WIN: Court dismisses charges against Brazilian veterinary student facing 10 years in prison for “transphobic” social media posts  

  • Brazilian Federal Regional Court unanimously clears Isadora Borges of all charges of “transphobia.”

  • ADF International provides legal support to Borges and other similar cases as Brazil’s censorship crisis escalates.

BRASÍLIA (13 March 2026) — Yesterday, a Brazilian Federal Regional Court ruled in favor of Isadora Borges, a veterinary student charged with “transphobia” for her social media posts. Under these charges, Borges faced a potential prison sentence of four to 10 years for content posted to X (then Twitter) in 2020.

The Federal Regional Court of the 5th Circuit unanimously decided to dismiss all charges and close the case. In its reasoning, the Court stated that Borges’ X comments did not contain any attack, threat, or hostility towards individuals who identify as “transgender,” nor did they incite violence, lacking the intentional element required in criminal law to sustain a conviction for “transphobia”.

“The court’s decision brings me great relief and hope that free speech will be protected in Brazil,” said Borges. “The truth matters. Stating biological facts in a post should never result in prison time. All Brazilians deserve to speak freely and stand for what they believe in, even if their views differ from those in power. »

“The truth matters. Stating biological facts in a post should never result in prison time. All Brazilians deserve to speak freely and stand for what they believe in, even if their views differ from those in power."

- Isadora Borges

With this decision, the Court sets an important legal precedent that opinions, such as those shared by Borges, are not grounds for criminal charges for “transphobia”.  

This is the first time that a federal court in Brazil has been called upon to decide on the merits of the criminalization of speech based on a “transphobia” accusation.  

“We commend the court for its decision in Isadora’s favor. This is a promising win for freedom of speech in Brazil, but this never should have happened in the first place. Even when charges are dismissed, the effect of this kind of censorial overreach is to chill speech across the entire country as people watch what they say for legitimate fear of criminal prosecution,” said Julio Pohl, legal counsel at ADF International.  

“Censorship cases similar to Isadora’s are ongoing and continuing to emerge in Brazil. We must continue to push back against the rampant censorship we have seen in the country, until no Brazilian fears being punished for peaceful expression.” 

Background

In November 2020, Borges made two posts on X (then Twitter), peacefully expressing her views on gender ideology. One comment stated that “transgender” women “were obviously born male.” Another stated: “A person who identifies as transgender retains their birth DNA. No surgery, synthetic hormone, or clothing change will change this fact…”

Her comments quickly gained attention online, and prompted Erika Hilton, a self-described “transgender” politician, to report Borges for “transphobia” to the federal police. Hilton was recently elected as president of Brazil’s Women’s Rights Defense Commission (a congressional committee), an act that further exemplifies the spread of gender ideology with a male assuming a key role intended for a woman.

In September 2025, Borges was notified of the criminal charges brought against her. She was accused of two counts of “transphobia,” with each count carrying a punishment of two to five years in prison.

At a hearing in February 2026, the judge indicated that the comments appeared to reflect personal opinions rather than discriminatory intent and granted the defence five days to submit written conclusions, allowing for further consideration of the legal and factual issues before any decision was made.

In a parallel process, Borges’ legal team filed a habeas corpus defense before the Federal Regional Court of the 5th Circuit, asking the court to review whether the prosecution and the decision of the lower court judge could proceed. With yesterday’s judgment by the Regional Court, the lower court case is rendered moot.

ADF International provided legal support to Borges in defense of her fundamental right to freedom of expression and that of all Brazilians.

Growing Pattern of Censorship in Brazil

Since a 2019 ruling by Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal equated “homophobia” and “transphobia” with the crime of racism, without legislation passed by Congress, individuals across Brazil increasingly have faced criminal investigations and prosecutions for peaceful expression.  

In 2025, social media influencer Isabella Cepa faced criminal investigations for her online post about gender ideology. Similarly, Nine Borges (not related to Isadora Borges) is under criminal investigation for “transphobia” for content posted to Instagram. 

In another case, Assemblies of God Pastor Douglas Baptista faced criminal charges for authoring a book with a Christian view of sexuality. Charges in his case were dropped, but they remain evidence of the broader, chilling trend of government efforts in Brazil to censor peaceful online expression. 

ADF International also represents five Brazilian legislators (Senator Eduardo Girao and members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques, and Ricardo Salles) before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The legislators are challenging violations of their free speech rights before the Commission. They claim violations of their freedom of expression as a result of escalating state censorship, which reached a head with the 2024 X ban in Brazil. Censorship in Brazil has been a persistent and escalating problem since 2019.

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

Europe’s Top Court Rejects Case of Christian Parents in Sweden Seeking Reunification with Daughters after 3 Years Separation

  • The daughters have been separated from their parents, and each other, since December 2022, absent any evidence of abuse, and despite deteriorating health conditions in foster care and repeated wish to be reunited.

  • European Court of Human Rights deems case inadmissible on the grounds of failure to exhaust legal remedies in Sweden.

STRASBOURG (10 March 2026) – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled a case brought by Christian parents Daniel and Bianca Samson against Sweden as inadmissible. The parents were seeking justice before the court to regain custody of their daughters, claiming a severe violation of their parental rights. The decision of inadmissibility is final and cannot be appealed. ADF International lawyers are now reviewing the decision together with the parents and assessing possible next steps.

The two eldest daughters of the Samson family were taken by the state in December 2022 after the eldest made a false report at school over her parents’ refusal to give her a phone and allow makeup, prompting allegations of “religious extremism,” even though she promptly retracted. The daughters have been separated from their parents, and each other, since December 2022, even though the state found no evidence of abuse. 

“Parents have the primary responsibility and right to raise their children. When the state interferes with family life based on values-based parenting choices or discrimination on the basis of faith, fundamental freedoms are at stake."

- Guillermo A. Morales Sancho, Legal Counsel for ADF International

« We deeply regret the Court’s decision to reject this case, considering that this family has been torn apart for over three years despite a full investigation that cleared Mr. and Mrs. Samson of any abuse and the fact that the Social Services certified their capacity and fitness for parenting after they successfully completed an official training. Families should be free to live according to their convictions without fear of losing their children to the state,” said Guillermo A. Morales Sancho, Legal Counsel for ADF International. 

The European Court of Human Rights deemed the case inadmissible on the grounds of failure to exhaust legal remedies in Sweden, despite the legal team’s assessment that there were no further options for domestic recourse. 

Specifically, the Court indicated that it did not consider there to be an apparent violation of the right to respect for private life under the European Convention on Human Rights. It further suggested that questions relating to freedom of religion may be raised before national courts, an option the Samsons may now pursue. 

Background 

The couple of Romanian origin, who had been residing in Sweden for close to a decade, claim that Swedish authorities ignored the best interests of their children by refusing to reunite the family. The forced separation continued even after all allegations against the parents were dropped and prosecutors found no evidence of abuse. The case raises serious concerns about delays, overreach, and possible discrimination against Christians in Sweden’s child welfare system. The state has cited the family’s regular attendance at church three times a week to corroborate accusations of “religious extremism,” despite the fact that this simply reflects their religious beliefs and is a protected action under international human rights law. 

The Samsons currently are only allowed one supervised visit per month. This is complicated by the fact that the girls are placed in different foster care homes far away from each other. 

See our case page for more information: https://adfinternational.org/cases/samson-family  

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

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom condemns targeted expulsions of Christians in Türkiye

  • USCIRF releases statement urging US government action following Türkiye’s targeted deportations of Christian missionaries; recommends country be added to Special Watchlist for severe religious freedom violations.
  • ADF International applauds push to protect religious freedom and is legally supporting the cases of Christians who have been banned from Türkiye.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 27) – Yesterday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCRIF) released a statement condemning the targeted expulsion of Christians in Türkiye. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) took up twenty cases of Christians who have been designated as national security threats and expelled from the country by the Turkish government. The USCIRF statement recommends that the U.S. Department of State place Türkiye on its Special Watch List for severe violations of religious freedom.

These cases, almost all supported by ADF International, stem from the Turkish government’s use of internal security codes to label foreign Christian missionaries as threats to national security, blocking them from entering or remaining in the country despite long-standing lawful residence.

“Türkiye’s arbitrary labeling of foreign-born Protestant Christians as national security threats is meant to intimidate the Christian community and prevent them from gathering for worship. Everyone, regardless of residency status, has the right to freedom of religion or belief under international law,” said USCIRF Chair Vicky Hartzler. “The U.S. administration should maintain the momentum President Trump made in his September meeting with President Erdoğan and push for tangible improvements to Türkiye’s religious freedom record, including an end to its repressive tactics against Christians.”

“We hope that the U.S. government and the international community will continue to stand up for this fundamental right and call on Türkiye to put an end to the targeted expulsions of Christian missionaries. Peacefully practicing the Christian faith is no reason to be labelled as a security threat and expelled from the country these individuals lawfully built their lives in.”

- Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy for Global Religious Freedom at ADF International

The statement echoes a recent resolution from the European Parliament condemning the targeted expulsions from the country “carried out under unsubstantiated national-security pretexts and without due process” for foreign Christians, in addition to journalists. The Turkish government swiftly dismissed the resolution as containing “unfounded allegations” and characterized it as interference in the country’s internal affairs. 

“We applaud USCIRF’s decision to speak out on the egregious violations of religious freedom we are seeing in Türkiye,” said Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy at ADF International. “We hope that the U.S. government and the international community will continue to stand up for this fundamental right and call on Türkiye to put an end to the targeted expulsions of Christian missionaries. Peacefully practicing the Christian faith is no reason to be labelled as a security threat and expelled from the country these individuals lawfully built their lives in.”

Background

Since 2019, Turkish authorities have issued internal security codes like “N-82” and “G-87” to target hundreds of foreign Christians, preventing them from re-entering Türkiye after trips abroad or denying them residence permits. These measures have affected at least 160 foreign workers and their families, many of whom lived and served in Türkiye for decades.

The government’s use of these codes effectively labels individuals as a “threat to public order and security,” a classification normally reserved for terrorism suspects. However, those targeted have no criminal records or evidence of unlawful conduct. The only thing that they have in common is openly practicing and sharing their Christian faith.

The 2024 Human Rights Violation Report presented by the Protestant Church Association records 132 people who have been arbitrarily branded with an entry ban code, preventing them from entering Türkiye solely on the basis of their Christian faith. The total number of those affected is 303, according to the report.

Reports of similar measures affecting many foreign Protestant Christians show that these cases are not isolated, but point to a wider pattern of systemic discrimination. The cases raise serious questions about fundamental rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Among those affected are long-term residents such as Pam and Dave Wilson, who served in Türkiye for almost forty years before being barred from returning; Rachel and Mario Zalma (pseudonyms to preserve anonymity), whose ministry work led to an N-82 designation after attending a church conference; and David Byle, a Christian minister forced into exile after 19 years of service.

These bans have not only separated families from the communities they helped build, but also left local churches without stable leadership, weakening the already-small Christian presence in a country where Christians make up a small fraction of the population.

ADF International has supported a number of these cases over several years, and directly represents four individuals before the ECtHR, two of whom are lead applicants, and has supported the majority of the other cases.

Estás viendo un contenido de marcador de posición de YouTube. Para acceder al contenido real, haz clic en el siguiente botón. Ten en cuenta que al hacerlo compartirás datos con terceros proveedores.

Más información
Desbloquear contenido Aceptar el servicio requerido y desbloquear los contenidos
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Brazilian commentator under criminal investigation again for “transphobic” social media posts

  • Brazilian social media commentator Nine Borges has been summoned to appear before police on Feb. 25 following new investigation into her social media.
  • Borges’ case highlights government efforts in Brazil to censor peaceful online expression; ADF International supports her legal defence. 

BRASILIA (February 24, 2026) — Nine Borges, a Brazilian social media commentator, academic researcher, and British citizen, is now under a second police investigation in Brazil for “transphobic” social media posts. The investigations were opened after an anonymous complaint was filed, alleging that the content posted to Borges’ Instagram account is “discriminatory” and incites hatred and violence against “transgender” people.  

Borges who is currently being criminally investigated for a short Instagram video from September 2024 as well, now has been summoned to appear in a virtual hearing before the Federal Police of Minas Gerais tomorrow from her home in the UK. 

The new complaint further states that Borges issued “transphobic” comments on a popular Brazilian podcast, in which she explained biological facts about men and women, in addition to addressing the philosophical foundations of gender ideology. With a PhD in education, Borges regularly offers critiques of gender ideology and its negative implications for women and society at large. She is also the author of a book on the topic. 

If criminally charged on the basis of these investigations, the charges would carry a potential prison sentence of up to five years each. 

“If a researcher can’t discuss social theories and scientific facts anymore, it signals a profound crisis, one in which inquiry is subordinated to dogma. Facing a second police investigation for my opinions is deeply concerning, but I will not be intimidated into silence."

- Nine Borges

“If a researcher can’t discuss social theories and scientific facts anymore, it signals a profound crisis, one in which inquiry is subordinated to dogma. Facing a second police investigation for my opinions is deeply concerning, but I will not be intimidated into silence,” Borges stated. 

She added: “Peaceful speech, especially speech that is grounded in biological fact, should never be criminalized. This new investigation makes clear that we must urgently stand up and protect free speech in Brazil.” 

Julio Pohl, Legal Counsel, Latin America for ADF International, which is providing legal support to Borges throughout her criminal investigations stated: « With this second investigation, we see even more clearly what happens when you go against the prevailing orthodoxy in an authoritarian setting. Nine is a prolific online commentator and academic researcher, and now her content is being dredged up following an anonymous complaint and analyzed through a censorial lens even though it should in no way be deemed illegal. The harsh reality is that Nine could be criminally prosecuted, and face serious jail time, simply because some anonymous complainant took issue with her peaceful expression. 

“The censorship we see escalating in Brazil is extremely alarming. No one should fear prison time for stating biological facts or even just peacefully sharing their views online”

Background

Nine Borges is a UK-based academic researcher with 265,000 followers on Instagram, where she is a prominent critic of transgender ideology. In a short, online video posted to Instagram in September 2024, in which she spoke to the camera from her home, she drew attention to concerns about the financing and influence of pro-LGBT organisations in Brazil and included criticism of Symmy Larrat, Brazil’s LGBT National Secretary. The video drew nearly 15,000 likes and 180,000 views. Larrat is a man who identifies as a woman and describes himself on social media using explicit terminology. Larrat filed a complaint over the video, prompting the Federal Police of Brasilia to open their first investigation into Nine’s online content.  

In August 2025, Borges received formal notice that she was being investigated for “transphobia” and “defamation,” prompting her summons to appear before police on October 7, 2025.  The following month, on November 5, police informed Borges that they would recommend moving the investigation forward to formal prosecution for “transphobia” and “misgendering” the LGBT Secretary—an official who self-describes as a “transvestite” and “prostitute.” Borges had used these same terms in her commentary, and police cited this as the basis for pursuing prosecution. ADF International is providing legal support to Borges as a result of the investigation. 

A 2019 ruling from Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal established “transphobia” and “homophobia” as crimes, punishable with up to five years of jail time per count. Overstepping Congress, the Court created a crime without observing the legal and democratic process. Since then, numerous cases have emerged across Brazil in which individuals were charged with “transphobia” for simply sharing their beliefs.  

Most recently, Isadora Borges (not related to Nine Borges), a veterinary student in Brazil, has been criminally prosecuted for alleged “transphobic” comments made on X, with a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years. Her first hearing was held on February 10. In 2025, social media influencer Isabella Cepa faced criminal investigations for her online post about gender ideology. In another case, Assemblies of God Pastor Douglas Baptista faced criminal charges for authoring a book with a Christian view of sexuality. His case was legally supported by ADF International. Charges in both cases were dropped, but they remain evidence of the broader, chilling trend of government efforts in Brazil to censor peaceful online expression. 

Growing Pattern of Censorship in Brazil

International human rights law guarantees the right to express ideas without fear of criminal investigation or prosecution, including criticism of public officials. 

ADF International represents five Brazilian legislators (Senator Eduardo Girao and members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques, and Ricardo Salles) before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The legislators are challenging the violations of their free speech rights before the Commission. They claim violations of their rights under the Convention, including their freedom of expression, as a result of escalating state censorship which reached a head with the 2024 X ban in Brazil during the municipal elections period. Censorship in Brazil has been a persistent and escalating problem since 2019.  

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

X challenges €120m fine under EU censorship law at top European court

  • In December, the European Commission fined X €120m under the Digital Services Act, an online censorship law
  • X is challenging the fine at the General Court of the European Union, with the support of Alliance Defending Freedom International
  • Landmark case is first ever legal challenge of a fine imposed by the DSA

Luxembourg (20 February 2026) – X this week launched a landmark legal challenge against the €120 million fine it received in December under the Digital Services Act (DSA), an EU censorship law.

The social media company filed an appeal against the fine at the General Court of the European Union (GC), a part of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), which hears high-stakes challenges to EU regulatory and enforcement actions.

Filed on Monday 16 February, in X v. the European Commission, X argues that the fine violates its right to due process and suggests a prosecutorial bias.

X is challenging the fine, which was issued by the European Commission on 5 December 2025—and for which its owner Elon Musk is also personally liable—with the support of free speech legal advocacy organisation Alliance Defending Freedom International.

This landmark case is the first ever legal challenge of a fine imposed by the DSA, an EU law adopted in 2022. The DSA is a legally binding framework that gives the Commission authority to enforce so-called “content moderation” on “very large online platforms,” like X, Meta, and Google (platforms with more than 45 million users per month), which operate or are accessible in the EU. Platforms that fail to comply with the DSA face massive financial penalties and can even be suspended.

The DSA has faced criticism from European and global free speech experts, European NGOs, the US Administration, and the House Judiciary Committee for imposing an online censorship regime around the world.

X and its owner Elon Musk repeatedly have been singled out by Brussels for the free speech stance of the platform, raising concerns that X is being targeted for refusing to implement sweeping online censorship under the DSA.

In its legal challenge against the fine, X argues that the Commission’s interpretation of the relevant obligations, systematic breach of the Applicants’ rights of defence, and of the most basic due process requirements suggest a prosecutorial bias.

This judicial challenge is a landmark case, as it is the first opportunity for the EU court to examine how the Commission calculates DSA fines and whether enforcement of this law respects fundamental rights.

The case also challenges the Commission’s combined role as regulator, prosecutor, and judge under the DSA—a role codified in the DSA itself, but which raises high concerns for due process and the rule of law.

Because the DSA applies to “very large online platforms, » a ruling from the EU court will affect how all big tech platforms are regulated by the law.

In its legal challenge, X argues for the fine to be withdrawn. If relevant aspects of the DSA legislative instruments are found to not be compliant with other EU law, specific provisions in the legislation could also be annulled.

Other big tech companies, as well as EU institutions and EU Member States, could join X in the legal challenge in the future, under Article 40 of the Statute of the CJEU.

Brussels-based lawyer Dr Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel, Europe for ADF International, said:

“X is being targeted by the European Commission because it is a free speech platform. Social media platforms are today’s public square, and the DSA threatens speech in that public square.

“X is where millions of people go to freely express their views. This is a crackdown on X by authorities who view a free speech platform as a serious threat to their total control of online narratives. By targeting X, they are targeting the free speech of individuals across the world who simply want to share ideas online free from censorship.

“It’s no surprise that the company and its owner Elon Musk were landed with the first ever DSA fine.

“This case turns on whether the enormous powers given to the European Commission under the DSA are compatible with the rule of law. Under the DSA, the Commission is able to define the rules for so-called ‘content moderation,’ launch investigations, enforce them, and impose massive penalties for noncompliance, all with no meaningful checks and balances. The threat to free speech is severe.

“If the Commission’s concentration of power goes unchallenged, it will further cement a highly problematic standard for speech control across the EU and beyond. »

In an online statement, X said:

« X filed an appeal at the General Court of the European Union challenging the €120 million fine imposed by the European Commission on 5 December 2025, the first non-compliance fine under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

« This EU Decision resulted from an incomplete and superficial investigation, grave procedural errors, a tortured interpretation of the obligations under the DSA, and systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process requirements suggesting prosecutorial bias.

« This landmark case is the first judicial challenge to a DSA fine and could set important precedents for enforcement, penalty calculations, and fundamental rights protections under the 2022 regulation. X remains committed to user safety and transparency while defending our users’ access to the only global town square. »

Background on the DSA fine

According to the Commission, the December 2025 fine was issued for alleged breaches of transparency and procedural obligations under the DSA. X denies these allegations.

X has been subject to censorship pressure from the Commission since even before the DSA came into law.

In response to X’s withdrawal from the voluntary Code of Conduct on Disinformation, Thierry Breton, former European Commissioner, stated: “Twitter leaves EU voluntary Code of Practice against disinformation. But obligations remain. You can run but you can’t hide. Beyond voluntary commitments, fighting disinformation will be legal obligation under #DSA as of August 25. Our teams will be ready for enforcement. »

Additional DSA investigations by the Commission are ongoing against X, including for alleged failure to combat “false information and illegal content”. These could result in further fines in the future. 

Under European legislation, “illegal content” includes a plethora of draconian anti-free speech and “hate speech” laws—for example, in Germany it is illegal to insult politicians online.

X’s legal challenge comes in the context of increased targeting of the platform around the world. French authorities this month raided the social media company’s offices in Paris, a Spanish minister raised the possibility of a countrywide X ban, and multiple investigations are ongoing in the UK.

Global free speech concerns with the Digital Services Act

The DSA carries a clear threat of extraterritorial consequences outside of the EU.

A recent report from the US House Judiciary Committee showed that platforms have been pressured into changing their global content moderation rules to comply with the DSA’s censorial standards.

In 2024, prior to his live X interview with presidential candidate Donald Trump, Musk withstood pressure from then EU Commissioner Thierry Breton to censor the interview in line with the DSA. As attempted in the Trump interview, the DSA allows for the takedown of content that originates outside of the EU.

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