Imagine a Europe where quoting the Bible lands you in court. Where praying silently or offering consensual conversation on a public streetside lands you with a criminal charge and hefty fines.
Continue reading
Belgian police arrest Lois McLatchie Miller and Chris Elston, for peacefully displaying a sign that read: “Children are never born in the wrong body”
Continue reading
Brussels (21 May 2025) – Experts this morning warned about the threats of an EU online censorship law, in a first-of-its-kind, cross-party convening at the European Parliament.
The well-attended conference, which was co-hosted by ADF International, and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, was entitled “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression”.
The event followed the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour, a bureau within the US State Department, expressing concern about the censorial impact of the Digital Services Act (DSA).
At the event, which was attended by MEPs and staffers from across the political spectrum, think-tankers, journalists and others, Ms Joron warned that although the DSA was meant to create a “safe online environment”, it has “morphed into a tool that risks undermining our fundamental freedoms”.
She added: “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act. The European Commission, alongside some parliamentarians, has seized upon the DSA as a political tool to control speech, particularly targeting platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram.
“The DSA was meant to protect our digital space, not to control it… The DSA, once a shield for our rights, risks becoming a Trojan horse for surveillance and control.”
Mr Coleman, an international human rights lawyer specialising in free speech and Executive Director of ADF International, a Christian legal organisation that defends freedom of expression, told the conference: “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 of this assault on free speech in Europe—particularly through the Digital Services Act.”
He added that “serious questions can and should be raised” about whether the DSA is compatible with “binding obligations to protect freedom of expression”.
He commented from his position of legal expertise that it was his “strong view” that “it is not”.
In his speech, Mr Bartulica warned that “hate speech”, which politicians want to use the DSA to “address”, is “impossible to define” as a legal concept.
He said quoting Christian Scripture could even be considered “hate speech” by those in power.
Mr Coleman mentioned the case of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, which is supported by ADF International, in his speech, as a “harrowing example of what censorship under the DSA could look like in practice”.
He said: “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.”
Mr Bartulica also said that in the EU “we have regulated or controlled speech and not free speech”.
He added: “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel—we’ve seen where mass censorship leads. Under communism and other totalitarian regimes, it’s not a pretty picture.
“There’s a totalitarian impulse in many of these people in Brussels, who are just waiting to censor speech they don’t like.”
JD Vance opposes Europe’s censorial ruling class
Also speaking at the event was American journalist and bestselling author Rod Dreher.
Mr Dreher, who is a friend of US Vice President JD Vance, said that following the Vice President’s speech in Munich, that people had asked him if VP Vance hates Europe.
He said: “Of course” the VP does not hate Europe—he loves it enough to speak the truth about its censorship crisis.
But Mr Dreher did say the VP opposes Europe’s censorial ruling class.
Mr Dreher observed that “elites would prefer to suppress discussion of discontent and its sources”—smearing such discussion as “hate speech”—rather than acknowledge the serious problems plaguing their societies.
Drawing on the wisdom of Soviet dissidents, he recommended that in the face of “soft totalitarianism” in the West today that people “refuse to participate in any event where one cannot speak the truth… Prepare to suffer for the truth”.
How to oppose the DSA
In his speech, Mr Coleman also gave concrete ways in which the DSA can be opposed.
He said: “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.
“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 jeopardised 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.”
Background
Today’s conference was the first of its kind in the European Parliament to focus on the threats to free speech posed by the DSA, to offer concrete answers on how to oppose them, and to discuss the fundamental importance of freedom of expression for societal flourishing, in that context.
The gathering of free speech experts adds to steadily building pressure on the DSA, following a letter reportedly sent to the European Commission last week by the US House Judiciary Committee, expressing concern over the legislation.
Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, also met with Congressman Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, in Washington DC last week.
In a post on X, she said: “Candid exchange with @Jim_Jordan [Chairman Jordan].”
She went on to claim in the post: “Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the EU and is strongly protected by our digital rules. Happy to continue our good discussion.”
Earlier this month, the US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor expressed concern over the censorial impact of the DSA.
The State Department bureau posted on X: “The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.
“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech.”
The post continued: “Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting gender ideology.
“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As @SecRubio [Marco Rubio] said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”
The Digital Services Act
EU politicians have stated their desire for the DSA to “address’ so-called “mis” and “disinformation” online—vague and subjective terms, which experts have warned can be used to justify censorship.
The regulation would provide an incentive to put pressure on tech companies, including American ones, to censor speech, rather than risk massive financial penalties for non-compliance.
There are additional concerns in the US about the DSA potentially having an extraterritorial impact and being used to censor speech inside America.
An attempt at using the regulation to censor speech in the US was seen last summer, when former Commissioner Thierry Breton warned Elon Musk to not breach the DSA ahead of his X interview with then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Find more information on the DSA here.
BRUSSELS (19 May 2025) – Experts will convene at the European Parliament this Wednesday morning to warn about the threats of an EU online censorship law, in a first-of-its-kind, cross-party event.
The event, which is co-hosted by ADF International, is entitled “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression”.
It follows the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour, a bureau within the US State Department, expressing concern about the censorial impact of the Digital Services Act (DSA).
The DSA is an EU regulation that requires online platforms, including US tech companies such as X and Meta, to remove “illegal content”, or risk facing massive financial penalties.
There are concerns it could introduce a “lowest common denominator” of censorship, as the most egregious anti-speech laws in any individual EU country could be applied across the region under the act.
Croatian Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Stephen Bartulica, who will speak at the event, said: “Pressure against the Digital Services Act is quickly building both inside and outside the European Parliament.
“Concern from the United States, including from their State Department and Congress, over the censorial impact of the DSA should not be ignored by the Commission—the US is a vital ally of Europe.
“This event will be a crucial part of continuing to build pressure on the DSA. Online censorship in Europe must be rejected. I believe in free speech, not regulated speech.”
Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, and an international human rights lawyer specialising in free speech, who will also speak at the event, said: “The DSA is one of the most serious threats to online free speech in the digital age.
“The move towards censorship in Europe through this framework is deeply concerning and must be challenged.
“We cannot accept a transatlantic divide on free speech, where the US recommits to the protection of this fundamental freedom, while Europe tramples on it. Freedom of expression must be protected and upheld across the globe.”
Another speaker at the event, French MEP Virginie Joron, said: “The DSA has become a tool that elites want to use to control the internet, in a desperate attempt to censor narratives that go against their narrative.
“This truth is becoming increasingly clear to the world. The new DSA regulation must not become a political tool.
“This event comes at an important moment and is a crucial step in the fight against the misapplication of this regulation.”
This week’s conference is being hosted by European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) MEP Mr Bartulica, PfE MEP Ms Joron and ADF International, a Christian legal organisation, with expertise in international law, that defends free speech.
Pressure builds against Digital Services Act
The gathering of free speech experts will add to steadily building pressure on the DSA, following a letter reportedly sent to the European Commission last week by the US House Judiciary Committee, expressing concern over the legislation.
Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, also met with Congressman Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, in Washington DC last week.
In a post on X, she said: “Candid exchange with @Jim_Jordan [Chairman Jordan].”
She went on to claim in the post: “Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the EU and is strongly protected by our digital rules. Happy to continue our good discussion.”
Earlier this month, the US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor expressed concern over the censorial impact of the DSA.
The State Department bureau posted on X: “The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.
“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech.”
The post continued: “Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting gender ideology.
“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As @SecRubio [Marco Rubio] said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”
This Wednesday’s conference is the first of its kind in the European Parliament to focus on the threats to free speech posed by the DSA, offer concrete answers on how to oppose them, and discuss the fundamental importance of freedom of expression for societal flourishing, in that context.
Rod Dreher, an American journalist and bestselling author, will also speak at the event. His books include ‘The Benedict Option’, ‘Live Not By Lies’ and, most recently, ‘Living in Wonder’. He is also a Visiting Fellow at the Danube Institute think tank.
Email [email protected] to secure your place at this groundbreaking event.
The Digital Services Act
EU politicians have stated their desire for the DSA to “address’ so-called “mis” and “disinformation” online—vague and subjective terms, which experts have warned can be used to justify censorship.
The regulation would provide an incentive to and put pressure on tech companies, including American ones, to censor speech, rather than risk massive financial penalties for non-compliance.
There are additional concerns in the US about the DSA potentially having an extraterritorial impact and being used to censor speech inside America.
An attempt at using the regulation to censor speech in the US was seen last summer, when former Commissioner Thierry Breton warned Elon Musk to not breach the DSA ahead of his X interview with then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Find more information on the DSA here.
MELBOURNE (5 May 2025) – As the Labour Party claim victory in Australia’s election, the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor has issued a warning to the government not to censor free speech on U.S. social media platforms.
Listed as an example of such “concerning” behaviour is the decision of the Australian eSafety Commissioner to require Musk’s 𝕏 to censor Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), who posted a criticism of gender ideology, and used biologically accurate pronouns to describe an Australian “transgender” activist, in a now “geo-blocked” post in 2024.
Elston is a public campaigner against puberty blockers being given to children.
“If our free speech can't be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?”
The State Department’s statement, released on social media, reads:
“The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.
“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech; Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting gender ideology.
“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As @SecRubio said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”
Reacting to the news of the State Department’s intervention, Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”) said:
“It’s tremendous to have the State Department support what we all know is true: free speech is a fundamental right, critical to a democratic society.
If our free speech can’t be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?”
Both 𝕏 and Billboard Chris, who was supported by ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, legally challenged the decision in Melbourne last month. The result is expected in the second half of this year.
The Australian eSafety Commissioner defended the decision to censor Elston’s post before a Tribunal in Melbourne last month by arguing that a post using the biologically accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, in accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act.
The post in question, which was subject to a “removal notice” at the hands of the eSafety Commissioner in April 2024, shared a Daily Mail article headlined “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” and which included pictures posted on social media by transgender activist, and WHO expert panel appointee, Teddy Cook.
In February 2024, Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), took to U.S. social media platform “X” to share the article, adding the comment:
“This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.”
“People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.”
The takedown order was legally challenged by Elon Musk’s platform “X”, and by Elston. ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance are supporting Elston’s legal case.
In his evidence, Elston told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of the tweet was a specific comment to the Daily Mail’s story on Teddy Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly, to make a political comment about the ideological bias present amongst those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world.
Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added:
“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.”
Asked further about why he chose to post on this matter, Elston explained: “Because the World Health Organisation has global influence. We should have evidence-based care.”
Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution.
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.”
Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: (1,2) “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston)engaging in street activism; (3) Chris Elston with the ADF International team supporting his case; (4) Chris Elston with Lois McLatchie Miller (ADF International) in Sydney
Washington, D.C. (3 May 2025) – The U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor has called out foreign governments who “coerce” U.S. social media platforms to censor users for speaking the truth.
Listed as an example of such “concerning” behaviour is the decision of the Australian eSafety Commissioner to require Musk’s 𝕏 to censor Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), who posted a criticism of gender ideology, and used biologically accurate pronouns to describe an Australian “transgender” activist, in a now “geo-blocked” post in 2024.
Elston is a public campaigner against puberty blockers being given to children.
“If our free speech can't be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?”
Reacting to the news of the State Department’s intervention, Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”) said:
“It’s tremendous to have the State Department support what we all know is true: free speech is a fundamental right, critical to a democratic society.
If our free speech can’t be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?”
Both 𝕏 and Billboard Chris, who was supported by ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, legally challenged the decision in Melbourne last month. The result is expected in the second half of this year.
The State Department’s statement, released on social media, reads:
“The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.
“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech; Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting gender ideology.
“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As @SecRubio said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”
The Australian eSafety Commissioner defended the decision to censor Elston’s post before a Tribunal in Melbourne last month by arguing that a post using the biologically accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, in accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act.
The post in question, which was subject to a “removal notice” at the hands of the eSafety Commissioner in April 2024, shared a Daily Mail article headlined “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” and which included pictures posted on social media by transgender activist, and WHO expert panel appointee, Teddy Cook.
In February 2024, Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), took to U.S. social media platform “X” to share the article, adding the comment:
“This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.”
“People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.”
The takedown order was legally challenged by Elon Musk’s platform “X”, and by Elston. ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance are supporting Elston’s legal case.
In his evidence, Elston told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of the tweet was a specific comment to the Daily Mail’s story on Teddy Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly, to make a political comment about the ideological bias present amongst those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world.
Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added:
“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.”
Asked further about why he chose to post on this matter, Elston explained: “Because the World Health Organisation has global influence. We should have evidence-based care.”
Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution.
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.”
Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston); Chris Elston with the ADF International team supporting his case
Given the impact of digital services on the online and offline world, states, or, in this case, a supranational union with delegated powers, are increasingly seeking to regulate this domain. We live in an age where Big Tech holds unprecedented power—the annual revenue of these giants economically places them ahead of many states’ annual budgets. The DSA is the EU’s first comprehensive and binding regulation of digital service providers in more than twenty years.
Although it purports to create “a safe online environment,” the DSA is among the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age.
The DSA is a legally binding regulatory framework that gives the European Commission authority to enforce “content moderation” on very large online platforms and search engines (those with more than 45 million users per month) that are established, or offer their services, in the EU.
Most of its provisions came into force in February 2024. Platforms that fail to comply with the regulation face massive financial penalties and even suspension. Through the platform’s compliance with the DSA, individuals can suffer censorship, suspension from online platforms, and criminal prosecution (under national law).
The stated objective of the DSA is “ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, addressing the dissemination of illegal content online and the societal risks that the dissemination of disinformation or other content may generate, and within which fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the EU] are effectively protected, and innovation is facilitated”.
The Commission claims that the DSA creates “legal certainty,” “greater democratic control,” and “mitigation of systemic risks, such as manipulation or disinformation”—but, in reality, it is an authoritarian censorship regime antithetical to democracy.
The DSA requires platforms to censor “illegal content,” which it broadly defines as anything that is not in compliance with EU law or the law of any Member State (Article 3(h)). This could result in the lowest common denominator for censorship across the whole EU. Furthermore, authoritarian governments could adopt the blueprint, claiming that Western liberal states endorse it.
The DSA is deeply flawed. It is built on the idea that “bad speech” is best countered by censorship rather than robust discussion. Furthermore, the DSA gives the European Commission broad power over how platforms handle speech, which undermines the free expression essential to democratic societies.
If a censorship law such as the DSA is the “gold standard,” as the Commission has praised its own construct, authoritarian governments of the world will readily adopt the model.
Allowing “illegal content” to potentially be determined by one country’s vague and overreaching laws pits the DSA against international law standards that require any restrictions on speech to be precisely defined and necessary. This is extremely problematic given the increasing number of absurd so-called “hate speech” laws potentially criminalizing peaceful speech throughout Europe.
The DSA is at the heart of Europe’s censorship industrial complex, consisting of a number of interwoven regulations and codes that give an unaccountable bureaucracy broad power to censor speech. Censorship occurs through vast “content moderation” networks coupled with a powerful enforcement mechanism to force platforms to comply.
The unelected and largely unaccountable Commission has positioned itself under the DSA to enable sweeping censorship in the name of “public safety” and “democracy”. It does this through a complicated mega-structure that allows the Commission to pull the strings of censorship, making private enterprises complicit and forcing them to comply with the threat of draconian fines.
The DSA creates a censorship industrial complex consisting of an expansive web of outsourced content flaggers, national coordinators, monitoring reporters, and other authorities, with the European Commission at its head. This is a business model dependent on finding content to censor and inconsistent with the standards of the rule of law.
The structure is intentionally unnavigable for the regular citizen to determine what is allowable speech. As platforms have the obligation to moderate content, the Commission can hide behind the DSA to claim that it itself is not censoring speech.
The DSA applies directly to all Member States without requiring national implementation. National regulators work with existing legal frameworks, and they create new structures to apply the DSA alongside domestic laws. In the event of a conflict, the DSA overrides national laws.
Content is policed by so-called “trusted flaggers,” including NGOs and private entities, and may even include law enforcement agencies like Europol. This deputizes organizations with their own agendas to enforce censorship at scale.
This system of “flaggers” reports content that they deem “illegal” to the platform. The platform must prioritize flagged content for removal. If the platform deems the content illegal, it must quickly remove it or disable access (by geo-blocking or hiding visibility).
Very large platforms also are obligated to proactively prevent “illegal content” by conducting regular risk assessments to identify how their services may spread “illegal content”. Under Article 34, these include “negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes, and public security” and “effects in relation to gender-based violence, the protection of public health and minors and serious negative consequences to the person’s physical and mental well-being”. The efforts include: adapting their design, terms and conditions, algorithmic systems, advertising, content moderation, including for “hate speech,” and awareness-raising measures.
A powerful enforcement mechanism ensures compliance. Under the threat of enormous financial penalties and suspension, digital service providers are forced to censor and potentially suspend individuals, and individuals may even be criminally prosecuted.
The DSA severely limits the power of national courts to protect citizens’ free speech rights. National courts become the censorship long arm of the Commission. International appeal is possible but costly and onerous.
A censored individual can try to appeal directly to the platform, use a certified out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism, or appeal to the Digital Services Coordinator. While the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies offer a relatively easy appeal option (5 euros for the individual to submit), their decisions are not binding, and the platforms are only required to engage in good faith. If the platform does not, it leaves the individual user with only more expensive and lengthy judicial recourse. Faced with that reality, many are likely to just submit to censorship or preemptively self-censor.
Individuals or the platform can technically challenge censorship in national courts, but the courts are required to comply with Commission decisions. Article 82 states: a “national court shall not take any decision which runs counter to that Commission decision. National courts shall also avoid taking decisions which could conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings”.
Individuals or platforms can take their cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), but this is a complex and costly process with strict requirements. The CJEU system takes 1-2 years for a ruling, sometimes longer, and rarely grants interim relief measures.
The DSA is a digital gag order with global consequences because it can censor you no matter where you live. Because the DSA applies to “Very Large Online Platforms” and search engines accessed within the EU but with a global presence, DSA censorship impacts the entire world.
The DSA explicitly states its extraterritorial applicability as it covers platforms used by people “that have their place of establishment or are located in the Union, irrespective of where the providers of those intermediary services [the platforms] have their place of establishment”. (Article 2(1))
While the DSA states in Article 9(2)(b) that takedown orders should be “limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve its objective,” there remain grave extraterritorial concerns.
Platforms may be inclined to adapt their international content moderation policies to EU censorship. If platforms deem something “illegal” under EU rules, that content may be banned everywhere, even in countries with strong free speech protections.
In its letter to European Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee wrote: “Though nominally applicable to only EU speech, the DSA, as written, may limit or restrict Americans’ constitutionally protected speech in the United States. Companies that censor an insufficient amount of ‘misleading or deceptive’ speech—as defined by EU bureaucrats—face fines up to six percent of global revenue, which would amount to billions of dollars for many American companies. Furthermore, because many social media platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally, restrictive censorship laws like the DSA may set de facto global censorship standards.”
Individuals outside of Europe could find themselves censored within Europe. This could happen to even a head of state or individual with enormous international reach. In the worst case, blocking content from reaching the 500 million inhabitants of the European Union has the potential to cut an entire continent out of the conversation—a draconian move with world-changing impact.
The DSA is irreconcilable with the human right to free speech. It must be repealed or substantially reformed to protect open discourse and fundamental freedoms in the EU and across the world. We cannot allow the DSA to become the global model for digital speech control.
ADF International is committed to challenging violations of free speech resulting from the DSA and building critical momentum to repeal or substantially reform this censorial framework. We are working to amend or strike down the parts of the DSA that undermine freedom of expression.
There is no disagreement that certain expression is illegal (e.g. child exploitation, incitement to terrorism) and every social media platform has a legal obligation to restrict this content. The DSA goes far beyond this. Instead, the DSA has created a censorship mega structure to ban “illegal content” without defining what “illegal content” is. Over time, this mega structure could censor speech that any person in any EU country considers “illegal” according to whatever law is either in force now or may be passed in the future. Behind the 100+ pages of complex legislation hides a blank cheque for censorship.
What can be done to challenge the DSA at the European level?
BOURNEMOUTH (4 April 2025) – The US State Department has denounced the conviction of retiree Livia Tossici-Bolt for offering consensual conversation in an abortion facility “buffer zone”.
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor released the following comment on X: “We are disappointed with the UK court’s conviction of Livia Tossici-Bolt for violating a designated “buffer zone” at an abortion clinic. Freedom of expression must be protected for all.”
This comes in response to its comment on March 30 that it was “monitoring” the case, given that “U.S.-UK relations share a mutual respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
“My conviction for offering consensual conversation has been very difficult, not only for me personally, but also because I care deeply about preserving freedom of expression in the UK. I am encouraged to know that the United States Department of State is following my case closely. I am grateful, and hope this encourages this country to take a close look at what it means to convict someone for nothing more than offering conversation,” responded Livia Tossici-Bolt.
“The United States Department of State put the UK on notice earlier this week when it highlighted Livia’s case. We are grateful for the awareness this has generated regarding the egregious failure of justice that is her conviction for offering consensual conversation. The State Department has every reason to be disappointed by the verdict. Her conviction is a loss for everyone committed to the protection of fundamental freedoms. If the special relationship is to mean anything, it has to be a relationship where each side can challenge the other,” stated Robert Clarke, ADF International Director of Advocacy, in response to the comment from the bureau.
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.
Pictured: Livia Tossici-Bolt and Jeremiah Igunnubole (barrister and Legal Counsel, ADF International).
Retired clinical scientist and Christian Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, found guilty this morning at Poole Magistrates’ Court
Dr Tossici-Bolt held a sign reading ‘here to talk, if you want’ and did not engage in harassment, intimidation, or obstruction. Her legal defence is supported by ADF International
The US State Department this week expressed concern about freedom of expression in the UK, commenting it was ‘monitoring’ her case
BOURNEMOUTH (4 April 2025) – A Christian woman was this morning convicted for offering consensual conversation in a censorial “buffer zone”.
Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, was found guilty at Poole Magistrates’ Court. Despite finding as a fact that “the sign made no reference to pregnancy, abortion, or religious matters” and hearing evidence from one council officer that “he did not witness her intimidating or harassing any individual”, District Judge Austin ruled that council officers had a reasonable belief that she was in violation of the PSPO.
One of the council officers testified that “he formed the view that [Tossici-Bolt] was in breach of [the PSPO] on several grounds. He considered her pro-life views, his own previous interaction with her, the complaint that had been received and the sign that she was holding.”
In mitigation, counsel for Dr Tossici-Bolt stressed that “The council has not adduced any evidence that she was observed by any service user or any other form of harm…neither is there an identified victim in this case.”
Following the conviction, the Judge sentenced Dr Tossici-Bolt to a conditional discharge and ordered her to pay prosecution costs of £20,000 which must be paid in full by 31 May 2025.
Earlier this week, a US State Department bureau said it was “monitoring” Dr Tossici-Bolt’s case, which is supported by ADF International, and that it was “concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom”.
Reacting to the verdict, Dr Tossici-Bolt said:
“This is a dark day for Great Britain. I was not protesting and did not harass or obstruct anyone. All I did was offer consensual conversation in a public place, as is my basic right, and yet the court found me guilty. Freedom of expression is in a state of crisis in the UK. What has happened to this country? The US State Department was right to be concerned by this case as it has serious implications for the entire Western world."
“I remain committed to fighting for free speech, not only for my own sake but for all my fellow citizens. If we allow this precedent of censorship to stand, nobody’s right to freely express themselves is secure. With ADF International’s support, I will now consider all legal options,” she continued.
Legal Counsel for ADF International Lorcán Price commented:
“Everyone who cares about free speech should care about ‘buffer zones’. A Christian woman has been convicted merely for offering to chat on a public street in Britain. This ruling should show all reasonable people that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, abortion facility ‘buffer zones’ are incompatible with a free society.
“We will now support Livia in considering all legal options.”
Dr Tossici-Bolt was issued a fixed penalty notice for holding a sign that said “Here to talk, if you want” in a censorial abortion facility “buffer zone” in Bournemouth.
She was then prosecuted after she declined to pay it on the grounds that she did not breach the terms of the Public Spaces Protection Order—which bans acts of approval and disapproval regarding abortion—and had the right, protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, to offer consensual conversations.
The District Judge who gave today’s verdict is the same judge who last October found Adam Smith-Connor guilty for silently praying in a “buffer zone”, in a case which US Vice President JD Vance directly highlighted in his Munich Security Conference speech
With ADF International’s support, Mr Smith-Connor will appeal his conviction in a July trial.
For more details on Dr Tossici-Bolt’s case, find her support page here.
MELBOURNE (2 April 2025) – The Australian eSafety Commissioner has argued that a post using the biologically-accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, before the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne this week.
The post in question, which was subject to a “removal notice” at the hands of the eSafety Commissioner in April 2024, shared a Daily Mail article headlined “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” and which included pictures posted on social media by transgender activist, and WHO expert panel appointee, Teddy Cook.
The takedown order is being legally challenged by Elon Musk’s platform “X”, and by the author of the post, Chris Elston, known as “Billboard Chris” online.
ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance are supporting Elston’s legal case.
“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…Children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.”
In February 2024, Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), took to U.S. social media platform “X” to share the article, adding the comment:
“This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.”
“People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.”
In his evidence this week, Elston told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of the tweet was a specific comment to the Daily Mail’s story on Teddy Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly, to make a political comment about the ideological bias present amongst those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world.
Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added:
“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.”
Asked further about why he chose to post on this matter, Elston explained: “Because the World Health Organisation has global influence. We should have evidence-based care.”
Under cross-examination, Elston responded, “My goal is not to provoke outrage. My goal is to simply try to educate people, and encourage discussion. I want everyone to think for themselves.”
Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution.
In accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021, the eSafety Commissioner seeks to prove that Chris Elston’s post constitutes “cyber abuse material directed at an Australian adult”, including that it “was likely that the material was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm”.
Counsel for the eSafety Commissioner has suggested that Elston’s post could meet this threshold.
Expert witness, consultant medical psychiatrist Dr. Jill Redden, testified that using biologically-accurate pronouns for somebody identifying as transgender could cause “irritation” and upset, but would not likely cross the statutory threshold to constitute “serious harm”.
When asked how long one might expect to experience serious psychological symptoms of that severity, Dr. Redden answered “several months”. Elston’s counsel pointed out that Teddy Cook had professed on an Instagram post to be “living my best life” just nine days after the X post at the centre of this case was published.
The eSafety Commissioner called Professor Rob Cover of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, a Professor of Digital Communication, as an expert witness.
Professor Cover testified that he believes it is “harmful”, “offensive”, “untruthful”, “rude” and “anti-science” to use biologically accurate pronouns when referring to a person who identifies as transgender.
He added that using sex-based language “adds to a kind of anti-trans rhetoric which is a common kind of misinformation…online and offline”.
Cover considers his personal view to be “informed by science” and by “the truth of the person which wishes to be identified in that way in accordance with their reality.”
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.”
Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston); Chris Elston with the ADF International team supporting his case
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 InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from Facebook. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from X. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information
