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

Across The Globe, Pointing Out Men Can’t Become Women Could Land You In Court

Gabriel Quadri, censored for stating biological reality.

This story originally appeared in The Federalist on 8 August 2024

Picture of Elyssa Koren
Elyssa Koren

Legal Communications Director

The world has been shocked to see riots erupt throughout the United Kingdom following an appalling stabbing in Southport, England, last week, where three children died.

But we should be alert to how the response of Britain’s new Labour government to the disorder is creeping beyond a crackdown on violence. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said on Monday that social media companies should address “misinformation,” which suggests this crisis could be exploited to censor peaceful speech online.

The fear is that the unrest in the UK will be used as an excuse to further infringe on free speech online in the country. In fact, there are many parts of the world where a perfectly peaceful tweet could land you criminal charges or even a prison sentence.

For example, take note of what happened in 2022 to congressman Gabriel Quadri in Mexico. Quadri was prosecuted for his Twitter posts on the dangers of transgender ideology, including comments about keeping female sports safe and fair.

As millions opine freely on the myriad controversies at the Olympics, this should give us pause. Both Quadri and civil society leader Rodrigo Iván Cortés were convicted for “gender based political violence,” including “digital violence,” and punished in an absurd and demeaning manner for peacefully expressing the truth about biological reality online.

A testament to the pound of flesh the state demands from those who dare to speak against its orthodoxies, Quadri and Cortés were ordered to publish a court-written apology on X every day at set times and placed on an offender’s registrar. Having exhausted all avenues for justice in Mexico, ADF International is appealing their cases to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Prosecution in Finland

Look too to what has transpired over the last five years in Finland, a country with deep roots in the rule of law. Longstanding parliamentarian and grandmother Päivi Räsänen is being criminally prosecuted for a Bible verse she tweeted in 2019.

Quoting from the book of Romans, Räsänen objected to her church’s decision to sponsor a pride parade. For this, she endured hours of police interrogation, three criminal charges, and two onerous trials. Despite being unanimously acquitted at both, she soon will be tried again at the Supreme Court of Finland, where ADF International is backing her legal defense.

Räsänen’s case, in a supposedly free country, demonstrates that the censorial vigor of the state knows no bounds when it comes to silencing expressions of truth that expose the ideological falsehoods of the day.

Räsänen stoked no violence and evinced no hate, and yet she is being prosecuted for “hate speech” under the “war crimes and crimes against humanity” section of Finland’s criminal code, which carries a potential prison sentence of two years. You better believe that if a much loved, and oft re-elected, civil servant of more than 20 years can be tried for a tweet, then the citizens of Finland are going to think twice before they hit post.

Cases in the EU, Australia, Ireland, Scotland, Brazil

In Australia, street advocate Billboard Chris was censored for tweeting the truth that trans-activist Teddy Cook should not serve on a World Health Organization panel for children’s transgender policy given Cook’s aberrant sexual practices.

Chris posted a Daily Mail article on X entitled, “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?” Australia’s “E-Safety Commission” tried to force X to take the post down.

When X refused, they forced the platform to geo-block it, and now, Chris, supported by ADF International, and alongside X, is suing in defense of his right to speak freely.

The Irish parliament is currently debating a “hate speech” law, which, if adopted, could criminalize the possession of “hateful” material with up to five years in prison. And in April, Scotland passed a law criminalizing “stirring up hatred” against protected categories, including transgender identity, with a possible seven-year prison sentence.

As is always the case where these laws take root, “hate” is undefined. Consequently, it’s open season for a “hate crime” when such a transgression could be literally anything under the sun perceived as hateful by an offended party.

Brazil is undergoing a crisis of extreme censorship, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Earlier this spring, a Supreme Court judge threatened to wield his authority to shut down X in the country. 

Journalists, including American author Michael Shellenberger, are being criminally investigated for exposing the state’s censorial crimes. Now X is deploying its legal team to preserve free speech on the platform in Brazil.

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. Most recently, the European Commission has accused X of violating the EU Digital Services Act, triggering the promise of legal action from Elon Musk, who claims that X resisted an “illegal secret deal” to comply with EU rules to censor “misinformation.”

Raising our Voices in Resistance

Everyone must be free to peacefully debate the issues of our time, online or wherever they may find themselves, without fear of government punishment. But across the world state-driven censorship is proving to be one of the most insidious problems of our age. And it is not by accident that the brunt force of the state is often leveraged to silence expressions of basic truth, in particular in the digital space.

Next time you reflexively exercise your free speech rights by firing off a tweet, remember those who have incurred the wrath of the state simply for doing the same. We must vigilantly resist the rising tide of censorship, and also the urge to self-censor, instead raising our voices to advocate for those silenced and sanctioned for nothing more than a tweet.

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

US Government agency condemns UK silent prayer arrest 

  • In its latest report, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) highlights that the European governments have “targeted individuals for their peaceful religious expression”  
  • Arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce for silently praying in an abortion “buffer zone” listed as primary example  
  • UK Home Office to release guidance on “buffer zone” policing imminently – abortion advocates lobby for silent prayer to be punished 

LONDON (14th May 2024) – A U.S. federal government commission has called out the unjust arrest of a silently praying Christian in Birmingham, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, in its annual international report. 

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) was established as part of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), which mandates that U.S. policy includes condemning violations of religious freedom abroad and assisting foreign governments to protect this fundamental human right. Commissioners are appointed by the President and the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

The 2024 annual report highlighted the high-profile arrest of Vaughan-Spruce as an example of European governments “targeting individuals for their peaceful religious expression”.  

Responding to the news, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce said: 

“Arresting individuals for silent prayer has put Britain in a position of global embarrassment. Nobody should be criminalised for their mere thoughts – this is a basic principle of a liberal democracy. If we can’t get that right at home, how are we meant to uphold human rights on the world stage? 

I was searched, arrested, put in a police van, charged and placed on trial for a “thoughtcrime” – for peacefully and imperceptibly praying outside an abortion facility. With support from ADF UK, I was fully vindicated in court – but my case isn’t a one-off. The Home Office can prevent my arrest from recurring by clarifying in their upcoming guidance that, while we all condemn harassment, freedom of thought and consensual conversation must remain free.” 

"Arresting individuals for silent prayer has put Britain in a position of global embarrassment. Nobody should be criminalised for their mere thoughts – this is a basic principle of a liberal democracy."

- Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, arrested, tried and fully acquitted after praying silently in her head in an abortion "buffer zone"

Arrested for a “Thoughtcrime”

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested twice in 2023 for silently praying in a “buffer zone” in Birmingham. A Public Spaces Protection Order had been installed by local authorities to ban all expressions of “approval or disapproval” of abortion on the streets near an abortion facility. In what is widely thought to be the first “thoughtcrime” case in 21st Century Britain, Vaughan-Spruce was charged even though she had prayed imperceptibly and not expressed any opinion outside of her own mind. 

A Catholic priest, Father Sean Gough, was also charged for holding a sign within a buffer zone reading “praying for free speech”. Both were tried at Birmingham Magistrates Court and fully acquitted of all charges with legal support from ADF UK, after the prosecution were able to offer “no evidence”. 

Two further individuals – Adam Smith-Connor and Livia Tossici-Bolt – will face trial later this year after both being charged with breaching “buffer zones” on separate occasions in Bournemouth.  

Adam Smith-Connor, like Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, prayed silently in his head. Livia Tossici-Bolt, a long-term crisis pregnancy support volunteer, held a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want”. 

Watch Isabel’s second arrest, sparking the condemnation of the US Commission, below:

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

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Home Office guidance expected to be published imminently

Draft guidance issued by the Home Office in December clarified that national “buffer zones” would not prohibit silent prayer, nor consensual conversations between adults within the zone. International law requires the UK government to protect freedom of thought as an absolute right. The right to engage freely and consensually in conversations is protected by the fundamental right to freedom of speech.  Labour’s Rupa Huq and Conservative Sir Bernard Jenkin reportedly met with the Home Office recently to demand a stronger crackdown on silent prayer occurring within 150m of abortion facilities.   Yet several other members of parliament have spoken up for maintaining protections on silent prayer and consensual conversation in the guidance.  

Yet several other members of parliament have spoken up for maintaining protections on silent prayer and consensual conversation in the guidance.  

Andrew Lewer MP said: 

“The Home Office guidance on buffer zones should at least protect these in order to uphold international standards on freedom of speech and of thought.  

 “While police crack down on these peaceful activities, they expose a double standard where protesters on different ideological issues are allowed much wider scope to express their beliefs.” 

READ FURTHER REFLECTIONS FROM CROSS-PARTY MPS HERE 

The final guidance is expected to be published imminently. 

Speaking about the “thoughtcrime” trials seen in Britain, Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK said: 

“The principle of freedom of thought and speech must be defended both within and outside ‘buffer zones’. To his credit, the Home Secretary has, thus far, sought to keep our country in line with international law by underlining the importance of protecting freedom of thought as an absolute right, and protecting the right to freely engage in consensual conversations, which is the lifeblood of any genuinely thriving democracy.  

That said, it is crucially important that he holds firm in the face of concerted pressure from a vocal minority of backbench MPs who, unsatisfied with introducing arguably the most censorial legislation in modern British history, are now seeking to criminalise the innermost thoughts of law abiding citizens and even consensual discussions. These efforts of a handful of Labour and Conservative backbenchers are nothing short of Orwellian and are undoubtedly the first step to the normalization of state-endorsed content-based censorship,” commented Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK. 

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

WHO Pandemic Agreement: free speech experts welcome progress as negotiations near conclusion

Giorgio Mazzoli in front of the UN in Geneva. The WHO pandemic treaty is negotiated by UN member states.
  • Earlier versions of the text required parties to “combat” or “prevent” undefined concepts like “misleading information”, “misinformation”, and “disinformation”.  
  • ADF International spearheaded global advocacy to ensure pandemic treaty upholds freedom of expression. 
  • Latest negotiating text addresses free speech concerns – vigilance against potential regression crucial as negotiations resume today. 
Giorgio Mazzoli in front of the UN in Geneva. The WHO pandemic treaty is negotiated by UN member states.

GENEVA (30 April 2024) – The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, a new international treaty due to be adopted in June, has drawn worldwide criticism for its potential crackdown on freedom of expression as part of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. An earlier version required the “management” of so-called “infodemics,” defined as “too much information … during a disease outbreak” causing “confusion” as well as “mistrust” in health authorities, regardless of the veracity of the information in question. A more recent version of the agreement included language mandating parties to “cooperate, in accordance with national laws, in preventing misinformation and disinformation,” essentially granting individual states the discretion to define which information fits within these categories, and potentially censor it.    

Global advocacy efforts to protect free speech yielded fruits as the latest proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement removed the vague mandates for parties to “prevent” misinformation and disinformation. In a significant shift, the current text no longer contemplates the imposition of potentially sweeping restrictions on freedom of speech to address these phenomena. Instead, it recognizes the importance of building trust and ensuring timely, transparent, accurate, science- and evidence-informed information.  

"It is vital that the Pandemic Agreement safeguard freedom of expression against potential censorship threats. We commend WHO Member States for acknowledging the critical importance of government transparency and accountability in sharing pandemic-related information, rather than endorsing arbitrary speech suppression."

- Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International

“Long-awaited development” 

“It is vital that the Pandemic Agreement safeguard freedom of expression against potential censorship threats. We commend WHO Member States for acknowledging the critical importance of government transparency and accountability in sharing pandemic-related information, rather than endorsing arbitrary speech suppression. We trust that these advances will be consolidated in the final text without any rollbacks on language protecting fundamental freedoms,” said Giorgio Mazzoli, human rights expert and Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International, who led the legal organisation’s global advocacy effort.   

Negotiations continue today 

Today marks the resumption of negotiations on the draft text, scheduled to conclude on May 10th. Later next month, the World Health Assembly (WHA) is expected to adopt the agreement, aimed inter alia at strengthening the WHO’s role in preventing, preparing for, and responding to future pandemics. 

Over the last months, ADF International warned that the agreement could severely restrict freedom of expression, a fundamental human right that encompasses the right to impart, seek and receive information under international law. ADF International has highlighted the potential human rights implications of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and offered legal advocacy to key stakeholders. 

“Freedom of expression, especially during pandemics, is essential to ensure scrutiny and accountability over critical public health decisions. It is imperative that the Pandemic Agreement does not lead to a lowering of existing standards by promoting incursions into free speech in the name of public health, when it is possible for both to be upheld in careful balance. As negotiations near their final stages, Member States must steer clear of any regression in this area,” concluded Mazzoli.  

 

Further information: 

  • October 2023: Negotiating text which required states to combat so-called infodemics: https://t.co/wdrlqG1pHO 
  • March 2024: Negotiating text which demanded that parties cooperate “in preventing misinformation and disinformation”: https://t.co/wdrlqG1pHO 
  • April 2024: new draft without vague mandates and the confirmation of the importance of freedom of information: https://t.co/vtmrw4elmv 
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only