmother of 12 being acquitted unanimously of “hate speech” charges before both the Helsinki District Court, and the Court of Appeal. The charges are found under the “war crimes and crimes against humanity” section of the Finnish Criminal Code. 

Commenting on the submission of her defence, Räsänen said: 

“The heart of the trial is the question of whether teachings linked to the Bible can be displayed and agreed with. I consider it a privilege and an honour to defend freedom of expression, which is a core right in a democratic state. 

An acquittal by the Supreme Court would serve as a stronger precedent than lower court rulings for subsequent similar charges. It would provide a clearer and stronger safeguard for the freedom of Christians to present the teachings of the Bible – and it would strengthen the principle of freedom of expression in general.” 

The Bible on Trial 

Police investigations against Räsänen started in June 2019. As an active member of the Finnish Lutheran church, she had addressed the leadership of her church on Twitter/X and questioned its official sponsorship of the LGBT event ‘Pride 2019’, accompanied by an image of Bible verses from the New Testament book of Romans.

Following this tweet, further investigations against Räsänen were launched, going back to a church pamphlet Räsänen wrote 20 years ago, based on the text “male and female he created them.” 

“This was not just about my opinions, but about everyone's freedom of expression. I hope that with the ruling of the Supreme Court, others would not have to undergo the same ordeal."

- Päivi Räsänen

Police investigations against Räsänen started in June 2019. As an active member of the Finnish Lutheran church, she had addressed the leadership of her church on Twitter/X and questioned its official sponsorship of the LGBT event ‘Pride 2019’, accompanied by an image of Bible verses from the New Testament book of Romans.  

Following this tweet, further investigations against Räsänen were launched, going back to a church pamphlet Räsänen wrote 20 years ago, based on the text “male and female he created them.” 

Over several months, Räsänen endured a total of thirteen hours of police interrogations about her Christian beliefs – including being frequently asked by the police to explain her understanding of the Bible.    

A “chilling effect” on religious freedom 

Her legal team, backed by ADF International, have submitted to the court that the case should be dismissed and costs to be awarded to Räsänen. 

The defence argue that Räsänen has the right to freedom of expression in international law, and that so-called hate speech laws do not extinguish that right. 

The defence have further highlighted the fact that Räsänen has consistently underlined that all people have dignity and should not be discriminated against – inconsistent with the behaviour of somebody guilty of spreading “hate”. 

The submission from the defence reads: 

“Vague or far-reaching laws against advocacy of hatred, or blasphemy, offence to religious feelings and similar offences are not only arbitrary; they can also lead to the direct and structural marginalization of religious or belief communities.”  

The parliamentarian’s case will again be heard alongside Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who faces charges for publishing Räsänen’s pamphlet two decades ago.   

Their cases have garnered global media attention, as human rights experts voiced concern over the threat posed to free speech in Finland.   

To find out more about the case, and to contribute to Päivi’s legal defence, click here.  

Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International, supporting Räsänen’s legal defence said:  

“This is a watershed case in the story of Europe’s creeping censorship. In a democratic Western nation in 2024, nobody should be on trial for their faith – yet throughout the prosecution of  Päivi Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola, we have seen something akin to a ‘heresy’ trial, where Christians are dragged through court for holding beliefs that differ from the approved orthodoxy of the day.  

The state’s insistence on continuing this prosecution after almost five long years, despite such clear and unanimous rulings from the lower courts is alarming. The process is the punishment in such instances, resulting in a chill on free speech for all citizens observing. ADF International will continue to stand alongside Räsänen and Pohjola every step of the way as they face their next day in court. Their right to speak freely is everyone’s right to speak freely.”  

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