A US State Department bureau said on Wednesday that the criminal prosecution of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen “is baseless” and tweeted a Bible verse in support.
Continue reading
GENEVA (8 September 2025) – The UN Expert on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, has issued a moving appeal to governments to end the vilification of parents who protect their children from “gender transition” procedures.
Speaking via video, Alsalem warned against the “dangerous narrative” that children can make fully informed adult-level decisions about their health. “Parents and legal guardians must be part of these processes from the very beginning. Yet, in many countries, parents who do not want to endorse a ‘gender-affirmative’ approach to their children’s distress have too often been left unsupported at best, or vilified, ostracized, or even separated from their children. This is very disturbing…” she said.
"...parents who do not want to endorse a ‘gender-affirmative’ approach to their children’s distress have too often been... vilified, ostracized, or even separated from their children."
Addressing a panel coordinated by ADF International at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Alsalem was joined by detransitioner and campaigner Chloe Cole, who urged global leaders to strengthen the role of parents and shield children from harmful medical interventions and ideological pressures.
“I appeal to you: we must ensure these failures are never again repeated and that childhood is truly protected as the fragile and yet beautiful part of life that it is,” said Cole, who underwent gender transition procedures as a teenager before detransitioning.
Cole, a detransitioner and youth activist from California, described undergoing medical interventions – including puberty blockers and testosterone starting at age 13, and a double mastectomy at 15 – before her body and brain were fully developed.
“My mom and dad have always advocated fiercely for my safety and health, but were not empowered to fulfill their irreplaceable role as guardians of my well-being. On the contrary, their protective instincts were undermined by systems and professionals who claimed expertise but withheld the truth. They stood no chance when doctors gave them the false ultimatum of choosing between losing a daughter to suicide or having a living ‘son’,” Cole told State and UN representatives gathered at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Cole’s testimony was featured as part of a UN Human Rights Council side event titled “Empowering Parents to Protect Children’s Health and Well-being,” co-hosted by the Permanent Mission of Hungary to the UN in Geneva and ADF International, with sponsorship from the Permanent Missions of The Gambia, Algeria, Argentina, Qatar, Vaunatu, and Uzbekistan; as well as Non-Governmental Organisations including Juristes pour l’Enfance, Asociacion la Familia Importa, Latter Day Saints Charities, the Center for Fundamental Rights, and The Heritage Foundation.
Adding to the call, Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International, reminded participants that international law recognizes the family as the “fundamental group unit of society”:
“The family must not be viewed as a competitor to the State, nor parents as obstacles to children’s rights. They are the children’s first and best guardians—entrusted by nature and recognized by law.”
Mazzoli called on governments to implement policies that respect parental guidance in education, healthcare, and identity-related decisions, ensuring that children receive care in the context of loving, informed families.
The panel also included Dr. Fanni Lajkó of Hungary’s Center for Fundamental Rights, who highlighted Hungary’s best practices for strengthening families, including reduced household costs, subsidized home loans, and generous child-raising allowances.
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Reem Alsalem; Chloe Cole; Giorgio Mazzoli
HELSINKI (25 August 2025) – The Finnish Supreme Court has set the date for an oral hearing in the free speech case involving Finnish Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola. Both were previously unanimously acquitted of “hate speech” charges by two lower courts after publicly expressing their Christian beliefs. With the hearing scheduled for 30th October 2025, the state prosecutor’s censorship campaign against Räsänen and Pohjola will enter its seventh year.
“It is shocking that after two unanimous acquittals, Päivi Räsänen is again being dragged to court to defend her fundamental right to freedom of speech. As we have warned for years, vaguely worded ‘hate speech’ laws allow ideological prosecutions like this to take place. We stand behind Päivi and we will continue to work toward the bigger victory when such ludicrous cases are no longer brought. In a free and democratic society, all should be allowed to share their beliefs without fear of punishment.
Räsänen, who is a medical doctor, Finland’s former Interior Minister, and a parliamentarian since 1995, was formally charged with “agitation against a minority group” in 2021. She was charged under a section of the Finnish criminal code titled “war crimes and crimes against humanity” for sharing her Christian beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 2019 tweet, as well as a 2019 live radio debate and 2004 church pamphlet. Bishop Pohjola was charged for publishing Räsänen’s 2004 pamphlet.
The high-profile lower court trials received significant global attention, particularly after the prosecution attacked core Christian teachings and cross-examined Räsänen and the Bishop on their theology in the court hearings.
“It isn’t a crime to tweet a Bible verse, or to engage in public discourse from a Christian perspective. The attempts to criminalize me for expressing my beliefs have resulted in an immensely trying last few years, but I still hope for a positive result that will stand as a key precedent to protect the human right to free speech in Finland,” said Räsänen, grandmother of twelve.
Two lower instance courts had previously acquitted Räsänen and Pohjola in April 2022 and November 2023 of all three charges. The prosecutor appealed for a third time, taking the charges concerning the booklet and the tweet to the Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments on 30th October 2025.
Coordinated by ADF International, Räsänen’s legal defence will continue to highlight the strong protection that freedom of speech enjoys in international law, in addition to being integral to Finnish democracy.
The defence previously submitted to the court that Räsänen’s use of the word “sin” in her tweet, which the prosecution had highlighted as “insulting” and therefore unlawful, was quoted directly from the Bible, and any judgment condemning its usage would directly condemn the Bible itself.
The Bible on Trial
During the high-profile trial before the Court of Appeal in 2023, the prosecution frequently attacked core Christian teachings and cross-examined Räsänen – who is one of Finland’s longest-standing members of parliament – and the Bishop on their theology.
The Finnish State prosecutor, Anu Mantila, claimed that, “You can cite the Bible, but it is Räsänen’s interpretation and opinion about the Bible verses that are criminal”.
To learn more details about the case and to support Päivi Räsänen, visit www.ADFinternational.org/FreeSpeechOnTrial
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only with credit to ADF International.
(from left to right: Päivi Räsänen, Räsänen with Paul Coleman, Räsänen with her husband Niilo)
WASHINGTON, D.C. / LONDON (19 August 2025) – The United States has issued its strongest warning yet to the UK over so-called “buffer zones”, which have been used to target silent prayer and peaceful expression outside abortion facilities.
In a comment to the Telegraph, the US State Department accused the UK government of committing an “egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty.”
“It is common sense that standing silently and offering consensual conversation does not constitute harm.”
The comment comes in response to cases in which individuals – some elderly – have been arrested, charged, or even criminally convicted for simply for praying silently or offering consensual conversations within large censored zones outside abortion facilities.
Under current legislation in England & Wales, “influencing” a person’s decision to access an abortion facility, within 150m of the facility, is a crime carrying a potentially unlimited fine.
In Scotland, similar legislation exists, censoring the area within 200m of all hospitals.
A State Department spokesman told The Telegraph:
“The United States is still monitoring many ‘buffer zone’ cases in the UK, as well as other acts of censorship throughout Europe.
“The UK’s persecution of silent prayer represents not only an egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty, but also a concerning departure from the shared values that ought to underpin US-UK relations.
“It is common sense that standing silently and offering consensual conversation does not constitute harm.”
The US government’s statement echoes Vice President JD Vance’s warning earlier this year at the Munich Security Conference, where he said free speech is “in retreat” across Europe, particularly in Britain. During Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s visit to the White House, the Vice President directly raised concerns about the UK’s restriction of free speech.
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 InformationThe US State Department’s latest Human Rights Report also highlighted “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression” in the UK.
Among those punished under the laws is Livia Tossici-Bolt, a retired biomedical scientist, who received a two-year conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £20,000 in costs after standing near a Bournemouth abortion facility holding a sign that read: “Here to talk if you want to.” She described her prosecution as “a dark day for Great Britain.”
Adam Smith-Connor, an army veteran, was convicted in November for praying silently for a few minutes in his head near the same abortion facility in Bournemouth, and ordered to pay £9,000 in costs.
In Scotland, Rose Docherty, 75, was arrested in February for standing outside Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital with a sign reading: “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.” Last week, Scottish authorities dropped their case against her and guaranteed they would return her sign.
And recently, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce – a charitable volunteer who has supported mothers in crisis for over 20 years – was placed back under investigation for praying silently near an abortion facility in Birmingham, despite having won £13,000 in compensation from West Midlands Police last year for having unfairly arrested her twice before for the same activity.
“Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are cornerstones of any free society,” said Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International.
“The UK’s treatment of individuals like Livia, Adam, Isabel and Rose for the false ‘crimes’ of praying silently or offering conversation shows just how far the country has strayed from its own proud traditions of liberty. The US State Department is right to call out this injustice. It is time for the UK government to restore fundamental freedoms, and repeal buffer zone legislation.”
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Rose Docherty; Adam Smith-Connor; Livia Tossici-Bolt; Lorcan Price (ADF International)
GLASGOW (14 August 2025) – In a win for freedom of expression in Scotland, the Procurator Fiscal has decided not to proceed with a prosecution against 75-year-old grandmother Rose Docherty, who was arrested earlier this year for holding a sign offering to talk with anyone who wished (see video above).
The authorities have further guaranteed that Docherty’s sign will be returned to her from Police Scotland.
"This is a victory not just for me, but for everyone in Scotland who believes we should be free to hold a peaceful conversation."
On 19 February 2025, Docherty – a lifelong Glaswegian – stood peacefully within 200 metres of Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth II Hospital campus holding a sign that read:
“Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.”
Her quiet presence fell within the so-called “buffer zone” around the hospital, where a new law prohibits harassment, intimidation, or influencing decisions about abortion. Despite engaging in none of these activities, Rose was arrested and later offered a formal warning requiring her to admit wrongdoing and refrain from similar actions in future.
Refusing to compromise her conscience by admitting to an offence she did not commit, Docherty – supported by the legal team at ADF International – rejected the warning outright. This week, the Procurator Fiscal confirmed the case has been dropped and the warning withdrawn.
Reacting to the news, Rose Docherty said:
“This is a victory not just for me, but for everyone in Scotland who believes we should be free to hold a peaceful conversation.
“I stood with love and compassion, ready to listen to anyone who wanted to talk. Criminalising kindness has no place in a free society.”
Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International, said:
“No one should fear arrest for offering a consensual conversation. Rose’s case is a stark example of how ‘buffer zone’ laws can be weaponised to silence peaceful expression.
“We are relieved that common sense has prevailed, but the fact that Rose was arrested and threatened with prosecution shows the urgent need to protect fundamental freedoms in Scotland.”
Docherty’s arrest drew international attention, with the US State Department publicly expressing concern about her arrest, adding: “Freedom of expression needs to be protected. We call on governments, whether in Scotland or around the world, to respect freedom of expression for all.”
In February, Gillian Mackay MSP admitted that prayer by a window in one’s own home could be an offence within a buffer zone – depending on who is passing by.
Speaking to BBC’s “Scotcast” Podcast, the Green Party Politician repeatedly denied that prayer was being criminalised under the law.
But when asked if “performative prayer” with “clasped hands”, visible from a window, could be prosecuted, she responded: “well, that depends on who’s passing by the window…”
The admission came despite previously accusing US President JD Vance of spreading “shameless misinformation” when he highlighted concerns that “even private prayer within [people’s] own homes may amount to breaking the law” in his Munich Security Conference Speech earlier this year.
Lois McLatchie Miller, Scottish spokesperson for ADF International, said:
“We were concerned when such legislation was proposed that we’d witness a slippery slope of censorship. Less than a year after the law coming into force, Gillian Mackay has admitted that it could impact silent prayer even in private homes, depending on who’s passing by the window. And what’s more, we’ve seen an innocent grandmother arrested just for offering conversation. Who are the authorities to determine which conversations, thoughts, or prayers members of the public do or don’t want to have?”
ADF International will continue to offer legal support to individuals like Rose Docherty, defending the right to peacefully engage in conversation or prayer without fear of criminalisation.
New report notes “significant human rights issues” including criminal and civil laws which limit free expression
Case of army veteran convicted for silent prayer highlighted as example of censorship crisis
LONDON (13 August 2025) – A newly released U.S. State Department Human Rights Report has sounded the alarm over mounting restrictions on freedom of expression in the United Kingdom – both in public spaces and online.
The “2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices”, published this week, notes that “the human rights situation worsened in the United Kingdom” during the year 2024, adding:
“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression…”
“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression."
The report identifies buffer zone laws which restrict “influence” around abortion facilities as matters of concern in the restriction of free expression.
Citizens have been prosecuted for engaging in silent prayer or for peacefully offering information within these zones.
The report notes that such restrictions criminalize even “efforts to influence others when inside a restricted area, even through prayer”.
The State Department notes that “in October, an individual was convicted in England for engaging in silent prayer…”. Adam Smith-Connor – an army veteran and father of two – was tried and convicted for praying silently for a few minutes across the road from an abortion facility in Bournemouth, where a local “buffer zone” was in place. Smith-Connor was ordered to pay £9,000 in costs. With support from ADF International, he is appealing the ruling later this year.
J.D. Vance highlighted this case as one of the worst examples of censorship in Europe during his speech at the Munich Security Conference in Munich.
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 InformationLooking at the online world, the report highlights the Online Safety Act 2023, which came into force in 2024, which threatens free speech online and “expressly expanded Ofcom’s authority to include American media and technology firms with a substantial number of British users, regardless of whether they had a corporate presence in the UK…
“…Experts warned that one effect of the bill could be government regulation to reduce or eliminate effective encryption (and therefore user privacy) on platforms,” noted the State Department.
The report also highlighted that in April 2024, Scotland implemented the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, introducing sweeping new offenses for “stirring up hatred” through speech or online communication. The penalty for speech deemed to be offensive under this law is up to seven years imprisonment.
Reacting to the report, Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister & Legal Counsel for ADF International in London, said:
“It’s plain to see that the censorship crisis is worsening in the UK – from citizens being arrested and prosecuted just for praying in their heads, to the Online Safety Act clamping down on free expression online. Whilst these developments are deeply concerning, it’s encouraging to see Britain’s US allies highlight these issues, as more and more Brits speak out in defence of our hard-fought freedom of speech.”
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor; Lorcan Price (ADF International)
Birmingham (10th August 2025) – West Midlands Police have confirmed a live investigation into Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who has been engaging in silent prayer on a public street near an abortion facility in Birmingham.
This marks the third time in which the police have responded to Vaughan-Spruce’s silent prayers. In 2023, the charitable volunteer was acquitted in court after being arrested for praying in a local “buffer zone”, under a Public Spaces Protection Order which banned “expressions of approval or disapproval” of abortion. The incident occurred while the abortion facility was closed. The prosecution offered no evidence to support a conviction.
“Silent prayer cannot possibly be a crime – everyone has the right to freedom of thought.”
Despite being cleared of any wrongdoing, Isabel was arrested again for the same silent thoughts in the same location weeks later, opening an investigation that lasted several months. In August 2024, Vaughan-Spruce successfully challenged her two unjust arrests and received a settlement from West Midlands Police of £13,000.
Vaughan-Spruce, who has been a charitable volunteer supporting mothers in crisis pregnancy for twenty years, has continued to pray nearby the abortion facility on a weekly basis. West Midlands Police have begun a practice of posting two police officers to watch her pray silently. On regular occasions, she has been approached by officers and asked if she is praying.
Vaughan-Spruce submitted a complaint to the police force for repeatedly harassing and interrogating her while failing to explain how she had been in breach of any law. The complaint noted that her treatment was at odds with the previous clear verdict from the courts and CPS guidance on the matter.
Her formal complaint was declined on the basis of there being a live investigation against her, despite her never being formally informed that this was the case.
West Midlands Police have now confirmed that they await advice from CPS considering next steps on the allegations against Isabel. CPS has previously decided that acts of standing silently in prayer do not meet its evidential and public interest thresholds to warrant prosecution. This approach appeared to be formalised under new guidance which noted that conduct which was not ‘overt’ would fall outside the scope of criminality (LINK). This is believed to be the first test of CPS guidance under the controversial national “buffer zone” legislation.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce commented:
“Despite being fully vindicated multiple times after being wrongfully arrested for my thoughts, it’s unbelievable that I am still being harassed by police for silently pray in that area, and yet again find myself under investigation for the same prayers I have said for twenty years. Silent prayer cannot possibly be a crime – everyone has the right to freedom of thought.”
Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF International, who have supported Vaughan-Spruce’ legal defence, said:
“’Buffer zones’ are among the most concerning frontiers of censorship in the modern west. We all stand against harassment and abuse, but the ‘buffer zone’ lawbroadly bans “influence”, which is being interpreted by police officers to target innocent people who happen to stand in a certain place and believe a certain thing. We will continue to robustly challenge this unjust censorship, and support Isabel’s right to think and believe freely.”
Footage of Isabel’s arrest in 2022 went viral worldwide:
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 InformationImages for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Isabel Vaughan-Spruce (x2); Isabel being arrested for her prayers (November 2022, March 2023); Jeremiah Igunnubole
In the span of just five days, the British Parliament took two deeply troubling steps that threaten serious consequences for the legal protection of human life.
On Tuesday, 17 June, Members of Parliament (MPs) voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion — removing all criminal penalties for women who end their pregnancies at any stage. This decision eliminates essential legal protections for both mothers and babies, including for dangerous at-home abortions that take the lives of fully viable babies up to birth.
Just three days later, on Friday, 20 June, MPs also voted to move forward with a bill that would legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, empowering doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to those deemed to have less than six months to live.
Together, these decisions send a deeply unsettling message: that life is only worth protecting when it is considered supposedly healthy, wanted, or useful.
The vote to decriminalise abortion took place with only two hours of debate — despite the sweeping implications of the proposal.
While current UK law already allows abortion beyond 24 weeks in a range of broadly defined circumstances, this amendment removed critical legal protections for viable babies in the womb and for women in difficult situations.
Supporters presented the move as an act of compassion toward women, but in reality, only 1% of British women support abortion until birth.
What the law now permits is not just rare: it is extreme. It removes protections that help prevent dangerous, self-managed, late-term abortions and leaves women to face serious risks alone, often in desperation.
This is not compassion. It is abandonment.
The bill to legalise assisted suicide follows the same deeply flawed logic. If passed, it will enshrine into law the false logic that ending a life can be an acceptable form of care. While its advocates insist it will be accompanied by “safeguards,” evidence from other countries tells a different story.
Take Canada, for example. Less than ten years after assisted suicide became legal, it now accounts for 4% of all deaths nationwide — a figure that continues to climb. Vulnerable people, especially those who are elderly or disabled, report feeling pressured toward death when what they truly need is support, dignity, and community.
Once a healthcare system begins to treat death as a solution, it becomes the cheaper, easier, and ultimately, default response.
Both the abortion amendment and the assisted suicide bill were framed as measures that expand personal freedom. But in truth, they represent a profound abandonment — wrapped in the language of choice.
When the law permits abortion at 35 weeks, or offers lethal drugs in place of palliative care, it tells society that life is no longer sacred. Instead, the right to life is treated as negotiable — granted only to those society deems worthy.
But this is not the only way forward.
There is another Britain — one that values every human life, from the youngest child in the womb to the most fragile person nearing life’s end. It is a Britain shaped by the truth that every person bears God’s image and possesses inherent dignity.
Both measures now go to the House of Lords. While the abortion amendment cannot be fully blocked, it can still be challenged and delayed. The assisted suicide bill, meanwhile, faces opposition from many peers who have pledged to resist its advance.
The Lords must give these bills the scrutiny they lacked in the Commons — and ask the hard questions others ignored.
This is a moment that calls for moral clarity. For people of faith to respond — not only in Parliament, but in practice. By supporting mothers in crisis. By walking with the dying. By upholding the dignity of the disabled. And by telling a different story: that every life is a gift, and that no one is beyond the reach of love.
Britain is facing a crossroads. And now, more than ever, we must have the courage to say no to death — and yes to life, in every stage, and every circumstance.
Washington/Sydney (2 July 2025) – The Australian government’s authority to censor opinions expressed on “X” is under scrutiny after an investigation by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee into the activities of Australia’s “eSafety Commissioner”, Julie Inman-Grant.
The groundbreaking report into international state censorship highlights concerns only days before news broke of a legal win for free speech against the same State Office.
“This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship."
Elon Musk’s “X”, and children’s safety campaigner Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), challenged the eSafety Commissioner’s decision to censor a tweet using biologically-accurate pronouns to describe a trangender activist appointed to an “expert” position on gender at the WHO.
Elston’s post was deemed “cyber abuse” by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which ordered X to remove the content. X initially refused, and later geo-blocked the post in Australia.
Both X and Elston challenged the order, arguing that the censorship was a violation of the fundamental right to free speech. Elston’s legal challenge was coordinated by ADF International, in conjunction with the Human Rights Law Alliance in Australia. The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne held a week-long hearing on the case commencing March 31, 2025.
The Tribunal found that the eSafety Commissioner made the wrong decision in determining Elston’s post was “cyber abuse” and set aside the decision.
In his finding, Deputy President O’Donovan noted compelling words from Elston’s own testimony to evidence his satisfaction that Elston was not engaging in abuse, but rather, expressing his deeply-held convictions about biological truth:
“He [Chris] does not believe that a man can transition to being a woman or vice versa. He summarises his position as follows:
“Because I believe that sex is immutable, I am personally convicted that I will not use incorrect pronouns to describe any person, including trans-identifying people who identify as the opposite sex. I will use their preferred names, but I only use sex-based pronouns, because I don’t think it is loving, progressive, or ethical to lie to a person and affirm that they are something that they are not. I believe that calling a man a woman (and vice versa) is not only untrue, but also has implications for the rights and safety of women and children.”
[141] “I am satisfied that it is his universal practice to refer to a transgender person by the pronouns that correspond to their biological sex at birth. I am also satisfied that when he classifies a person as either a man or a woman, he determines which classification to use by reference to their biological sex at birth, rather than the gender related characteristics that they currently express. I am satisfied that he believes doing otherwise has implications for the rights and safety of women and children…”
In May, the U.S. State Department condemned the eSafety Commissioner’s actions as part of a broader global trend toward coercive state censorship.
The new report released this week from the House Judiciary Committee reveals new evidence showing how an international WEF-linked advertising consortium, the “Global Alliance for Responsible Media” (GARM), leveraged its vast advertising power to coordinate censorship efforts. The GARM was found to be working not only with major global advertisers, but also with foreign regulators, including Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman‑Grant, to suppress disfavoured online speech.
In published emails, the report shows that Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman‑Grant explicitly relied on GARM’s insights, stating it “ha[d] some very powerful levers at [its] disposal” and requesting updates to inform her regulatory decisions.
The Committee’s report concludes that GARM’s coordinated international efforts—with its commercial might and foreign regulator collusion—constrain citizens’ ability to access content freely, contravening free speech principles, undermining consumer choice, and posing serious antitrust concerns.
Reacting to the ruling upholding his freedom to speak the truth on “X”, children’s safety campaigner Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston said:
“I’m grateful that truth and common sense have prevailed.
“This decision sends a clear message that the government does not have authority to silence peaceful expression.
“My mission is to speak the truth about gender ideology, protecting children across the world from its dangers.
“With this ruling, the court has upheld my right to voice my convictions—a right that belongs to every one of us.
My post should never have been censored in Australia, but my hope is that authorities will now think twice before resorting to censorship”.
Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, which co-ordinated Elston’s legal challenge said:
“This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship.
“In this case, the Australian government alarmingly censored the peaceful expression of a Canadian citizen on an American-owned platform, evidence of the expansive reach of censorial forces, even beyond national borders.
“Today, free speech has prevailed. This is a victory not just for Billboard Chris, but for every Australian—and indeed every citizen who values the fundamental right to free speech.”
In a post responding to the news, “X” Global Government Affairs Team said:
“In a victory for free speech, X has won its legal challenge against the Australian eSafety Commissioner’s demand to censor a user’s post about gender ideology or face an approximately $800,000 AUD fine. The post is part of a broader political discussion involving issues of public interest that are subject to legitimate debate. This is a decisive win for free speech in Australia and around the world. X will continue to fight against coercive state censorship and to defend our users’ rights to free speech.”
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Chris Elston; Chris Elston with ADF International’s Lois McLatchie Miller at the Sydney Opera House; Chris Elston with the ADF International team who co-ordinated his legal case
Tribunal upholds speech rights of Canadian campaigner Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston, striking down a government order that censored his X post under the country’s Online Safety Act.
Censored X post referred to controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook by her biologically accurate pronouns.
Censorship case, coordinated by ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, raised alarm over expanding global censorship powers and cross-border restrictions on speech.
MELBOURNE (1 July 2025) – The Administrative Review Tribunal has ruled in favor of Canadian campaigner Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston, striking down a government order that sought to censor his post on X under the country’s Online Safety Act.
Elston’s February 2024 post criticized the appointment of controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook, and referred to her with biologically accurate pronouns. Elston’s post was deemed “cyber abuse” by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which ordered X to remove the content. X initially refused, and later geo-blocked the post in Australia.
Both X and Elston challenged the order, arguing that the censorship was a violation of the fundamental right to free speech. Elston’s legal challenge was coordinated by ADF International, in conjunction with the Human Rights Law Alliance in Australia. The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne held a week-long hearing on the case commencing March 31, 2025.
The Tribunal found that the eSafety Commissioner made the wrong decision in determining Elston’s post was “cyber abuse” and set aside the decision.
“This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship. In this case, the Australian government alarmingly censored the peaceful expression of a Canadian citizen on an American-owned platform, evidence of the expansive reach of censorial forces, even beyond national borders. Today, free speech has prevailed."
“This is a victory not just for Billboard Chris, but for every Australian—and indeed every citizen who values the fundamental right to free speech,” Coleman continued.
The decision comes amid growing international concern over the Australian government’s expansive censorship powers. In May, the U.S. State Department condemned the eSafety Commissioner’s actions as part of a broader global trend toward coercive state censorship.
“I’m grateful that truth and common sense have prevailed,” said Chris Elston. “This decision sends a clear message that the government does not have authority to silence peaceful expression. My mission is to speak the truth about gender ideology, protecting children across the world from its dangers. With this ruling, the court has upheld my right to voice my convictions—a right that belongs to every one of us. My post should never have been censored in Australia, but my hope is that authorities will now think twice before resorting to censorship”.
More details on Billboard Chris’ censorship case available here.
You 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
