Musk sets sights on EU online censorship law after Australian free speech win

  • X owner endorses repeal of EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA)
  • On Tuesday, X and Canadian campaigner Chris ‘Billboard Chris’ Elston were successful in striking down an Australian government order from the country’s eSafety Commissioner, that censored Elston’s X post. The legal challenge was coordinated by ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance
  • Recent investigative report by the US House Judiciary Committee called out international censorship, including from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner and DSA

BRUSSELS (3 July 2025) – Elon Musk has set his sights on an EU online censorship law, following his free speech win in Australia earlier this week.

The tech billionaire said “Yes” in response to an X post from ADF International, a Christian legal advocacy organisation that defends free speech, which said: “Today, the EU takes a significant step toward strengthening online censorship, transforming the ‘Code of Conduct on Disinformation’ into a mandatory part of the Digital Services Act.

“The DSA threatens free speech across the world and must be repealed.”

On Tuesday, an Australian tribunal upheld a challenge from X and Canadian campaigner Chris ‘Billboard Chris’ Elston, striking down a government order that censored Elston’s X post. The legal challenge was coordinated by ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance of Australia.

Elston’s February 2024 X post referred to controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook by her biologically accurate pronouns. The post was deemed “cyber abuse” by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which ordered X to remove the content, under the country’s Online Safety Act.

Following a week-long hearing commencing March 31, 2025, the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne ruled this week that the eSafety Commissioner made the wrong decision in determining Elston’s post was “cyber abuse” and set aside the decision. Read more about the win here.

Paul Coleman, an international lawyer specialising in free speech and ADF International’s Executive Director, said: “From the EU’s Digital Services Act to Australia’s Online Safety Act, laws restricting free speech online follow a similar censorial playbook across the world.

“Through legislation like these, we are today witnessing a coordinated global attack on free speech. Elon Musk is right to stand up to DSA censorship and use his platform to advocate for free speech online.

“Following our free speech win in Australia, ADF International we will continue to challenge online censorship in the digital marketplace of ideas.”

Code of Conduct on Disinformation

ADF International’s thread on X, which Musk re-posted with his comment, said: “Today [1 July], the EU takes a significant step toward strengthening online censorship, transforming the ‘Code of Conduct on Disinformation’ into a mandatory part of the Digital Services Act. The DSA threatens free speech across the world and must be repealed.

“The EU’s DSA has created one of the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age. It is an authoritarian framework that enables unelected bureaucrats to control online speech at scale—both in Europe and globally—under the guise of ‘safety’ and ‘protecting democracy’.

“The DSA is a legally binding regulatory framework that gives the European Commission authority to enforce ‘content moderation’ on very large online platforms and search engines with over 45 million users per month. Platforms that fail to comply face massive financial penalties and even suspension.

“It requires platforms to remove ‘illegal content,’ defined as anything not in compliance with EU or Member State law at any time, now or in the future. This creates the ‘lowest common denominator’ for censorship across the EU, effectively exporting the most restrictive laws to all Member States. The DSA’s approach to loose concepts such as ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ ‘hate speech,’ and ‘information manipulation’ may lead to wide-sweeping removal of online content.”

US House Judiciary Committee report

An investigative report by the House Judiciary Committee recently exposed Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant’s coordination with international bodies to censor lawful online speech.

In addition to the eSafety Commissioner, it also called out DSA censorship, saying: “In recent years, foreign governments have adopted legislation and created regulatory regimes in an effort to target and restrict various forms of online speech.

“Foreign regulators have even attempted to use their authority to restrict the content that American citizens can view online while in the United States. In particular, the European Commission (EC) and Australia’s eSafety Commissioner have taken steps to limit the types of content that Americans are able to access on social media platforms.”

The report went on to discuss the DSA and said: “Vague, overly burdensome regulations targeted at so-called ‘systemic risks’ create an environment in which platforms are more likely to remove or demote lawful content to avoid potential fines. The ability of European regulations to exert extraterritorial influence over American companies and consumers in this manner is often referred to as the ‘Brussels Effect.’”

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

Pictured: Paul Coleman, Chris Elston with ADF International’s Lois McLatchie Miller, Chris Elston 

U.S. Government calls out Australian authorities for blocking online speech; Musk, “Billboard Chris” win case to overturn censorship of biologically-accurate “X” post 

  • Investigative report by the House Judiciary Committee exposes Australian “eSafety Commissioner” Julie Inman-Grant’s co-ordination with international bodies to censor lawful online speech
  • eSafety Commissioner lost battle to censor post using biologically-accurate pronouns against Musk, Billboard Chris this week

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."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, which co-ordinated Elston's legal case

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.   

U.S. Government reports concerns about international censorship efforts

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. 

Comments and reactions

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

Free Speech Victory in Australia for Billboard Chris as “X” post censorship overturned  

  • 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."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International

“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. 

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

U.K. Premiere of “Live Not By Lies” Shines Spotlight on Erosion of Freedom in the West 

  • Feature premiere of timely documentary highlights erosion of freedom of expression in Britain, including through recent prosecutions of citizens who have silently prayed near abortion facilities 

  • NYT Bestselling author Rod Dreher, film writer/director Isaiah Smallman, and victims of state censorship including Adam Smith-Connor (convicted for silent prayer) to attend black tie evening on Monday 30th June 

LONDON (26 June 2025) – On 30 June, thought leaders, journalists, and advocates for liberty will gather in London for the U.K. gala premiere of Live Not By Lies, a powerful new documentary from Root/Cause and Angel Studios.  

Based on the bestselling book by Rod Dreher, the documentary issues a stark warning about the quiet rise of authoritarianism in Western democracies—an erosion of fundamental freedoms long thought secure. 

The exclusive screening of the film in central London will be opened with remarks from public commentator Konstantin Kisin, reflecting on his family’s experience as dissidents living under the Soviet Union.  

"Live Not By Lies exposes disturbing parallels between Soviet-era totalitarian regimes and the ideological pressures mounting today in the United Kingdom and beyond."

- Isaiah Smallman, Filmmaker

The documentary screening will be followed with a panel discussion and opportunity for dialogue with leading voices on freedom of speech, conscience, and association, including bestselling author Rod Dreher and filmmaker Isaiah Smallman. 

“Live Not By Lies exposes disturbing parallels between Soviet-era totalitarian regimes and the ideological pressures mounting today in the United Kingdom and beyond. Through chilling testimony and rigorous analysis, the film compels viewers to consider the real cost of staying silent in the face of encroaching censorship and compelled ideology,” commented filmmaker Isaiah Smallman.  

“As we witness what’s happening in the streets and courtrooms of today’s West – where citizens face prosecution for voicing their beliefs online, or even praying silently in their heads near abortion facilities – this documentary is a timely reminder that the right to free expression must be zealously defended,” added ADF International spokesperson Lois McLatchie Miller, featured in the film discussing the legal organisation’s cases defending individuals prosecuted for peaceful expression in abortion facility “buffer zones”. 

Amongst other examples, the documentary examines the story of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who was arrested in 2022 for praying silently near an abortion facility in Birmingham.

Vaughan-Spruce was charged, tried, found innocent, and re-arrested weeks later for the very same activity. After several months of investigation, with support from ADF International, Vaughan-Spruce received £13,000 compensation from police. However, attempts to criminalise silent prayer continue across the country.  

The event is by invitation only. Media interested in covering the premiere and panel discussion are encouraged to contact Lois McLatchie Miller by June 27th.  

Trailer 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

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

Pictured: Lois McLatchie Miller, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce

UN Expert Report Calls on Governments to Prohibit “Gender Transition” for Children  

UN undermines parents' rights by pushing gender ideology.
  • UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls calls on states to ensure the terms “women” and “girls” refer exclusively to biological females, and to enshrine this definition in law.
  • Report further calls for a prohibition on the social, legal, and medical “transition” of children who claim to experience gender dysphoria, among other safeguards
UN undermines parents' rights by pushing gender ideology.

GENEVA (25 June 2025) – A new report presented today by Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, warns that states are failing to address both persistent and newly emerging forms of sex-based violence, including in relation to gender ideology.

The report, entitled “Sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues,” urges governments to reaffirm legal protections for women and girls based on their female biological sex, in accordance with their international human rights obligations. 

In response to an “international push to delink the definition of men and women from their biological sex,” the report outlines concerns around the removal of sex-specific language and its negative impact on the legal recognition and protection of women’s rights. Bringing together submissions from 180 stakeholders, including ADF International, the report holds that these developments result in violations of women and girls’ human rights. 

The report calls for states to “ensure that the terms ‘women’ and ‘girls’ are only used to describe biological females and that such a meaning is recognized in law.” Further, it urges the prohibition of the prohibition of legal and social transitioning of children who claim to experience gender dysphoria, “as well as their subjugation to experimental, irreversible medical interventions related to gender reassignment.”  

“This report delivers a timely and urgent message as international awareness solidifies around the dangerous human rights implications of gender ideology, especially its impact on the well-being and healthy development of children. The report underscores how the erosion of legal clarity around sex, an objective and immutable biological reality, has had devastating implications for the dignity, safety and rights of women and girls."

- Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International

 

“This report delivers a timely and urgent message as international awareness solidifies around the dangerous human rights implications of gender ideology, especially its impact on the well-being and healthy development of children,” responded Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International. “The report underscores how the erosion of legal clarity around sex, an objective and immutable biological reality, has had devastating implications for the dignity, safety and rights of women and girls. As the Special Rapporteur told governments at the UN Human Rights Council today, ‘you cannot protect what you cannot define’. We urge all States to act without delay to implement the report’s recommendations”. 

Risks of puberty blockers to children highlighted by UN Expert

The report states: “The long-lasting and harmful consequences of social and medical transitioning of children, including girls, are being increasingly documented. They include: persistence or intensification of psychological distress; persistence of body dissatisfaction; infertility, early onset of the menopause and an increase in the risk of osteoporosis; sexual dysfunction; and loss of the ability to breastfeed in cases of breast mastectomy (to mention a few).” 

It further notes: “That has rightly led several countries, such as Brazil, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to change course and restrict children’s access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery on sexual and reproductive organs. Allowing children access to such procedures not only violates their right to safety, security and freedom from violence, but also disregards their human right to the highest standards of health and goes against their best interests.”  

The Special Rapporteur also explicitly calls for the protection of single-sex spaces for the protection of women, including in prisons and healthcare settings. 

Submitted under Human Rights Council resolution 50/7, the report draws from state submissions, recent case law, and existing human rights frameworks, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).  

A global push against harmful gender ideology

This publication follows a recent decision by the US Supreme Court in United States of America v. Skrmetti to uphold a Tennessee law protecting children from gender-ideology experiments, demonstrating a global shift toward dismantling gender ideology. 

In the United Kingdom, the closure of London’s Tavistock Clinic and the publication of the Cass Review signaled a clear rejection of gender ideology experimentation on young people. 

As highlighted in a recent amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court from 17 international parental rights organisations, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia are among the list of European countries that have taken legislative, judicial, or administrative steps to protect minors from gender ideology.

In Latin America, Chile moved to ban gender “transition” for children in May, following bans in Argentina and Brazil.

“Governments have an obligation under international law to eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination against women and girls. This requires urgent and concerted action to reverse the harms caused by the ongoing erasure of their sex-based rights under the pervasive influence of gender ideology. Practices of so-called ‘gender transition’ for minors must be prohibited under the law, and every effort made to uphold the dignity, integrity, and future for every woman and child,” Mazzoli added.

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

Brazilian Mother’s Right to Homeschool to Be Argued Before State Court

  • Brazilian local authorities prosecuted Regiane Cichelero for homeschooling her son and threatened to remove him from her custody if she continued.  
  • Oral arguments for her case will be heard at the highest court in the state of Santa Catarina; ADF International coordinating defense, highlighting international human rights protections for homeschooling. 

Santa Catarina, BRAZIL (30 June 2025) —  On July 1 the highest court in the state of Santa Catarina will hear oral arguments for the case of Regiane Cichelero, a Christian mother in Brazil who was prosecuted for homeschooling her son. ADF International is supporting her legal defense, which challenges the state’s attempt to penalize parents for exercising their right to direct their children’s education, a right firmly protected under international human rights law. 

Cichelero began homeschooling her son in 2020 after public schools closed during the COVID-19 pandemic. When schools reopened, she continued teaching him at home, believing it to be the best choice for providing quality education in accordance with her family’s religious values.  

Following her decision to homeschool, local authorities fined her over $20,000 USD, and a judge threatened to remove her son from her custody if she did not enroll him in a public school.  

No parent should fear state punishment for choosing to homeschool their child.egiane made a lawful and conscientious decision to teach her son at home. We are hopeful that the court will affirm her rights and take an important step toward protecting parental rights in Brazil."

- Julio Pohl, Legal Counsel for Latin America at ADF International

“No parent should fear state punishment for choosing to homeschool their child,” said Julio Pohl, ADF International’s Legal Counsel for Latin America, which is supporting Cichelero’s legal defense. “Regiane made a lawful and conscientious decision to teach her son at home. We are hopeful that the court will affirm her rights and take an important step toward protecting parental rights in Brazil.” 

Background

Over 70,000 children are currently homeschooled in Brazil. International human rights law protects the rights of parents to make choices concerning the type of education that their children receive.  

Article 26.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”. In addition, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights holds that states must respect the right of parents “to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions”.    

Leading up to her court date, Cichelero stated, “It is my role as a mother to provide the best education I can for my son. The state’s decision to penalize me has made it difficult to fulfill that duty. But I look forward to this hearing, and I am hopeful for a decision that affirms the right of parents to direct their children’s education. No parent in Brazil should fear the risk of fines or even of losing custody of their child simply for making the best choice for their family.”  

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

US Supreme Court Upholds State Law Protecting Children from Gender-Ideology Experiments  

  • High Court sides with Tennessee law that regulates harmful drugs, surgeries attempting to “transition” children
     
  • Ruling in United States v. Skrmetti will help protect 26 similar state laws

WASHINGTON (18 June 2025) – In a landmark victory for children’s health and science-based medicine, the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday upheld Tennessee’s law protecting minors from harmful and life-altering drugs and surgeries. The ruling in United States v. Skrmetti will help protect 26 similar state laws and return common sense to America’s medical system. 

The Court held that Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, a bipartisan law passed in 2023, is constitutional. The law prohibits health care providers from providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or potentially irreversible surgeries to encourage children to live as the opposite sex.  

"States are free to protect children from the greatest medical scandal in generations—and that’s exactly what states like Tennessee have done."

- Kristen Waggoner, CEO and President, Alliance Defending Freedom

The ruling signals that American states have broad constitutional authority to ban dangerous so-called “gender transition” procedures and interventions for minors, and it aligns the U.S. with a growing international movement to protect youth from gender ideology.  

“No one has the right to harm a child,” said Alliance Defending Freedom CEO and President Kristen Waggoner. “The Biden administration and ACLU asked the court to create a ‘constitutional right’ to give children harmful, experimental drugs and surgeries that turn them into patients for life. This would have forced states to base their laws on ideology, not evidence—to the immense harm of countless children. The court’s rejection of that request is a monumental victory for children, science, and common sense. States are free to protect children from the greatest medical scandal in generations—and that’s exactly what states like Tennessee have done.”  

Tennessee’s law is “plainly rationally related” to the state’s findings that administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors with gender dysphoria “can lead to the minor becoming irreversibly sterile, having increased risk of disease and illness, or suffering from adverse and sometimes fatal psychological consequences,” the court wrote in its opinion. The law is also rationally related to “the State’s objective of protecting minors’ health and welfare.” 

Background

Currently, 26 states, in addition to Tennessee, have enacted comparable laws in the U.S to protect children from gender-ideology experiments. The High Court decided to review the case United States v. Skrmetti after the Biden administration appealed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that upheld Tennessee’s law. ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court in October 2024, urging it to let state legislatures protect children from these experimental medical procedures.    

The Court’s decision follows a global shift toward dismantling gender ideology. In the United Kingdom, the closure of London’s Tavistock Clinic and the publication of the Cass Review signaled a clear rejection of gender ideology experimentation on young people. As highlighted in an amicus brief to the Court from 17 international parental rights organisations, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia are among the list of European countries that have taken legislative, judicial, or administrative steps to protect minors from gender ideology. In Latin America, Chile moved to ban gender “transition” for children in May, following bans in Argentina and Brazil. 

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

‘Surveillance and control’: Experts convene at European Parliament to warn about EU online censorship law, following US State Department expressing concern

  • First-of-its-kind, cross-party event, co-hosted by politicians and ADF International, examined threats to free speech posed by Digital Services Act (DSA)
  • Journalist and best-selling author Rod Dreher, a friend of US Vice President JD Vance, said the VP loves Europe but opposes the continent’s censorial ruling class
  • Pressure on DSA builds, following US State Department expressing concern over censorial impact of the law

Brussels (21 May 2025) – Experts this morning warned about the threats of an EU online censorship law, in a first-of-its-kind, cross-party convening at the European Parliament.

The well-attended conference, which was co-hosted by ADF International, and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, was entitled “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression”.

The event followed the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour, a bureau within the US State Department, expressing concern about the censorial impact of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

At the event, which was attended by MEPs and staffers from across the political spectrum, think-tankers, journalists and others, Ms Joron warned that although the DSA was meant to create a “safe online environment”, it has “morphed into a tool that risks undermining our fundamental freedoms”.

She added: “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act. The European Commission, alongside some parliamentarians, has seized upon the DSA as a political tool to control speech, particularly targeting platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram.

“The DSA was meant to protect our digital space, not to control it… The DSA, once a shield for our rights, risks becoming a Trojan horse for surveillance and control.”

Mr Coleman, an international human rights lawyer specialising in free speech and Executive Director of ADF International, a Christian legal organisation that defends freedom of expression, told the conference: “Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago.

“The internet is the frontline of this assault on free speech in Europe—particularly through the Digital Services Act.”

He added that “serious questions can and should be raised” about whether the DSA is compatible with “binding obligations to protect freedom of expression”.

He commented from his position of legal expertise that it was his “strong view” that “it is not”. 

In his speech, Mr Bartulica warned that “hate speech”, which politicians want to use the DSA to “address”, is “impossible to define” as a legal concept.

He said quoting Christian Scripture could even be considered “hate speech” by those in power.

Mr Coleman mentioned the case of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, which is supported by ADF International, in his speech, as a “harrowing example of what censorship under the DSA could look like in practice”. 

He said: “Six years ago, Päivi posted a picture of a Bible verse and expressed her Christian views on sexuality on X. She was criminally prosecuted for alleged ‘hate speech’ and has been unanimously acquitted in two trials. 

“But the state prosecutor has appealed the case again. And shockingly, her case—in which she faces trial for posting online—is now pending before Finland’s Supreme Court.

“Now, under the DSA, deeply problematic national laws restricting speech—like the “hate speech” legislation used to prosecute Päivi —could be broadly applied across the EU by this simple principle: If it’s considered illegal in one place, it could be in every place.”

Mr Bartulica also said that in the EU “we have regulated or controlled speech and not free speech”.

He added: “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel—we’ve seen where mass censorship leads. Under communism and other totalitarian regimes, it’s not a pretty picture.

“There’s a totalitarian impulse in many of these people in Brussels, who are just waiting to censor speech they don’t like.”

JD Vance opposes Europe’s censorial ruling class

Also speaking at the event was American journalist and bestselling author Rod Dreher.

Mr Dreher, who is a friend of US Vice President JD Vance, said that following the Vice President’s speech in Munich, that people had asked him if VP Vance hates Europe.

He said: “Of course” the VP does not hate Europe—he loves it enough to speak the truth about its censorship crisis.

But Mr Dreher did say the VP opposes Europe’s censorial ruling class.

Mr Dreher observed that “elites would prefer to suppress discussion of discontent and its sources”—smearing such discussion as “hate speech”—rather than acknowledge the serious problems plaguing their societies.

Drawing on the wisdom of Soviet dissidents, he recommended that in the face of “soft totalitarianism” in the West today that people “refuse to participate in any event where one cannot speak the truth… Prepare to suffer for the truth”.

How to oppose the DSA

In his speech, Mr Coleman also gave concrete ways in which the DSA can be opposed.

He said: “It is thankfully the case that freedom of expression is guaranteed in Article 11 of the EU Charter, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

“According to these and the jurisprudence of the ECHR, any limitations to free speech must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.

“And so, serious questions can and should be raised about whether the DSA is compatible with these binding obligations to protect freedom of expression. 

“It is my strong view, as you may have guessed from this speech, that it is not. So, what can be done about this?

“Member states could initiate an action for annulment before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Through this, the whole or parts of the DSA could be declared inapplicable, if they are deemed to infringe on the EU Charter or Treaties.

“The same question, of considering whether the DSA is compatible with binding obligations to protect free speech, is key for the upcoming DSA review, in which the Commission must evaluate the act in view of other legal commitments. 

“It is imperative that every opportunity is taken in the review, which must occur by mid-November this year, to raise concerns about the censorial impact of the DSA. 

“This could be accomplished through written or oral questions to the European Commission and even by inviting Commissioner Henna Virkkunen to discuss the legislation in the European Parliament. After all, if the Commissioner is as in favour of freedom of expression as she claims to be, why would she refuse?

“It is vital to include representatives of civil society, tech companies and digital rights groups in such conversations, as they can share their invaluable expertise on this important issue.

“As elected representatives of your people, you are also in an excellent position to bring the public’s attention to the grave risks to free speech posed by the DSA. 

“The truth is that every single European’s rights are jeopardised by this legislation. The more the public is aware of and speaks out about this, the more pressure the Commission will feel. And the more likely we are to defeat this law.”

Background

Today’s conference was the first of its kind in the European Parliament to focus on the threats to free speech posed by the DSA, to offer concrete answers on how to oppose them, and to discuss the fundamental importance of freedom of expression for societal flourishing, in that context.

The gathering of free speech experts adds to steadily building pressure on the DSA, following a letter reportedly sent to the European Commission last week by the US House Judiciary Committee, expressing concern over the legislation.

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, also met with Congressman Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, in Washington DC last week.

In a post on X, she said: “Candid exchange with @Jim_Jordan [Chairman Jordan].”

She went on to claim in the post: “Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the EU and is strongly protected by our digital rules. Happy to continue our good discussion.”

Earlier this month, the US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor expressed concern over the censorial impact of the DSA.

The State Department bureau posted on X: “The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.

“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech.”

The post continued: “Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting gender ideology.

“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As @SecRubio [Marco Rubio] said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”

The Digital Services Act

EU politicians have stated their desire for the DSA to “address’ so-called “mis” and “disinformation” online—vague and subjective terms, which experts have warned can be used to justify censorship.

The regulation would provide an incentive to put pressure on tech companies, including American ones, to censor speech, rather than risk massive financial penalties for non-compliance.

There are additional concerns in the US about the DSA potentially having an extraterritorial impact and being used to censor speech inside America.

An attempt at using the regulation to censor speech in the US was seen last summer, when former Commissioner Thierry Breton warned Elon Musk to not breach the DSA ahead of his X interview with then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Find more information on the DSA here.

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