‘Tsunami of censorship’: US congressional committee criticises UK’s abortion centre ‘buffer zones’ and online censorship

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce in 2022.
  • Influential committee makes intervention on alarming state of free speech in UK and Europe
  • Abortion centre ‘buffer zones’ and Online Safety Act in UK criticised
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce in 2022.

LONDON (22 November 2024) – An influential US congressional committee has criticised abortion centre “buffer zones” and the Online Safety Act in the UK as part of a “tsunami of censorship headed towards America”.

“This intervention from the House Judiciary Committee shows the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International

The X (Twitter) account for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, who are the majority on the cross-party House of Representatives standing committee, called out this censorship in a thread on the alarming state of free speech in the UK and Europe.

The House Judiciary Committee interviewed Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a Catholic woman who, supported by ADF International, recently won a payout of £13,000 from West Midlands Police for her two unlawful arrests for silently praying in an abortion centre “buffer zone” in Birmingham. ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organisation.

The committee’s X thread also critiqued the Online Safety Act for requiring “platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content”.

ADF International Executive Director Paul Coleman commented: “This intervention from the House Judiciary Committee shows the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices.

“The incoming administration has made its commitment to free speech clear. If British politicians do not act to protect free speech, all other considerations aside, the UK will continue to suffer severe reputational harm on the world stage.” 

Congressman Darrell Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said: “The growing attacks on free speech in the US – as well as the UK and EU – pose a direct threat to free people on both sides of the Atlantic. We know that legislation like the Online Safety Act that is said to combat ‘hate speech’ empowers regulators to censor free speech.

“Congressional Republicans understand that these threats to free speech are part of a broader global push by the Censorship Industrial Complex, which includes not only the EU, UK, and other nations but also malign actors here at home. We are committed to confronting this growing threat alongside the incoming Trump Administration to fight against these assaults on free speech within our borders and around the world.”

Reform UK Leader, Nigel Farage MP said: “The crackdown on free expression within the UK is becoming very sinister.

“Our police and government now withhold vital public information and we get censored simply for demanding the truth.

“I will continue to fight this.”

Critique of “buffer zones”

In its post, the House Judiciary GOP said: “What could posting a Bible verse or praying in front of an abortion clinic get you in Europe? A visit from the police—or worse…

“Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested and prosecuted for silently praying. She won her case. Yet still, she receives tickets and other forms of intimidation by police.”

The intervention came shortly after “buffer zones” were introduced around all abortion centres in England and Wales at the end of last month as part of the Public Order Act.

These ban “influencing” someone regarding abortion within 150 metres of an abortion facility. Thankfully, the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance saying silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime and that there must be evidence of overt activity.

However, army veteran Adam Smith-Connor last month became the first person to be convicted for silent prayer in a “buffer zone”. With the support of ADF International, he is appealing his conviction.

Medical scientist Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt also faces trial for holding a sign in a “buffer zone” that said “Here to talk if you want”. 

Critique of Online Safety Act and Digital Services Act

The House Judiciary GOP post critiqued UK online speech legislation and the Digital Services Act, an EU regulation: “Two major pieces of online speech legislation were passed in Europe over the last two years: The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) & the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA).

“Generally speaking, they require platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content… The UK’s laws mirror or go beyond the EU’s laws & include Orwellian practices to investigate speech.”

The committee’s post explained that because of the population and economic size of the UK and EU, regulations that censor speech in those areas can affect the US. For example, companies change their global policies to match anti-speech EU regulations.

Financial penalties also play a role: “What do platforms risk if they don’t comply? Penalties are as high as 6% of GLOBAL revenue from the EU’s DSA and 10% of GLOBAL revenue from the UK’s OSA. Billions of dollars for most major platforms.

“The Digital Services Act and Online Safety Act enable bureaucrats in the EU and the UK to put platforms out of business. So now, social media companies and their employees are strongly incentivized to overregulate speech on their platforms to preserve their business.

“The fight for free expression online is a global fight. The Biden-Harris Administration has stood by silently as foreign countries try to render the First Amendment obsolete.”

Dr Päivi Räsänen

The thread from the congressional committee also highlighted the case of Dr Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish parliamentarian on trial for a tweet expressing her Christian views on sexuality.

With the support of ADF International, Dr Räsänen faces trial at Finland’s Supreme Court for alleged “hate speech”, despite being unanimously acquitted of the charges on two previous occasions.

The House Judiciary GOP added: “If she [Dr Räsänen] loses her case, it could serve as a precedent for other European countries.

“Meaning posting a Bible verse could be soon considered ‘hate speech’ across the EU.”

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

Army veteran confirms APPEAL as Crown Prosecution Service concede silent prayer “not necessarily” an offence 

  • With legal support from ADF UK, Adam Smith-Connor will pursue an appeal against his conviction for praying silently in a “buffer zone” 
  • CPS guidance on prosecuting “buffer zone” breaches requires evidence of “overt” activity  
  • “Buffer zones” enacted TODAY around every abortion facility in England & Wales 

LONDON (31 October 2024) – As the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) unveils guidance clarifying that silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime in an abortion “buffer zone”, the army veteran found “guilty” for praying silently near an abortion facility has announced today that he will pursue an appeal against his conviction, with support from ADF UK. 

The guidance comes on the same day as the national rollout of a new “buffer zones” law – making it a crime to “influence a person’s decision to access…abortion services” within 150m of an abortion facility in England and Wales. 

On 16th October, Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court convicted and sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000.  

In its decision, the court emphasised Adam’s known beliefs on abortion. The judge also noted that people may have perceived that Adam was praying because at one point his head may have been slightly bowed and his hands were clasped at his waist in an “at ease” posture. 

The defence contend that Smith-Connor was not “overt” in his actions, as required by CPS guidance on prosecuting buffer zone breaches. His eyes were open and he stood in a “normal” standing position, in a public green across the road from the clinic, with his back to the entrance.

WATCH BELOW: Officers interrogate Adam as to the “nature of his prayers”:

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council charged and prosecuted Adam Smith-Connor for breaking locally-enforced “buffer zone” rules, following an interrogation by officers on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray silently for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.    

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 government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers.

- Adam Smith-Connor, convicted for praying silently in a "buffer zone"

The ruling, issued on 16th October 2024, marked the first time in modern British history that a citizen has been criminalised on the basis of his thoughts. 

Speaking about his decision to pursue an appeal, Adam Smith-Connor said: 

“Surely a silent thought cannot be a crime. With support from ADF UK, I’m pursuing an appeal against my conviction. The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers. 

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.” 

Public funding spent on prosecuting prayers

Controversially, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent over £100,000 of public funds prosecuting Smith-Connor for his silent thoughts, for a charge with a maximum penalty of £1,000. This expense – including instructing a King’s Counsel – comes despite the Council being on the brink of bankruptcy for the past year. 

Commenting on the trial and the use of public funds ahead of the verdict, politician Miriam Cates said:  

“This isn’t 1984, but 2024 – nobody should be on trial for the mere thoughts they hold in their mind. It’s outrageous that the local council are pouring taxpayer funding into prosecuting a thoughtcrime, at a time where resources are stretched thin. Buffer zone regulation are disproportionately wide, leaving innocent people vulnerable to prosecution merely for offering help, or simply holding their own beliefs.”  

Buffer zones installed nationwide 

Today, the UK government have enforced “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England and Wales – banning “influencing” someone’s decision to access abortion services within 150m of the building. 

ADF UK has warned that the vague wording of the legislation could lead to more prosecutions over thoughts, or consensual conversations between adults. 

In March 2023, Parliament voted down an amendment to explicitly protect silent prayer, leaving the wording of the law vague as to which activities might be construed as “influencing”. Today’s guidance from CPS confirms former Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s views that “silent prayer, within itself, is not unlawful.” 

Speaking about the new law and accompanying CPS Guidance, enforced under the Public Order Act 2023, ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole said: 

“We are glad that the CPS has confirmed that silent prayer is not necessarily a criminal offence and that there must be evidence of overt activity. This is commonsense and consistent with the absolute right to freedom of thought protected under domestic and international law. Previous Home Secretaries and the magistrates’ court have repeatedly concluded that silent prayer, within itself, cannot constitute a criminal offence. Now that CPS guidance has recognized the same, it is incumbent on police officers and local authorities to refrain from ideological and discriminatory interpretations which seek to criminalise prayer itself rather than overt conduct amounting to harassment and intimidation.  

“It’s for this reason that we are glad to support Adam as he pursues an appeal of his conviction for praying silently without engaging anyone or being obtrusive in any way. This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful conduct anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based.” 

 

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

Pictured: Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK; Adam Smith-Connor

Almost 60,000 signatories ask Keir Starmer to protect freedom of thought, as army veteran prosecuted for silent prayer 

  • Public letter to PM pleads: “act urgently to ensure that thought is never buffered, censored or criminalised.”
  • Army veteran convicted for silently praying near abortion facility last week
  • Government set to roll out censorial “buffer zones” around every abortion facility from 31st October 

LONDON (25th October 2024) – 57,900 members of the public have signed an open letter to Keir Starmer in light of an army veteran being prosecuted for his silent prayers. 

The letter, addressed to the UK Prime Minister, reads: “Freedom of thought is our most basic and precious of rights – and has long been recognised in British law and every major human rights document from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights onwards.” 

The letter highlights the plight of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who received a £13,000 payout from West Midlands Police after being unlawfully arrested twice for imperceptibly praying in her head in a Birmingham “buffer zone”. 

"A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere, creates a threat to these rights everywhere."

- Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK

Also noted is the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, who will face trial in March 2025 for inviting consensual conversation in the buffer zone by holding a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want”.

Father Sean Gough is also highlighted, having been fully acquitted of all charges after facing trial for praying while holding a sign near a Birmingham abortion facility reading “praying for freedom of speech”, and having a small pro-life sticker on his parked car inside the buffer zone.

The letter further references army veteran Adam-Smith Connor, who was found guilty last week for praying silently in his head near an abortion facility in the first “thoughtcrime” conviction of modern British history. Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent over £100,000 of public funds prosecuting the father of two, hiring a Kings Council, despite being on the brink of bankruptcy. 

A slippery slope of censorship

Christian legal charity ADF UK supported the defence of all four individuals prosecuted on the basis of their silent prayers in abortion “buffer zone” areas.

ADF UK legal counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole explained that the different outcomes in each case represent a “profound and troubling lack of clarity in the law, and an undue subjectivity allowing individual officers and local authorities to determine whether silent prayer can be considered a crime on any given day.”

 

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

Alluding to recent fears regarding “two-tier policing” in the UK, where those with conservative viewpoints are disproportionately censored and punished for voicing their opinions, the letter continues: 

“The slippery slope is clear; if the criminal law requires us to refrain from ‘offensive’ thoughts anywhere, there is simply no logical endpoint. Today, it’s pro-life views that offend progressive social orthodoxies; tomorrow, it could be gender-critical views and gender-critical buffer zones. A genuinely democratic society must champion diversity of thought and the free and frank exchange of views.”

Silent prayer under threat of criminalisation

Vaughan-Spruce, Smith-Connor, Gough and Tossici-Bolt were all charged for allegedly breaching a “buffer zone”, implemented by five local council authorities via a “Public Spaces Protection Order”, which bans acts of “approval or disapproval” of abortion – but have been interpreted by officers to even include thoughts inside someone’s mind.  

The UK government are set to roll out “buffer zone” legislation across the country from 31st October, making it a crime to “influence” anybody’s “decision to access…abortion services” within 150m of an abortion facility. 

Free speech campaigners have raised concerns about the loose wording of this legislation, which could potentially be applied to criminalise friends and family who offer advice, or engage in consensual conversations about abortion, near the facility. 

Commenting on the upcoming enforcement of national buffer zones, Jeremiah Igunnubole said:  

“We all influence each other’s decisions all the time – be it through the advice of a parent, the concern of a friend, or the information made available through a charitable volunteer. The ability to peacefully exchange views is the lifeblood of democratic society.   

“Yet the Public Order Act is written so vaguely that these everyday, peaceful, caring conversations could be made illegal on certain streets of England when it comes to discussing abortion. The lack of clarity in the law could result in many more citizens like Adam being interrogated or even charged for simply directing silent thoughts towards God.   

“The right to hold a consensual conversation, or engage in silent prayer, constitute the most basic of human rights. They are protected robustly by international legal provisions relating to freedom of thought and speech.   

“This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based.” 

To read the public letter in full, click here.

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

Pictured: ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole with individuals prosecuted for their silent prayers: Adam Smith-Connor; Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, Livia Tossici-Bolt, Fr. Sean Gough

VERDICT TOMORROW: Army Vet on trial for silent prayer

Adam Smith-Connor, army vet convicted
  • Army veteran and father of two, Adam Smith-Connor, charged with breaching censorial “buffer zone” by holding prayerful thoughts in his mind
  • Verdict to be announced Wednesday 16th October, 10am, Poole Magistrates’ Court 
  • UK government to roll out “buffer zones” nationwide 31st October, criminalising “influence” near abortion facilities
Adam Smith-Connor, army vet convicted

DORSET (15th October 2024) – A man charged and tried for praying silently in an abortion “buffer zone” in Bournemouth will hear his verdict tomorrow at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court. 

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council filed charges against Adam Smith-Connor, a military veteran and father of two, following an interrogation by office on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.

Watch footage of the interrogation 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

Smith-Connor was confronted by officers who asked, “what is the nature of your prayer?”, on a public green within a large “buffer zone” – an area covering several streets in the town – in which authorities have banned various expressions of pro-life or Christian belief, including through offering help to women in crisis pregnancies, or praying. 

Read the full text of the Public Spaces Protection Order here.  

Ahead of the verdict, Adam Smith-Connor stated: 

“Nobody should be prosecuted for silent prayer. It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime. 

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”  

"I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime."

- Adam Smith-Connor, military veteran on trial for silent prayer

Despite battling bankruptcy warnings and being forced to cut “all non-essential spending”, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent more than £90,000 on legal fees to prosecute the offence, which carries a maximum penalty of £1,000.

Commenting on the trial and the use of public funds, former MP Miriam Cates said: 

“This isn’t 1984, but 2024 – nobody should be on trial for the mere thoughts they hold in their mind. It’s outrageous that the local council are pouring taxpayer funding into prosecuting a thoughtcrime, at a time where resources are stretched thin. Buffer zone regulation are disproportionately wide, leaving innocent people vulnerable to prosecution merely for offering help, or simply holding their own beliefs.”

Smith-Connor did not outwardly manifest his prayer by kneeling, speaking, or holding any signs to indicate his outer thoughts. He made every effort to be out of the line of sight of the abortion facility, positioned behind a tree with his back to the clinic and did not engage with any passersby.   

Commenting on the trial, Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh MP said: 

“It is disgraceful that in Britain in 2024 someone can be put on trial for praying silently in his head. Unfortunately we have seen repeated cases of free speech under threat in the UK when it comes to the expression of Christian beliefs. To offer a prayer silently in the depths of your heart cannot be an offence. The government must clarify urgently that freedom of thought is protected as a basic human right.”

A national roll-out of "buffer zones" - 31st October

Five councils across the UK currently have active “buffer zones” or censorship zones banning prayer and offers of charitable help to women on the public streets near abortion facilities.  

The UK Parliament voted to roll out “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales as part of the Public Order Act 2023.  

The Labour Government have announced plans to implement the zones on 31st October. Under the national law, “influencing” someone’s decision to “access” abortion services will become a crime. 

Commenting on the upcoming enforcement of national buffer zones, Jeremiah Igunnubole said: 

“We all influence each other’s decisions all the time – be it through the advice of a parent, the concern of a friend, or the information made available through a charitable volunteer. The ability to peacefully exchange views is the lifeblood of democratic society.  

“Yet the Public Order Act is written so vaguely that these everyday, peaceful, caring conversations could be made illegal on certain streets of England when it comes to discussing abortion. The lack of clarity in the law could result in many more citizens like Adam being interrogated or even charged for simply directing silent thoughts towards God.  

“The right to hold a consensual conversation, or engage in silent prayer, constitute the most basic of human rights. They are protected robustly by international legal provisions relating to freedom of thought and speech.  

“This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based.” 

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

PICTURED (from left): Adam Smith-Connor praying outside Poole Magistrates’ Court; Adam Smith-Connor portrait; Adam with ADF UK legal counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole; Jeremiah Igunnubole portrait

‘Two-tier policing’: Pastor arrested and held in police cell for 13 hours after commenting on Islam and affirming sex is binary while street preaching

  • Pastor and grandfather Dia Moodley assaulted by member of public and
    then arrested
  • Avon and Somerset Police apologise after Mr Moodley’s signs,
    including one with Bible text, destroyed under their instruction
  • Mr Moodley pursuing complaint against police with support of ADF UK

BRISTOL (10 October 2024) –A Christian pastor was arrested after commenting on Islam and affirming that sex is binary while street preaching outside Bristol University. 

“Two-tier policing is sadly not a fiction or some conspiracy theory, it’s a reality that Christians in the UK have been experiencing for years."

- Dia Moodley, Pastor

After being assaulted by a member of the public, Dia Moodley was arrested by Avon and Somerset Police and held for 13 hours in a police cell for contrasting Christianity and Islam in response to a question. The arresting officer said Mr Moodley did this during Ramadan.

The investigation into Mr Moodley was dropped after legal representations were made to the police with the support of ADF UK, a faith-based legal advocacy organisation.

Also with the help of ADF UK, Mr Moodley is pursuing a complaint against the police for his treatment by them, including for the destruction of his four signs, one of which included Bible text, under their instruction after his arrest.

Avon and Somerset Police has already apologised to Mr Moodley for instructing staff at Bristol University to dispose of the signs.

Reacting to the incident, Mr Moodley said: “Two-tier policing is sadly not a fiction or some conspiracy theory, it’s a reality that Christians in the UK have been experiencing for years.

“It shouldn’t be for the state to decide which religions and ideologies must not be discussed or critiqued in the public street. The result is the normalisation of a two-tier society where some beliefs and ideologies are valued and protected, while others are undermined and outlawed.

“The world is looking at the dismal state of free speech in the UK with shock. What happened to me reflects a wider trend of increasing state censorship in the UK and across the West.”

Property destroyed

Surprisingly, this arrest came after Avon and Somerset Police previously conceded restrictions they placed on Mr Moodley preventing him from “passing comments on any other religion” besides Christianity were “disproportionate,” after these were challenged with the support of ADF UK and Free Speech Union.

After his arrest, Mr Moodley’s four signs were disposed of by university staff under the instruction of Avon and Somerset Police officers.

Avon and Somerset Police apologised for the destruction of his property. One officer told Mr Moodley in an email: “I’m sorry to advise that the signs were handed to… the UoB [University of Bristol] for them to dispose of.

“I cannot comment as to why this decision was made (as I was not present at the time), however I would like to apologise on behalf of my colleagues….

“Again, I am sincerely sorry that this action [sic].”

With the support of ADF UK, Mr Moodley is pursuing a complaint against the police for his treatment by them, including for the destruction of his signs under their instruction.

Barrister and legal counsel for ADF UK Jeremiah Igunnubole said: “We are glad Avon and Somerset Police dropped their investigation into Pastor Dia.

“But the fact that he was arrested, held in police custody for 13 hours, and had his property destroyed with the encouragement of Avon and Somerset police is objectively appalling. Nobody should be subject to discriminatory treatment for peacefully and lawfully sharing their core beliefs.

“In this case, Pastor Dia was himself a victim of crime, including assault, aggressive harassment and criminal damage and yet, perversely, he was the one treated as a criminal for peacefully exercising his fundamental rights.

“Everyone must be treated equally under the law. Freedom of speech cannot be the preserve of those expressing socially progressive ideals. In a democratic society, everyone must have the right to peacefully express their core beliefs, even when those beliefs are considered controversial or criticise other religions and belief systems.”

Assaulted and arrested

On the day he was arrested in March, in response to a question from a Muslim man, Mr Moodley stated his belief that there are differences between the moral standards of the God of Islam and the Christian God.

While preaching, Mr Moodley also expressed his view that God created human beings male and female and said this truth should not be denied.

Later on, an unknown person pushed him from his short stepladder, and another snatched a sign from his hand, causing him a severe soft tissue injury.

Three young people then trampled on his sign and refused to return it when asked.

Shortly after this incident, police arrived and arrested Mr Moodley for the views he had shared, despite the fact that he had been a victim of assault and criminal damage.

Avon and Somerset Police arrested Mr Moodley on suspicion of committing “racially or religiously aggravated harassment without violence” under Section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Mr Igunnubole commented on the arrest: “Christians in the UK have long suffered from two-tier policing simply for living out and sharing their Biblical beliefs. This should alarm anyone concerned with free speech, religious freedom, and the protection of democracy.

“Our free speech laws should be strengthened, and we urge Sir Keir Starmer to do so, to prevent what happened here from ever occurring again.”

Not an isolated incident

Mr Moodley has previously faced assault and intimidation on multiple occasions by members of the public who objected to his preaching.

Footage from one of these incidents went viral in July on X.

One of the men who intimidated Mr Moodley in that footage made a shocking video, where he can be seen with an Antifa tattoo and flag in the background, after the incident.

In the video, he misrepresented what Mr Moodley said and stated: “I did what I did and I don’t… regret it.”

Read more about Mr Moodley’s previous win against “disproportionate” restrictions on his free speech by Avon and Somerset Police Force here.

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

“Hate Speech” Element Dropped from Censorial Irish Bill

What's the purpose of "hate speech" laws? Text with Irish flag. "Hate speech" elements were dropped in Sept. 2024.

Inform yourself about the Irish “hate speech” bill, and you’ll find the censorial truth.

UPDATE 21 September 2024: In a win for free speech, the Irish government dropped “hate speech” from proposed legislation. ADF International briefed Irish lawmakers on the dangers and, in June, gathered free speech advocates in Dublin to oppose the draconian “hate speech” bill.

Hate speech laws in Ireland increase censorship

Censorship. It’s an elusive term animated throughout history with growing relevance today. “Hate speech” laws loom large over Western political and social conversations. Blasphemy laws criminalize faith-based speech and belief in countries like Nigeria and Pakistan. By now, almost everyone is aware of censorship.

Some may think of George Orwell’s 1984; others, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Censorship takes many forms – like book burning and imposing “newspeak” – but Ireland now leads the dystopian cause with its hotly debated “hate speech” bill.

And so, as the state-driven tide of censorship sweeps the world, Europe stands at the forefront of the ongoing conversation. Why? Because almost every Western nation has introduced “hate speech” laws enabling authorities to enforce penalties for certain speech they deem unpopular or unorthodox.

These laws are introduced under the guise of combatting “a rise of hate”, or offensive speech that can make people feel insulted or uncomfortable. But criminalizing speech is not the answer. Rather, allowing more robust speech that facilitates open debate instead. That’s why we stand against so-called “hate speech” laws like the proposed one in Ireland.

“Hate Speech” Dropped From New Law – What It Means

Thankfully, the Irish government has indicated it will not proceed with the most censorial elements of the proposed “Hate Speech” Bill.

With the world watching, the people of Ireland said ‘no’ to state censorship, and it’s working.

The Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill 2022, currently stuck in the Irish Senate, will proceed without the draconian speech elements that had previously been advanced. Remember, incitement to hatred remains illegal under existing law.

Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has recognized that there is a lack of consensus on the proposed bill’s “hate speech” restrictions.

The Minister for Justice is reported as saying: “The incitement to hatred element [of the bill] does not have a consensus, so that will be dealt with at a later stage.”

Pro-censorship actors may seek to bring in a separate new law in the future.

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 Irish “hate speech” bill seeks to criminalize the possession of material “likely” to incite hatred. This includes memes and photos saved on devices, with up to five years of jail time. Yes, photos on personal devices. Yet, there is no clear definition of what “hate” entails.

Therefore, this is a dangerous trajectory. ADF International highlights the dangers of the “hate speech” bill while briefing Irish lawmakers on how to uphold freedom of speech.

What are “Hate Speech” Laws?

So-called “hate speech” laws are ambiguously worded laws that criminalize certain speech beyond what is acceptable in a democratic society.

Despite having no basis in international law, all European Union Member States have vague and subjective “hate speech” laws. The United Nations, EU, and Council of Europe concur that “hate speech” lacks a universally agreed-upon definition. Nonetheless, the European Commission seeks to make “hate speech” an EU-wide crime on the same list as trafficking and terrorism.

These laws, with the wrong police and prosecutor, can be weaponized against any person and any form of speech. Thus, explicitly violating the state’s obligation to protect free speech.

Do “Hate Speech” Laws Deter Hate?

The short answer is no. But because “hate speech” laws rely on vague terms such as ‘insult,’ ‘belittle,’ and ‘offend,’ they are inconsistently interpreted and arbitrarily enforced. Oftentimes, the threat of serious criminal penalties accompanies charges.

Rather than combat hate, the criminalization of speech based on subjective criteria creates a culture of fear and censorship.

An offence is considered hateful in reference to the hearer or reader, making it subjective with little to no regard for the content of the speech itself. They are incompatible with free societies. 

How the Proposed Irish "Hate Speech" Law is Different than Others

The Irish “hate speech” bill would move the needle further. If passed, we could expect commonplace prosecutions like Päivi Räsänen’s for posting a Bible verse on “X” in 2019 about her biblical worldview on marriage and sexuality. In fact, Ireland’s censorial law would go even further than Finland’s.

We’re ramping up public advocacy to expose the unprecedented dangers of what the Irish government is doing. All have the right to live and speak the truth without fear of censorship or retaliation. That’s why we’re asking Irish lawmakers to uphold their obligation to protect free speech under international human rights law.

Consequently, the Irish “hate speech” bill has two major facets that other laws like Finland’s do not include. For example:
  • It leaves the issue of gender open-ended by including a list of “protected characteristics” allowing for unlimited “gender identities” like ‘non-binary’ and ‘two-spirit’. These self-identities would receive protection supported by criminal law.
  • It allows authorities to criminalize private possession of memes or any content “likely” to incite violence or hatred “…against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics”.

This means “misgendering” someone could land you a criminal prosecution, fine or worse. If the Irish “hate speech” bill becomes law, Irish police would have the power to search phones, camera rolls, and emails for prosecutable content.

It’s paramount that we all spread awareness about the dangers of this bill.

Why Ireland is Pushing This Now

The Irish government claims that the law is necessary following rising incidents of violence in the country, which many tie to uncontrolled migration. But peace and security on the streets do not require “hate speech” laws suppressing peaceful speech.

With key terms deliberately undefined, how are we to know what kind of speech could be subject to prosecution? “Hate speech” laws are Western blasphemy laws by another name; both are state driven.

The thought of Irish police raiding homes and phones to seize banned books and memes invokes thoughts of Orwell and the darker moments of the last century. 

Our right to freedom of expression is protected by numerous international human rights treaties. The European Court of Human Rights even affirmed that the right to freedom of expression protects not just popular ideas but also those that shock, offend, and disturb.   

Yet, some argue that unpopular speech should be censored by the state. But where is the logical stopping point?

Have We Learned Nothing From Finland? 

“Hate speech” laws are detrimental to a society seeking to protect freedom of speech or thought. In Finland, we’ve supported Päivi’s defence for almost five years with two unanimous acquittals. She was charged with three counts of “hate speech” because of her “X” post, a pamphlet she authored for her church, and comments she made during a radio programme.

In January 2024, the state prosecutor appealed her case to the Finnish Supreme Court. On 19 April, the high court agreed to hear the appeal, so Päivi will face her third criminal trial in three years. However, the legal process is Päivi’s punishment because the state has unlimited funds to prosecute offenders of their “hate speech” laws. Prosecutions cost taxpayer funds, while reputations sometimes become irreparably harmed.

If Päivi’s now famous “hate speech” case took place in Ireland, she could be prosecuted for simply possessing the pamphlet she wrote for her church congregation on the biblical definition of marriage, even if it was never published online.

Ireland should be a place where important conversations about issues that matter – even about controversial and sensitive topics thrive. When these conversations are shut down, we all lose out.

Conclusion: Ireland Must Reject Its New “Hate Speech” Bill

In summary, “hate speech” laws leave the door wide open to state censorship and oppression. And yet, the Irish government has been moving forward with a new bill to criminalize “hate speech” since 2022.

This could be one of the most far-reaching clampdowns on free speech by a modern democracy. It implicates memes, jokes, and books. Instead of protecting free speech and public safety, this law is poised to set a draconian precedent of intolerance against those who express beliefs outside the state-approved orthodoxy. 

Unpopular speech needs the most protection, and in a free society, free speech is required. Individuals should be able to express their beliefs without fear or oppression. The Irish “hate speech” bill is a far cry from the liberal democratic ideals the Irish government claims to profess.

The Irish government has chosen to uphold freedom of speech.

Brazil, Elon Musk, X, and Censorship: What You Need to Know

freedom of speech is universal

The Brazilian Supreme Court blatantly violated free speech rights by banning X after the company’s chairman, Elon Musk, declined to censor disfavored views.

This story originally appeared in Alliance Defending Freedom on 6 September 2024

When Elon Musk bought Twitter (now known as X) in 2022, he did so with the stated purpose of restoring free speech on a platform that had been credibly accused of censoring disfavored views. And no matter whether one agrees with everything Musk has said or done since then, it is clear he has taken meaningful steps toward achieving that goal.

Unfortunately, many in the United States and around the world have opposed Musk’s attempt to advance free speech. This opposition has become painfully apparent in Brazil, where the country’s highest court is engaging in blatant and unacceptable censorship against Musk and X.

Brazil’s highest court violates free speech rights

In 2019, the Brazilian Supreme Court gave itself the power to carry out criminal investigations into “fake news,” defamation, slander, and threats against the honor of the Court. This was a dangerous abuse of power, and the consequences of such a draconian measure have now been laid bare.

Fast forward five years, and Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and Musk have been engaged in a dispute stemming from de Moraes’s demands that X censor messages the justice disfavors. On Aug. 28, 2024, de Moraes gave Musk 24 hours to name a legal representative for X in Brazil.

Musk declined to name a representative because Brazil had threatened the previous representative with jail time. On Aug. 30, de Moraes officially suspended X nationwide in Brazil. In addition, he froze the bank accounts of Starlink, another company partially owned by Musk that provides internet via satellite.

In his order suspending X, de Moraes said the platform presented a “real danger” of “negatively influencing the electorate in 2024, with massive misinformation, with the aim of unbalancing the electoral result, based on hate campaigns in the digital age, to favor extremist populist groups.”

In other words, the suspension was not solely motivated by X’s lack of legal representation. It was motivated, at least in part, by de Moraes’s fears that allowing certain speech on X might lead to an electoral result he personally would not like.

Despite de Moraes’s clear violation of free speech, the full Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the order on Sept. 2. Under the ruling, Brazilians who attempt to access X using a VPN will face a fine of around $9,000.

Supreme Court order flouted multiple laws

It takes only a basic understanding of free speech to see the major problems with this order. Once the government begins censoring or pressuring others to censor messages based on vague criteria and subjective terms like “misinformation,” it opens the door to widespread suppression of any views the government doesn’t like.

For this reason, national and international law protect free speech in Brazil, and the Brazilian Supreme Court clearly violated both.

First, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice.”

X is certainly a medium through which many Brazilians wish to express, think about, and discuss ideas. Recent estimates prior to the shutdown said roughly 40 million Brazilians use the social platform. By suspending X because it refused to censor information that they disliked, de Moraes and the rest of the court violated those users’ rights to engage in free expression on the platform.

In addition, Article 220 of the Brazilian Constitution states that “any and all censorship of a political, ideological, and artistic nature is forbidden.” But given de Moraes’s reasoning that X could “negatively” affect elections in 2024 to “favor extremist populist groups,” it’s hard to read the justice’s order as anything other than censorship of a political and ideological nature.

Brazilians, just like Americans, have the fundamental right to free speech, which is why ADF International did not sit idly by when the Brazilian Supreme Court issued its dangerous decision.

ADF International takes action

Following the illegal order, ADF International worked around the clock to respond. Within 24 hours, attorneys submitted a petition asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over Brazil) to intervene and defend free 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,” said Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Legal Advocacy for Latin America. “Intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is key because without free speech, all human rights are jeopardized.”

Musk himself even thanked ADF International for the quick and important work to defend free speech.

While Brazilian officials may claim to protect democracy, they are actually undermining it by manipulating what information citizens can share and access. Free speech is a fundamental right for all people worldwide, and we must continue defending it when it comes under attack.

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.