The Digital Services Act and Online Speech in Europe

Paul Coleman at EU Parliament

Given the wide array of anti-speech laws throughout EU countries, the DSA allows the worst laws in any individual country to restrict speech across the entire bloc

Picture of Paul Coleman
Paul Coleman

Executive Director, ADF International

X-twitter Linkedin

We are living in an unprecedented time in Western history for freedom of expression. With the fall of the Soviet Union, some made the claim that the “End of History” had arrived.

An era in which free speech would flourish in a world of liberal democracies and free markets. But it’s now clear that such hopes were sadly misplaced, and European societies are moving in an alarming direction.

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 in this assault on free speech in Europe, particularly through the Digital Services Act, which I will come to shortly.

How We Got Here

But how did we get here? How did we get from the “End of History” and liberal democracy’s promise of free speech for all to the censorship crisis we face today?
Two words that perhaps are not often mentioned favourably in this parliament go a long way in explaining the antecedents of the current effort to control online discourse: Brexit and Trump.

As the honorary Brit at this event, I hope you will forgive me for saying the “b-word”. But all jokes aside, those two democratic votes in 2016 sent shockwaves through the political and media establishment, who then scrambled to understand what went wrong at the ballot box, and how no one saw it coming.

And rather than examining whether perhaps some of their mistaken beliefs about reality, assumptions about the citizenry, or missteps in governance may have been responsible for these seismic votes, those in power decided to blame so-called “misinformation” instead.

In other words, the people were tricked. Hundreds of millions of citizens were so prone to manipulation and brainwashing that they stupidly, wrongly, and ignorantly voted the “wrong” way. And such wrong voting must never happen again if democracy is to be saved. Hence, with no sense of irony whatsoever, the claim that democracy must be saved through censorship took hold – here in Brussels and across the Western world.

The European establishment’s response to outcomes it did not foresee or desire was stark and immediate, as new draconian anti-speech laws came into effect. Let me outline a few: 

  • 2016: The EU Code of Conduct against “illegal online hate speech” was announced without any discussion or debate.
  • 2017: New national legislation such as the German Network Enforcement Act came into force.
  • 2018: The EU launched a world first with its Code of Practice on Disinformation – targeting online platforms.
  • 2019: The UN launched its Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech.
  • 2020: Covid-related provisions censored free speech around the world.
  • 2021: The European Commission announced a plan to make so-called “hate speech” an EU-wide crime.
  • 2022: In came the Digital Services Act, with most of its provisions coming into force in February 2024.

"Severe" Threat to Online Speech

Year after year, the relentless drive towards more and more speech restrictions continues – and it’s almost always under the guise of banning so-called “hate speech” and “mis- and disinformation.” These deliberately vague and subjective terms are rarely, if ever, defined in the legislation that seeks to ban them. And I am convinced that the lack of any meaningful definition is a design feature, not a bug.

And that brings me to the DSA itself – what I consider to be the most severe threat yet to free speech online. So, what precisely is so worrisome about this regulation?
The DSA purports to create “a safe online environment” by requiring very large online platforms, such as X or Meta, to remove “illegal content”.

This sounds ok so far. But when we look closer, the problems become apparent.
What, after all, is “illegal content”? Surely a law that runs to over 100 pages would define such a pivotal term in the most precise language possible?

Sadly not.

Article 3(h) gives us the circular definition that “illegal content” is anything that is not in compliance with EU law or the law of any Member State, now or at any point in the future. In other words, the DSA writes a blank cheque for censorship.

Given the wide array of anti-speech laws throughout EU countries, the DSA allows the worst laws in any individual country to restrict speech across the entire bloc.
And what happens in such a scenario?

European Commission's Power Over Regulation

Under the Act, the European Commission can impose crippling fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover on platforms that refuse to censor content – which could amount to billions of Euros.

The Commission can also restrict access to a platform within the EU or suspend its operations, showing the massive power this Act gives them over private companies. Since companies are threatened with huge fines if they do not censor enough speech, and there is no penalty whatsoever for censoring too much speech, what do we think these companies will end up doing over time?

Moreover, individuals across the EU could have their speech limited under the most draconian “hate speech” laws in any individual EU country due to the act.
The case of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, one of ADF International’s clients, gives a harrowing example of what censorship under the DSA could look like in practice.

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. And I do mean every place.

The United States Weighs In

Even though the DSA is an EU regulation, since the internet is global and most speech platforms are global companies, its effects will not be confined to this continent. Vice President of the United States, JD Vance, already raised his concerns about the perilous state of freedom of expression in Europe during his Munich Security Conference speech.

Notably, the US has taken specific exception to this act, with both the US State Department and House Judiciary Committee raising concerns over it, and they have good reasons for doing so.

To name just two: Firstly, many of the companies the DSA targets, such as X and Meta, which could face massive fines for refusing to censor content, are American.

Secondly, we have already seen an example of a senior EU politician trying to use the act to censor speech in the United States.

Last summer, then-European Commissioner Thierry Breton shockingly wrote to Elon Musk ahead of his X interview with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, warning him not to breach the DSA in the conversation.

It is conceivable that in the future we could see more efforts like this to extend EU censorship to silence speech outside Europe. All those who care about free speech should not accept a transatlantic divide on this indispensable liberty, where the US recommits to freedom of expression—as it has under the new administration—while Europe tramples on it. I want to now offer concrete recommendations on how the censorial effects of the DSA can be addressed, as people in this room are in a real position to take action.

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.

Conclusion: The DSA Has a Far-Reaching Censorial Impact

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 jeopardized 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.

I want to close by emphatically stating that freedom of expression is essential for any society, and especially for democracies, to flourish. Those in positions of power turn to censorship because they don’t trust democracy.

They fear the people will choose to speak and vote in a way that they object to.
But this censorial impulse must be rejected. There is a rich history of valuing free speech on this continent. Europeans can and must draw on that tradition again today.

.

Experts to 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, to examine threats to free speech posed by Digital Services Act (DSA)
  • Event, also featuring journalist and best-selling author Rod Dreher, to take place on morning of Wednesday, May 21
  • Pressure on DSA builds, following US State Department expressing concern over censorial impact of the law

BRUSSELS (19 May 2025) – Experts will convene at the European Parliament this Wednesday morning to warn about the threats of an EU online censorship law, in a first-of-its-kind, cross-party event.

The event, which is co-hosted by ADF International, is entitled “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression”.

It follows 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).

The DSA is an EU regulation that requires online platforms, including US tech companies such as X and Meta, to remove “illegal content”, or risk facing massive financial penalties.

There are concerns it could introduce a “lowest common denominator” of censorship, as the most egregious anti-speech laws in any individual EU country could be applied across the region under the act.

Croatian Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Stephen Bartulica, who will speak at the event, said: “Pressure against the Digital Services Act is quickly building both inside and outside the European Parliament.

“Concern from the United States, including from their State Department and Congress, over the censorial impact of the DSA should not be ignored by the Commission—the US is a vital ally of Europe.

“This event will be a crucial part of continuing to build pressure on the DSA. Online censorship in Europe must be rejected. I believe in free speech, not regulated speech.”

Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, and an international human rights lawyer specialising in free speech, who will also speak at the event, said: “The DSA is one of the most serious threats to online free speech in the digital age.

“The move towards censorship in Europe through this framework is deeply concerning and must be challenged.

“We cannot accept a transatlantic divide on free speech, where the US recommits to the protection of this fundamental freedom, while Europe tramples on it. Freedom of expression must be protected and upheld across the globe.”

Another speaker at the event, French MEP Virginie Joron, said: “The DSA has become a tool that elites want to use to control the internet, in a desperate attempt to censor narratives that go against their narrative.

“This truth is becoming increasingly clear to the world. The new DSA regulation must not become a political tool.

“This event comes at an important moment and is a crucial step in the fight against the misapplication of this regulation.”

This week’s conference is being hosted by European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) MEP Mr Bartulica, PfE MEP Ms Joron and ADF International, a Christian legal organisation, with expertise in international law, that defends free speech.

Pressure builds against Digital Services Act

The gathering of free speech experts will add 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.”

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

Rod Dreher, an American journalist and bestselling author, will also speak at the event. His books include ‘The Benedict Option’, ‘Live Not By Lies’ and, most recently, ‘Living in Wonder’. He is also a Visiting Fellow at the Danube Institute think tank.

Email [email protected] to secure your place at this groundbreaking event.

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 and 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

Unpacking the EU Digital Services Act

Man on his phone in a digital realm design
Man on his phone in a digital realm design

Given the impact of digital services on the online and offline world, states, or, in this case, a supranational union with delegated powers, are increasingly seeking to regulate this domain. We live in an age where Big Tech holds unprecedented power—the annual revenue of these giants economically places them ahead of many states’ annual budgets. The DSA is the EU’s first comprehensive and binding regulation of digital service providers in more than twenty years.

What is the Digital Services Act?

Although it purports to create “a safe online environment,” the DSA is among the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age.

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 (those with more than 45 million users per month) that are established, or offer their services, in the EU.

Most of its provisions came into force in February 2024. Platforms that fail to comply with the regulation face massive financial penalties and even suspension. Through the platform’s compliance with the DSA, individuals can suffer censorship, suspension from online platforms, and criminal prosecution (under national law).

The stated objective of the DSA is “ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, addressing the dissemination of illegal content online and the societal risks that the dissemination of disinformation or other content may generate, and within which fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the EU] are effectively protected, and innovation is facilitated”.

The Commission claims that the DSA creates “legal certainty,” “greater democratic control,” and “mitigation of systemic risks, such as manipulation or disinformation”—but, in reality, it is an authoritarian censorship regime antithetical to democracy.

Why is the DSA an extreme threat to fundamental freedoms?

The DSA requires platforms to censor “illegal content,” which it broadly defines as anything that is not in compliance with EU law or the law of any Member State (Article 3(h)). This could result in the lowest common denominator for censorship across the whole EU. Furthermore, authoritarian governments could adopt the blueprint, claiming that Western liberal states endorse it.

The DSA is deeply flawed. It is built on the idea that “bad speech” is best countered by censorship rather than robust discussion. Furthermore, the DSA gives the European Commission broad power over how platforms handle speech, which undermines the free expression essential to democratic societies.

If a censorship law such as the DSA is the “gold standard,” as the Commission has praised its own construct, authoritarian governments of the world will readily adopt the model.

Allowing “illegal content” to potentially be determined by one country’s vague and overreaching laws pits the DSA against international law standards that require any restrictions on speech to be precisely defined and necessary. This is extremely problematic given the increasing number of absurd so-called “hate speech” laws potentially criminalizing peaceful speech throughout Europe.

  • Example 1: Germany’s highly controversial NetzDG Law, enacted in 2017, forces digital service providers to enforce sweeping online restrictions on certain kinds of content, linking to provisions of the criminal code and including the broad offence of “insult”. A person in Germany could see something “insulting” online that they claim is illegal under German law, file a complaint under the DSA, and trigger a take-down of the content for all countries in the EU, including countries where “insult” is not a criminal offense.

  • Example 2: The DSA forces digital service providers to block specific people or messages, even those that come from outside the EU, from being heard by Europe. A Latin American president says something that a German believes violates German law. Under the DSA, that speech could be blocked (“content moderated”) from all EU countries.

How does the DSA censor speech?

The DSA is at the heart of Europe’s censorship industrial complex, consisting of a number of interwoven regulations and codes that give an unaccountable bureaucracy broad power to censor speech. Censorship occurs through vast “content moderation” networks coupled with a powerful enforcement mechanism to force platforms to comply.

“Content Moderation”

The unelected and largely unaccountable Commission has positioned itself under the DSA to enable sweeping censorship in the name of “public safety” and “democracy”. It does this through a complicated mega-structure that allows the Commission to pull the strings of censorship, making private enterprises complicit and forcing them to comply with the threat of draconian fines.

The DSA creates a censorship industrial complex consisting of an expansive web of outsourced content flaggers, national coordinators, monitoring reporters, and other authorities, with the European Commission at its head. This is a business model dependent on finding content to censor and inconsistent with the standards of the rule of law.

The structure is intentionally unnavigable for the regular citizen to determine what is allowable speech. As platforms have the obligation to moderate content, the Commission can hide behind the DSA to claim that it itself is not censoring speech.

The DSA applies directly to all Member States without requiring national implementation. National regulators work with existing legal frameworks, and they create new structures to apply the DSA alongside domestic laws. In the event of a conflict, the DSA overrides national laws.

Content is policed by so-called “trusted flaggers,” including NGOs and private entities, and may even include law enforcement agencies like Europol. This deputizes organizations with their own agendas to enforce censorship at scale.

This system of “flaggers” reports content that they deem “illegal” to the platform. The platform must prioritize flagged content for removal. If the platform deems the content illegal, it must quickly remove it or disable access (by geo-blocking or hiding visibility).

Very large platforms also are obligated to proactively prevent “illegal content” by conducting regular risk assessments to identify how their services may spread “illegal content”. Under Article 34, these include “negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes, and public security” and “effects in relation to gender-based violence, the protection of public health and minors and serious negative consequences to the person’s physical and mental well-being”. The efforts include: adapting their design, terms and conditions, algorithmic systems, advertising, content moderation, including for “hate speech,” and awareness-raising measures.

Enforcement

A powerful enforcement mechanism ensures compliance. Under the threat of enormous financial penalties and suspension, digital service providers are forced to censor and potentially suspend individuals, and individuals may even be criminally prosecuted.

Penalties for Individual Users:

  • If, after content is flagged, the platform deems it illegal after its own review, it must remove it or disable access and notify the account.

  • If individuals persistently post “illegal content,” platforms can suspend their accounts (after having issued a warning and with an obligation to be proportionate and for a reasonable period of time).

  • Every Member State has a designated Digital Services Coordinator to enforce compliance with the DSA. The Coordinator can seek court orders to rule on the “illegal” nature of content on platforms and then fine and potentially suspend online platforms. If a user posts content that the platform suspects violates criminal laws in so far as it is “involving a threat to the life or safety of a person or persons” (Article 18(1)), the platform is required to notify the police, triggering potential domestic prosecution.

    • This could happen under one of the many over-broad “hate speech” criminal laws in Europe. If the “hate speech” was subjectively determined to threaten the life or safety of a person or persons, it is possible that even peaceful speech without a real threat could be prosecuted (e.g., if, in the case of Päivi Räsänen, someone argued that her Twitter bible post endangered those who identify as LGBT).

Penalties for Platforms

  • Platforms evaluate content under the threat of crippling fines with every incentive to censor and none to uphold free speech. They face little to no punishment for unjustly banning content and enormous penalties if they refuse to censor.

  • If a platform refuses to remove or restrict access to “illegal content” after it has been flagged—especially by a “trusted flagger” or regulatory authority—the platform may face serious repercussions.

  • The Digital Service Coordinators have broad powers to investigate platforms, issue orders, impose fines, and escalate cases to the European Commission. When dealing with very large platforms, the Commission can override the Coordinators at any time, giving it direct control over censorship enforcement. For these platforms, the Commission has the same powers as the Coordinators but lacks the requirement of “independence” to which the Coordinators are subject. (Article 50(2)).

  • The Commission or national regulators can impose fines of up to 6% of the platform’s global annual turnover for non-compliance, amounting to billions. If non-compliance persists, platforms may face periodic penalty payments. Finally, it can restrict access to the platform within the EU or suspend operations.

Enhanced Enforcement

  • The planned “European Democracy Shield” will strengthen the DSA and impose even stricter regulations on online speech. Its stated aim is to protect the EU from foreign information manipulation and interference, particularly in the digital realm, focusing on the integrity of elections and political processes. Together with the DSA, it can be weaponized to target peaceful expression, further empowering unelected bureaucrats to censor.

  • The DSA grants emergency powers that allow the European Commission to demand additional censorship measures from online platforms during times of crisis, without sufficiently precise definitions or limitations.

    • Crisis is defined as “where extraordinary circumstances lead to a serious threat to public security or public health in the Union or in significant parts of it” (Article 36(2)); “Such crises could result from armed conflicts or acts of terrorism, including emerging conflicts or acts of terrorism, natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as from pandemics and other serious cross-border threats to public health” (para 91).

    • The Commission may adopt a decision requiring very large platforms to take certain actions in response to the crisis: 1) assess how their services contribute to a serious threat, 2) apply measures to prevent, eliminate, or limit the threat, 3) report back to the Commission on those measures.

    • The potential extraordinary measures it identifies are: “adapting content moderation processes and increasing the resources dedicated to content moderation, adapting terms and conditions, relevant algorithmic systems and advertising systems, further intensifying cooperation with trusted flaggers, taking awareness-raising measures and promoting trusted information and adapting the design of their online interfaces”. (para 91)

    • In a worst-case scenario, the European Commission could crack down on speech at will whenever it decrees a crisis and force platforms to “mitigate risks”. This would prevents citizens from accessing information and sharing views, handing extraordinary power to bureaucrats to control narratives in times of upheaval. 
Paul Coleman's quote concerning the EU and the US on the DSA and censorship.

Is there recourse for a censored individual or platform forced to comply with the DSA?

The DSA severely limits the power of national courts to protect citizens’ free speech rights. National courts become the censorship long arm of the Commission. International appeal is possible but costly and onerous.

Appeal Options for Individuals

A censored individual can try to appeal directly to the platform, use a certified out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism, or appeal to the Digital Services Coordinator. While the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies offer a relatively easy appeal option (5 euros for the individual to submit), their decisions are not binding, and the platforms are only required to engage in good faith. If the platform does not, it leaves the individual user with only more expensive and lengthy judicial recourse. Faced with that reality, many are likely to just submit to censorship or preemptively self-censor.

Judicial Recourse

Individuals or the platform can technically challenge censorship in national courts, but the courts are required to comply with Commission decisions. Article 82 states: a “national court shall not take any decision which runs counter to that Commission decision. National courts shall also avoid taking decisions which could conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings”.

Individuals or platforms can take their cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), but this is a complex and costly process with strict requirements. The CJEU system takes 1-2 years for a ruling, sometimes longer, and rarely grants interim relief measures.

Is the DSA a problem only for Europe?

The DSA is a digital gag order with global consequences because it can censor you no matter where you live. Because the DSA applies to “Very Large Online Platforms” and search engines accessed within the EU but with a global presence, DSA censorship impacts the entire world.

Extraterritorial Applicability

The DSA explicitly states its extraterritorial applicability as it covers platforms used by people “that have their place of establishment or are located in the Union, irrespective of where the providers of those intermediary services [the platforms] have their place of establishment”. (Article 2(1))

While the DSA states in Article 9(2)(b) that takedown orders should be “limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve its objective,” there remain grave extraterritorial concerns.

De Facto Global Censorship Standards

Platforms may be inclined to adapt their international content moderation policies to EU censorship. If platforms deem something “illegal” under EU rules, that content may be banned everywhere, even in countries with strong free speech protections.

In its letter to European Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee wrote: “Though nominally applicable to only EU speech, the DSA, as written, may limit or restrict Americans’ constitutionally protected speech in the United States. Companies that censor an insufficient amount of ‘misleading or deceptive’ speech—as defined by EU bureaucrats—face fines up to six percent of global revenue, which would amount to billions of dollars for many American companies. Furthermore, because many social media platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally, restrictive censorship laws like the DSA may set de facto global censorship standards.”

Europe in the Dark

Individuals outside of Europe could find themselves censored within Europe. This could happen to even a head of state or individual with enormous international reach. In the worst case, blocking content from reaching the 500 million inhabitants of the European Union has the potential to cut an entire continent out of the conversation—a draconian move with world-changing impact.

What is ADF International doing to challenge the DSA?

The DSA is irreconcilable with the human right to free speech. It must be repealed or substantially reformed to protect open discourse and fundamental freedoms in the EU and across the world. We cannot allow the DSA to become the global model for digital speech control.

ADF International is committed to challenging violations of free speech resulting from the DSA and building critical momentum to repeal or substantially reform this censorial framework. We are working to amend or strike down the parts of the DSA that undermine freedom of expression.

There is no disagreement that certain expression is illegal (e.g. child exploitation, incitement to terrorism) and every social media platform has a legal obligation to restrict this content. The DSA goes far beyond this. Instead, the DSA has created a censorship mega structure to ban “illegal content” without defining what “illegal content” is. Over time, this mega structure could censor speech that any person in any EU country considers “illegal” according to whatever law is either in force now or may be passed in the future. Behind the 100+ pages of complex legislation hides a blank cheque for censorship.

What can be done to challenge the DSA at the European level?

  • Equip Member States to initiate an action for annulment before the CJEU – Articles 277 and 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU): Grounds to invoke include the lack of competence of the Commission, an infringement of the Treaties and the EU Charter (free speech), and a misuse of powers. This could result in having the DSA or parts of it declared “inapplicable”.

  • Mobilize Member States in the Council to repeal the DSA through a political decision: Repealing legislation once adopted is very difficult, and the procedure is similar to that for adopting the legislation. The Commission could initiate the repeal, but that appears politically unlikely. Instead, Member States in the Council can build a critical mass and take action.

  • Preliminary reference procedure before the CJEU – Article 267 TFEU: In the course of national litigation, any party or the judge, ex officio, can raise a question of EU law, particularly on its interpretation. Such questions could include the conformity of the DSA (e.g., the definition of illegal content under Article 3(h) and the obligation to act against illegal content under Article 9(2)(b)) with Article 11 of the EU Charter (freedom of expression and information). The decision to submit the reference to the CJEU rests entirely with the national judge, except for the situation when the case is at the court of the last instance, and the question of interpretation of EU law is necessary to decide the legal question at issue.

  • Engage in the DSA review process: According to Article 91 of the DSA, by 17 November 2025, the Commission shall evaluate and report to the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic and Social Committee. The scope of this first review is limited, and it will be followed by another review in 2027 and then every five years.

Foreign Censorship on U.S. Social Media Platforms – Australian Case Validates Vance’s Concerns

  • Melbourne Tribunal to hear “monumental” free speech challenge from 31st March-4th April
  • Musk’s “X” and Canadian “Billboard Chris” bringing case against Australian “eSafety Commissioner” for censoring online post criticizing gender ideology
  • VP Vance, Secretary of State Rubio have raised repeated concerns about the impact of censorial foreign governments on American-based social media platforms

MELBOURNE (27 March 2025) – The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne is set to hear a “monumental” free speech case next week, commencing March 31st, as concerns mount worldwide about online censorship.

Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), alongside Elon Musk’s U.S.-based social media platform “X”, will challenge the Australian authorities’ decision to censor an online post criticizing gender ideology across Australia.

The case demonstrates the tangible reality of global censorship concerns raised repeatedly by Vice-President J.D. Vance, both at a Munich Security Conference in February and in a press conference with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Speaking about free speech restrictions in the context of the UK, Vance said:

“We also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens.”

Speaking recently in Paris, Vance added that while “we want to ensure the internet is a safe place”, restrictions on online content should focus on protecting children from predatory abuse, rather than preventing “a grown man or woman from accessing an opinion that the government thinks is misinformation.”

The actions of the eSafety Commissioner demonstrate a concerning rise in censorship in the digital age – where bureaucracies can subjectively interpret which speech is deemed “offensive” or “wrong”, leading to the curtailment of free speech rights.

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which is backing Elston’s legal defence, said:

“The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronizing affront to the principles of democracy.

“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis.

“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”

Chris Elston, a.k.a “Billboard Chris”, commented:

“My case is an example of the free speech crisis here in Australia and across the West. More and more, the public is waking up to the fact that puberty blockers are a form of child abuse. Gender ideology can only thrive under censorship – when we are deprived of shining a light on the madness.”

THE CASE: Freedom of online speech in the balance

On 28 February 2024, Elston took to “X” to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED”.

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the appointment of Australian transgender activist Teddy Cook to a World Health Organization “panel of experts” set to advise on global transgender policy.

Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commissioner, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne.

Billboard Chris, with the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside Elon Musk’s “X”, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions. 

The case will be heard in Melbourne for five days on the week beginning March 31st.

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here. 

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

The Finnish Line: The Supreme Case of Päivi Räsänen After 6 Years

Päivi Räsänen’s case has been ongoing for 6 years. Now her fate rests at the Finnish Supreme Court

A Nation Watches as One of Its Most Respected Leaders Goes to the Supreme Court for Speaking Her Faith

Päivi Räsänen’s case has been ongoing for 6 years. Now her fate rests at the Finnish Supreme Court

The case of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen is more than a legal battle; it’s a test of Europe’s commitment to democratic values.

As one of Finland’s most respected politicians, Päivi now faces the Finnish Supreme Court for peacefully expressing her Christian beliefs online.

Her story is a powerful reminder of what it means to be a Christian in today’s pervasive culture of censorship. It also demonstrates unwavering faith in the face of prosecution and punishment for so-called “hate speech”.

ADF International is proud to stand alongside Päivi as her legal ordeal reaches its 6th year.

A Life of Conviction

Päivi was still a very young girl when her parents decided she could go to the church in their small village of Konnunsuo, just inside the Finnish border from Russia. It’s a region known for hundreds of beautiful lakes and one less beautiful prison, where Päivi’s father worked, tending the gardens. While he and his wife were not Christians, they respected the faith and didn’t feel it would do little Päivi any harm to learn a bit of the Bible.

Time would prove them both wrong and right about that, but as a child, Päivi was fascinated with the things she learned in those Sunday morning classes.

“It was very, very affecting and important for me,” she remembers, nearly six decades later. “I was about 5 or 6 years old, and I remember well, even at that age, those talks the teachers shared with us about Jesus.”

Biblical concepts like grace and sin, salvation and judgment, she says, “were so concrete. Even as a small child, you have to think about these issues. And I remember praying that I would have my sins forgiven, and that Jesus would come into my life.”

How seriously Päivi took her new conversion became clear shortly afterward, when the prison warden came riding along the road by her family’s house on his bicycle. She urgently waved for him to stop. He did, looking down into her big, earnest, little-girl eyes to ask what was wrong.

“Do you love Jesus?” she asked. “You can’t get to heaven if you do not know Him.”

Embarrassed, the warden looked around and saw Päivi’s mother, standing nearby. “You should take your baby out of that Sunday school today!” he yelled. “Before she loses her mind!”

If her mother was concerned about her husband’s boss’s opinion, she didn’t show it. Päivi stayed in Sunday school. But it was by no means the last time Päivi spoke up for her faith. Or drew sharp opposition for doing so.

The Start of Päivi’s Career

Although she went to the University of Helsinki to study medicine, Päivi spent at least as much time there sharing her faith. For five years, she led a student missionary group in weekly door-to-door visits around campus, drawing other young people into discussions about moral values and cheerfully engaging them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“It was an important time in my life,” she remembers, “an important schooling. Every week, I was discussing quite difficult issues with students from different backgrounds and areas of study. I had to think very thoroughly about how my faith stands — how the Bible stands — in the face of these difficult questions. I learned to discuss ideas. I learned to debate.”

Her extracurricular evangelism also changed her life in another way. Twice during those years, Päivi joined other Christian students from all over Finland on mission trips to London, led by a tall, smiling young man named Niilo Räsänen.

He and Päivi took a shine to each other, began to date, and soon were married. They went on to raise four daughters and a son, as Niilo became a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church and head of one of the denomination’s seminaries.

Päivi, meanwhile, went into general practice medicine. She quickly developed a reputation as both an excellent doctor and a thoughtful, outspoken defender of life.

“I had decided already during my studies that I would not end the life of a child in the womb,” she says. In her spare time, she wrote books and pamphlets on the subject. That led to television and radio appearances, where she drew on those debate skills she’d honed back in college. Her strong, winsome arguments began to attract wide attention. People asked if she was interested in standing for office — perhaps campaigning for a seat in Parliament.

“At first I refused,” she says. “I thought it was not my place.” But people continued to urge her to run … and one of those urging was her husband.

“Actually, I think I was the first,” Niilo says. “But she wasn’t interested.” One day, though, he drove her through Helsinki, past the building where Parliament met. He pointed at the building. “Look at your future workplace,” he told her.

The 1990s brought a severe economic recession to Finland. Päivi’s patients were hit hard by what was happening and often poured out their worries to her.

“I could see a lot of problems in people’s lives,” she says — problems born of what was happening in her country’s politics and culture. “I thought I would like to try and influence the society and improve the welfare of the people. To not only give them medicine, but to try to heal the consequences of these problems.”

A person in Parliament could do that, she decided. The next time someone suggested she stand for office, Päivi was ready. “I answered, ‘Yes.’”

Päivi as a Parliamentarian

Päivi Räsänen has served continually in the Finnish Parliament since 1995. For 11 of those years, she acted as chairman of the Christian Democrats, a party she chose for its support of her Christian values and unswerving opposition to abortion. For four years, she also served as her nation’s minister of the interior, overseeing internal national security and migration issues.

Päivi reading her Bible at parliament

“I have felt, very deeply, that this has been my calling,” she says. “I’ve been happy to have the opportunity to influence our society, our country, and to try to make better living conditions for people, especially families and children and the elderly.

“In some ways, it is very similar to working as a doctor. People come to you to talk about their problems, and then you try to find some solution. That’s been my work in Parliament.” She’s learned, she says, that “politics is one way to show love to your neighbour.”

You might think that attitude would have enhanced Päivi’s interactions with Finland’s religious leaders — “church affairs” was another aspect of her responsibilities as minister of the interior, and her work brought her into contact with most of the prominent clerics of her country.

Still, even knowing these leaders so well, she was stunned to learn, in the summer of 2019, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland — her own denomination and the one in which her husband served as a pastor — had pledged its full support for an upcoming Helsinki Pride event.

“I knew that our church at that time was already quite divided,” Päivi says, “and there was a lot of progressive liberal thinking among our pastors.” Still, “that the whole church leadership had decided to support the event, publicly and financially, was a strong disappointment to me — and to many other Christians.”

Many friends confided to her their intention to resign from the church. Päivi seriously considered joining them. “I was praying, ‘What should I do now? Should I leave the church, too?’”

The Tweet That Sparked a Trial

But, on her knees, her Bible open before her, “I received a very clear vision,” Päivi says, “that now was not my time to jump out of this sinking boat — that I should try to wake people up. I was especially worried about our young people losing their trust in the Bible, with the leadership of the church teaching something so much against what the Bible teaches.”

“What the Bible teaches.” After a moment, she reached for her cell phone, turned to Romans 1:24-27, and snapped a photo. She pulled up her X (formerly Twitter) account, attached the picture, called it to the attention of the Evangelical Lutheran leadership, and added one simple question:

“How does the doctrine of the church, the Bible, fit together with the fact that shame and sin are raised as a matter of pride?”

She pressed “Tweet.”

And her life changed, forever.

Explain this word, 'sin', she was asked.

Päivi’s communique thoroughly rocked “the boat” and woke up everyone in it. Including Päivi.

A few weeks after she had posted the tweet, she opened a newspaper and read — to her astonishment — that local police had received a complaint about her message and were investigating. Their evidence would determine whether the nation’s chief prosecutor would bring her to trial for her beliefs.

“At first, I didn’t believe it,” Päivi says. “I thought, ‘No, no, this must be from a summer intern who doesn’t know what he’s saying.’” But a call to her local precinct confirmed that officers were indeed looking into the matter. When could she come in and speak with them?

Over the next few months, Päivi would be required to sit for a total of 13 hours of police interrogation.

“It was an absurd situation,” she remembers, “sitting there in a small room in the station, being interrogated about my Christian beliefs.” The policeman asking questions kept an open Bible on the table between them. He pointed at it as he probed her theology: “What is Romans about?” “Tell me about the first chapter.” “Walk me through Genesis.” “Explain this word, ‘sin.’”

Päivi found the whole thing almost laughable. “Just a few years before, I was the [cabinet] minister in charge of police, and now I was sitting here, being interrogated.” But the people of Finland understood what was happening: one of the most well-known political figures in their country was being detained at police headquarters for quoting Scripture to bishops.

“Someone joked on social media that maybe we were going to have Bible studies at the police station,” Päivi says, smiling. “But … these discussions were very good. I had the opportunity to [share with] that policeman very thoroughly the teachings of the Bible, from Genesis to the message of the Gospel … because he asked me to.

“Do you really want to hear this?” she asked him. “Because this has been such an important book to me. When I read it, I understand the message of the Gospel: that Jesus has died for my sins.”

“It was lovely,” she says, smiling, “telling that to the policeman.”

She left an impression. “If it were up to me,” he told her, after their last discussion, “you wouldn’t be sitting here. I hope we don’t have to meet like this again.”

Charged With “Hate Speech”

They didn’t. But Päivi had to wait more than a year to learn that the Finnish prosecutor general was formally charging her with three counts of “agitation against a minority group” — one, for publicly voicing her opinion on marriage and human sexuality in a 2004 pamphlet distributed at her church; two, for comments she made on the same topics on a 2019 radio show; and three, for the tweet directed at the leadership of her church.

Under Finland’s criminal code, “agitation against a minority group” falls under the section of “war crimes and crimes against humanity” punishable by tens of thousands of dollars in fines — and up to two years in prison.

Päivi knows better than most the penalty for breaking this particular law. After all, she was a member of the Finnish Parliament when it unanimously adopted these changes to the country’s criminal code 13 years ago.

“In Finland, as in all European countries, you have a law that prohibits so-called ‘hate speech,’” says Elyssa Koren, legal communications director for ADF International. Like most such laws, she says, this one carries with it the possibility of criminal charges. That’s not all the laws have in common.

These laws are often presented, Koren says, as a way “to reduce social tensions, to curb hostility, to foster conditions of peace. It’s a very reductive way of looking at societal problems … the idea that if you have less ‘hate speech,’ you’ll have less hate.” Unfortunately, she says, the laws are also “vaguely worded, overly broad, and don’t define ‘hate.’”

“‘Hate,’ really, is just in the eye of the beholder,” she says. “And what happens is what we’ve seen with this case: people are prosecuted for perfectly peaceful expression in the name of preventing ‘hate.’” When the law was passed in the Finnish Parliament, “nobody was much aware what the consequences would be. Päivi’s case is the litmus test for how the law will be applied to religious speech.”

Päivi says she sees now that she and her colleagues underestimated the implications of the law they all voted for. Many serving with her in the Finnish Parliament, she says, believe that “if I were to be convicted, then we would have to change the law.

“I’m not the only one in Finland who has spoken and taught about these issues,” she says. “There are thousands and thousands of similar writings. If my writings are banned, then [many] sermons and interviews and writings would be in danger. If I were convicted, it really would start a time of persecution among Christians.”

Which, unfortunately, seems to be the idea.

“‘Hate,’ really, is just in the eye of the beholder.”

Päivi Räsänen

Faith Under Fire

Päivi and her co-defendant — Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who is charged with publishing the 2004 pamphlet on marriage and sexuality Päivi shared with her church — were stunned when the prosecutor opened her case against them by showing Bible verses on a courtroom screen. Her ignorance of Christian theology was palpable, and she made no secret of her determination to see Päivi and Bishop Pohjola punished for views so contrary to contemporary secular morality.

“It’s become clear,” Koren says, “that they are not prosecuting Päivi Räsänen … they’re really prosecuting the Bible and Christian beliefs at a very high level. What’s at stake is the fundamental question of whether people — particularly people in the public eye — have the freedom to voice their Christian convictions in the public space.”

“What the prosecutor essentially is calling for,” says Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, “is the criminalization of the orthodox Christian position on fundamental Christian doctrine regarding marriage, sexuality, sin, and so forth. It’s shocking to see such brazen anti-Christian legal argumentation within a criminal context.”

Even more unsettling, Coleman says, is the fact that “there’s nothing unique about the situation in Finland. It doesn’t have worse law than anywhere else. It has a better legal system than most places. If this can happen in Finland, it can happen in any Western country.”

In fact, he says, “the same censorial sentiments exist in the U.S. — at all heights of power. On almost every college campus. In all of the major companies, particularly Big Tech. They exist in much of the U.S. political system and in the mindset of many law professors.

That line — between what we’re seeing take place in Finlans and what could very soon happen in the U.S. — is far smaller than most people realize. Or want to admit.”

A Ruling Due Before the Supreme Court

In March 2022, the Helsinki District Court unanimously acquitted Päivi and Bishop Pohjola of all charges, saying, “It is not for the district court to interpret biblical concepts.” A month later, the prosecutor appealed that ruling — something she is allowed to do under Finnish law. In November 2023, the Helsinki Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s acquittal.

The prosecutor then appealed both decisions to the Finnish Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case.

What the prosecution has secured, Koren says, “is another year or two during which Päivi is still under this pressure. Her reputation and her integrity as a civil servant are clouded by the fact that she continues to be criminally prosecuted for her peaceful expression.”

Still, Niilo says, “We don’t worry. Whatever happens, we will take it as God’s will and see what comes next.”

Paivi and Paul

“It’s remarkable,” Päivi says, “how God uses this.” From the beginning, she says, “I had a deep, deep feeling this was in God’s hands, that He was opening a door. There’ve been so many opportunities to testify about Jesus … before these courts, in front of police officers, even to those who vehemently disagree with me. It’s given me a lot of joy.

“I’ve received messages from people who’ve told me that, as they’ve followed the trials and listened to my interviews, they’ve started to read the Bible and pray. They’ve found Christ.

“I got a call from a 22-year-old man who told me that he knew almost nothing about Christianity but was listening to a radio interview where I said, ‘If you want to know Jesus, you can pray, He will come into your life.’ He has been a Christian now for over two years. Jesus came into his life.”

As a lawyer who feels called to defend freedom of religion and speech,” Coleman says, “it’s been the great privilege of my career to be [able] to support and defend Päivi. I’m not exaggerating by saying she is, ultimately, the reason why we exist.

“She’s tough. Really tough. Yet … always smiling, always kind. Over the past five years, I’ve sat through two trials with her, sat around her kitchen table, seen her in every context in between. She’s just such an unbelievably authentic person. The same in every context, whether being cross-examined for her faith, or hosting us for dinner after the hearing.”

During one hearing, Coleman says, “the prosecutor — who, bear in mind, has said horrible things about her and wants to put her in jail — was visibly unwell. And, at one of the breaks, Päivi just went over to sit with her, ask how she was doing, connect with her on a human level.

“She wasn’t doing it for the cameras,” he says. “No one saw it. But I thought, ‘What a remarkable person this is.’ It’s just such a privilege to be called as a ministry to stand alongside her and say, ‘We’ve got your back.’”

“I have received much more during this legal process than I have lost,” Päivi says. “When I was young, I read from those texts where Jesus says that, when they take you in front of courts and kings, you’ll be His witness, and He will provide what to say. I could never have believed I would ever be in this kind of situation. But I think it’s increased my trust in God.

“What I’ve found is that what God has promised, He is faithful [to do]. He really works as He has said. Jesus is alive, and He stands by His word. And He is good.”

Conclusion: The Assault on Freedom of Expression

At the heart of Päivi’s case is a growing trend across Europe: the weaponization of vague and subjective “hate speech” laws to suppress peaceful expression. The implications of this case extend far beyond Finland. What does this mean for ordinary European citizens if a respected parliamentarian can be prosecuted for a tweet?

International law, and that of Finland, guarantees freedom of speech and religion, yet cases like Päivi’s show how these rights are increasingly being violated or reinterpreted to serve ideological ends. If she were to be convicted, it would mark a dangerous shift towards state control over individual freedoms.

The principle at stake is not whether one agrees with Päivi’s beliefs. It’s whether a European democracy can still allow space for diverse opinions in the public square. Once the state decides which views are acceptable and which are not, the door opens to widespread censorship.

Europe’s commitment to democracy demands better. The Finnish Supreme Court now has a decision to make, and the world is watching. Time will tell, but one thing is certain: Päivi Räsänen will not be silenced.

ADF International is honoured to stand by her side, just as we’ve done for the last six years.

Mexican Government Ignores Inquiry from International Human Rights Body Into Politician Censored and Convicted for Twitter/X posts on Gender

Mexican Congressman Gabriel Quadri.
  • Former Mexican congressman and presidential candidate Gabriel Quadri was convicted as a “political violator against women” for Twitter/X posts on gender. 
  • ADF International represents Quadri before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Mexico has failed to respond, prompting expedited consideration before the body. 

WASHINGTON, DC (18 February 2025) Gabriel Quadri, a former congressman and presidential candidate from Mexico, was convicted in May 2022 as a “political violator against women” for posts on Twitter/X expressing concerns about gender ideology. Specifically, Quadri commented that it was unfair for men who identify as women to take spaces in Mexico’s Congress reserved for women. 

The highest electoral court in Mexico ruled that Quadri’s posts were discriminatory and ordered him to delete his posts, issue a compelled public apology, and be registered as a gender-based political violator—censorship measures that infringed on his civil and political rights as a Mexican citizen and breach his human right to free speech. 

Quadri appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with the legal support of ADF International, demanding that the Mexican state be held accountable for violating his freedom of expression. In March of last year, the Mexican government was prompted to respond to the case. Failing to do so, the Commission has announced that Quadri’s case will be moving forward without Mexico’s response.  

“Mexico’s failure to respond to Gabriel Quadri’s case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights evinces a clear disregard for the basic human right to free speech. We are pleased that his case nevertheless will progress, and are hopeful that Mexico will be held accountable for its obvious human rights violations,” stated Julio Pohl, legal counsel for ADF International. 

“The Mexican government has seriously violated Quadri’s free expression rights, and it’s time for the Commission to act decisively for justice in his case and in defense of the free speech rights of all Mexicans.” 

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

“Gender based political violence” conviction  

Mexico has in place a law requiring equal representation of men and women in Congress. Quadri’s Twitter/X posts made the point that it is unjust for males to take advantage of the law to gain access to political positions designated for women.   

On February 8, 2022, Quadri posted on Twitter/X: “We should legislate to prevent that men that make themselves pass as women compete unfairly against women in organized sports, and that they do not usurp the political electoral positions that belong to women…”   

On February 16, 2022, he posted: “Let it be clear. In the House of Representatives of the 65th Legislature there is no parity between men and women. There are 252 men and 248 women, thanks to trans ideology and/or gender ideology. Men enter through the back door to (once again) displace women…”   

Salma Luévano, a MORENA then-member of Congress who identifies as a transgender woman, filed a complaint regarding the posts before the National Electoral Institute resulting in Quadri’s conviction. Luévano gained notoriety for fomenting unrest within Mexico’s Congress, including an incident where the president of the chamber was physically wrestled from his chair amidst calls to expel Quadri from the chamber.   

The Court ordered the following punitive measures following Quadri’s conviction: requirements to (i) delete the tweets, (ii) issue a public apology drafted by the Court and post a summary of the ruling on Twitter/X for 15 days, at two set times per day, (iii) complete two courses on gender-based violence and transgender violence, and (iv) be listed as a “gender-based political violator” on a national registry for two years and nine months.   

With the exhaustion of domestic remedies, ADF International petitioned the Inter-American Commission for justice for Quadri in December 2022. In January 2024, more than a year from the filing, the Commission called on the government of Mexico to respond. Now in 2025, after a failure by the Mexican government to respond, the case is moving forward within the Commission. 

Former Mexican Congressman Rodrigo Iván Cortés also was convicted for “gender based political violence” for social media posts. His case is pending before the Commission.     

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

As Rumble Returns to Brazil, International Free Speech Expert Investigates Brazilian Censorship Crisis with Visit

Brazil censorship
  • Rumble returns to Brazil just before Special Rapporteur for Free Expression meets with Brazilian lawmakers to investigate Brazil’s free speech violations.  
  • ADF International is representing five Brazilian lawmakers before the Inter-American Commission, asking the body to hold Brazil accountable for egregious censorship. 

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

BRAZIL (17 FEBRUARY 2025): The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur for Free Expression, Pedro Vaca, conducted an official visit to Brazil this week to investigate ongoing free speech violations by Brazilian authorities. The investigation follows multiple filings with the Commission as a result of escalating state censorship in the country, dating back to 2019, reaching a head in September with the suspension of X (Twitter). 

Vaca met with Brazilian lawmakers, whose censorship case is represented by ADF International before the Inter-American Commission. His visit follows the return of Rumble, a free speech video platform, to Brazil on February 9th. The platform had withdrawn its services in the country due to censorship demands.  

Julio Pohl, legal counsel for ADF International, stated:  

“Every Brazilian has the human right to free speech, but the fact is that millions of Brazilians have been subjected to unlawful censorship. The Special Rapporteur’s visit to Brazil signals that Brazil’s egregious human rights violations have not gone unnoticed. While the return of Rumble is an excellent step, there is significant work to be done. Censorship has no place in a free society, and it’s time for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to exercise its authority to hold Brazil accountable for the clampdown on free speech.” 

Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil and one of the legislators who filed the petition, commented:   

“We must continue to push back against censorship in our country, and put a stop to those who are abusing their power. What we have seen time and again in Brazil is an egregious silencing of political voices, citizens, journalists, or anyone who might share different viewpoints from Judge Alexandre de Moraes, President Lula da Silva, or others in control. We can’t afford to lose Brazil to authoritarianism, and I am grateful to the Special Rapporteur for taking an urgent look at this crisis. These attempts to silence and censor cannot be allowed to stand.” 

Brazilian lawmakers and freedom of speech advocates

Left to right: Senator Eduardo Girao, Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Ricardo Salles and Gilson Marques.

The Commission has jurisdiction over Brazil as a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights. The American Convention robustly protects freedom of speech. 

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

European Politicians Call for Social Media Censorship and Attack X and Meta’s Free Speech Policies as ‘Threat to Democracy’

  • X-owner Elon Musk accused of being in ‘conspiracy’ with ‘populists and the far right’ during debate at the Council of Europe

  • UK Labour MP called out by MEP for criticising Mr Musk and Meta’s free speech policy and for voicing ‘support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots’

  • ADF International executive director Paul Coleman: ‘We are living in a new bipolar order of speech’ between Europe and USA

STRASBOURG (1 February 2025) – European politicians on Thursday called for social media censorship to “protect democracy” and criticised X and Meta’s free speech policies during a debate at the Council of Europe.

Politicians at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called for censorship, in the form of tackling so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech” online, and voted in favour of a report on social media content regulation.

This follows the European Union last week doubling down on online censorship through the Digital Services Act (DSA), with the same justification of “protecting democracy”.

During Thursday night’s debate, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were singled out as threatening democracy with their free speech policies.

Belgian politician Christophe Lacroix said: “Why is Elon Musk in the US government?… There is a conspiracy, in any case a conjunction of interests between populists and the far right and the billionaire owners of social networks to effectively interfere in the electoral process.”

UK Labour MP Cat Eccles said Mr Musk’s “rise of influence” was “something we should all be worried about” and criticised Meta for its new free speech policy, which she characterised as “abandoning fact checking”.

She also indicated support for the notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during Britain’s riots last summer, saying: “While we must value freedom of expression, we must remember that it does not protect individuals from the consequences of their actions. In the UK we saw this play out recently with the horrendous Southport murders last summer and subsequent riots, with people arrested and charged for inciting hatred and violence on all sides.”

French politician Sandra Regol said free speech online posed a threat to “our democracy” and “diversity”.

She said: “We’ve heard a lot about freedom of expression. It’s supposed to be the guarantor of this diversity, it’s supposed to be the guarantor of our democracies and, in a crazy, absolute reversal of values, it’s now the tool that’s destroying this diversity.”

Three amendments were proposed in Thursday’s debate to preserve freedom of expression and they were all rejected.

But an amendment to the report calling for collaborating “with journalists and fact-checking organisations to effectively combat disinformation” was adopted by two-thirds majority.

This puts Europe further at odds with the US regarding free speech, after President Trump last week signed an executive order to end federal government censorship. 

Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser said:

“Free speech is under serious threat in Europe. It was deeply concerning to see politicians at the Council of Europe calling for online censorship in the name of ‘protecting democracy’.

“Democracy is impossible without free speech, but for some reason, too many politicians, including from the UK, can’t seem to grasp this.

“Labour MP Cat Eccles voiced support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots in the country.

“European politicians should consider how their support for censorship and their attacks on the free speech policies of American citizens Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg’s platforms will affect our relationship with our vital ally the United States.

“The US has made its commitment to free speech clear and US Vice President JD Vance already threatened last year to withdraw US support for NATO if the EU censors X.

“For the sake of truly preserving European democracy and also good relations with America, all attempts to impose censorship in Europe, including through the Digital Services Act, must end.”

Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, a global organisation dedicated to protecting fundamental freedoms, including at the European institutions, stated:

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage.

“This will usher in an unprecedented era of tension within the West itself over this most basic of human rights, and it is the responsibility of all who value freedom to side with the protection of free speech.”

EU doubled down on social media censorship with DSA last week

Last week, the European Commissioner in charge of enforcing the DSA, Henna Virkkunen, announced a number of measures to further crack down on speech, including doubling the number of staff working on enforcement from 100 to 200 by the end of 2025.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full force in February 2024, is an EU regulation that aims to tackle “misinformation”, “disinformation”, and “hate speech” online.

By requiring the removal of so-called “illegal content” on social media platforms, it censors free speech both within and outside the EU and could even affect the speech of US citizens online.

On the DSA, Mr Coleman commented:

“Last week, the European Commission made clear that it will be increasing its efforts to suppress speech, arguing that the Digital Services Act is needed to ‘protect democracy’ from so-called ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ online.

“As we saw clearly from Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk this summer, warning him not to breach the DSA ahead of his interview with Donald Trump, the DSA will be used to censor views disfavoured by those in power.

“The DSA poses a grave threat to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, guaranteed to every person under international law. It is not the place of any authority to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on the rest of society.

“The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens across the world, as social media companies could regulate their content globally to comply with European standards.”

Other measures announced by Commissioner Virkkunen included making a previously voluntary code of conduct on “illegal hate speech online” legally binding and advancing a framework called the European Democracy Shield (EDS).

The EDS uses fact checkers and NGOs to combat so-called “foreign information manipulation, interference, and disinformation”.

Under the DSA, social media platforms can face massive fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for failing to remove so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech”.

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

Facebook’s Commitment to Winding Back Censorship

Zuckerberg announces censorship windbacks

Practice what you preach, allow free speech

Zuckerberg announces censorship windbacks

After we – and many other free speech groups – spent years sounding the alarm on the suppression of open conversation online, Mark Zuckerberg has this week committed to winding back censorship across all Meta platforms – including Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.

In a monumental announcement, the CEO admitted that the third-party “fact-checkers” employed to moderate content on Meta were “too politically biased”, and that it’s “time to get back to our roots around freedom of expression.”

This isn’t just good news for Instagrammers and influencers. It marks a sea change in the public landscape, indicating an expectation that our right to free speech will be honoured—whether on or offline.

We can celebrate this important milestone and will be watching closely to see if Zuckerberg follows through on his promises. But at ADF International, we’re still keenly aware that the threat to free speech comes not only from privately run internet platforms but also from governments.

Our Cases of Online Censorship

Take Päivi Räsänen. This Finnish member of parliament will soon be heading to a criminal trial at the Supreme Court because of a Bible-verse tweet she posted in 2019. It wasn’t a social media platform that censored her Christian view—it was the state authorities. The case is due before the Finnish Supreme Court this year.

Or take Chris Elston, a.k.a viral internet sensation Billboard Chris. Last February, he posted about his disapproval of the WHO’s selection of an infamous transgender activist to be on a panel setting guidelines for global transgender policy.

It wasn’t a social media platform that decided that his opinion shouldn’t be heard—it was the Australian authorities. We’re supporting his fight for free speech as he goes to court in March, alongside “X,” who wants to be able to host his viewpoint without government interference.

It’s easy to become discouraged as we live through an era where speaking the truth can land you in legal trouble. But this week, we mark yet another clear indication that we’re moving the needle in the right direction.

Brazilian legislators challenge unlawful state censorship at international body

Brazilian lawmakers and freedom of speech advocates
  • Senator Eduardo Girao & Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques & Ricardo Salles claim violations of their free speech rights following persistent state censorship in Brazil, including 39-day ban on X (Twitter) ahead of elections. 
  • ADF International, representing legislators before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, petitions international body to condemn Brazilian censorship and uphold free speech.  
Brazilian lawmakers and freedom of speech advocates

Left to right: Senator Eduardo Girao, Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Ricardo Salles and Gilson Marques.

WASHINGTON, DC (20 December 2024) In light of the ongoing state-driven censorship crisis in Brazil, five Brazilian legislators, including Senator Eduardo Girao and members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques, and Ricardo Salles, are challenging the violations of their free speech rights before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, represented by ADF International.  

The Commission has jurisdiction over Brazil as a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights. The American Convention robustly protects freedom of speech, including prohibitions on prior restraint (censoring expression before it has occurred) and special protections for political speech. Article 13 protects the “right to freedom of thought and expression” which includes “the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds… through any other medium of one’s choice… The exercise of the right…shall not be subject to prior censorship… [and] may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls … or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.” 

The legislators claim violations of their rights under the Convention, including their freedom of expression and the equal protection of the law, as a result of escalating state censorship, dating back to 2019, which recently reached a head with the X (formerly known as “Twitter”) ban.  

In their legal challenge now filed with the Commission, the legislators note that state-sponsored censorship, including the 39-day ban of X, is “disproportionate and of dubious legal basis” and “has affected the conventional rights of the Victims in a direct, particular, and serious way.” 

The petition goes on to say that the country’s X blockade “violated the rights of more than twenty million people in Brazil who are users of the platform, having prevented them from accessing the dissemination and reception of information during that time.” 

Julio Pohl, ADF International’s lead legal counsel on the case, stated: “The world watched as Brazilian authorities blatantly clamped down on the free speech rights of over 20 million Brazilians by shutting down X ahead of the national elections. While the ban was eventually lifted, the fact remains that millions of Brazilians, including the five legislators now taking their case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, were subjected to unlawful censorship during a critical time in their country. Censorship has no place in a free society, and it’s time for the Commission to intervene and condemn the vast and ongoing violations of free speech being perpetrated by Brazilian authorities.” 

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

Julio Pohl & Marcel van Hattem

Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil and one of the legislators who filed the petition, commented:  

“What we have seen time and again in Brazil is an egregious silencing of political voices, citizens, journalists, or anyone else who might share different viewpoints from Judge Alexandre de Moraes or others in control. This is a major violation of all Brazilians’ free speech and expression rights. We can’t afford to lose Brazil to authoritarianism, which is why I am taking my case to the international level with the help of ADF International. These attempts to silence and censor cannot be allowed to stand.”  

Eduardo Girao, Senator for Brazil and party to the petition, stated:  

“Brazil is facing a very serious censorship problem. While our constitution protects our rights to speak and express ourselves freely as citizens of Brazil, Brazilians throughout the country are afraid to share their beliefs for fear of persecution and punishment. We must push back against censorship in our country, and it is my hope that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will fulfill its obligation to condemn the human rights violations that are taking place in our country.”  

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

Julio Pohl & Eduardo Girao

State-sponsored censorship 

Censorship in Brazil has been a persistent and escalating problem in Brazil since 2019. The state has targeted conservative voices, including blocking pro-life messages during the 2022 election campaign, which contained views contrary to the pro-abortion position held by then-candidate Lula da Silva.   

On 30 August 2024, Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts which it had singled out for censorship.  The ban was in effect for 39 days. 

ADF International petitioned the Commission to urgently intervene, stating, “The blocking of X in the country is symptomatic of an endemic problem…it has dragged on for more than six years and has caused real damage to Brazilian democracy, producing a chilling effect on the majority of the population who, according to recent surveys, are afraid to express their opinions in public.” 

Elon Musk thanked ADF International for its intervention.  

In September, over 100 global free speech advocates – including former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, journalist Michael Shellenberger, five US Attorneys General and Senior UK, US, European and Latin American politicians and professors united in an open letter to call for free speech to be restored in Brazil. 

Even with the lifting of the X ban, the state of censorship in Brazil remains severe. 

Left to right: ADF International legal counsel Julio Pohl, Chamber of Deputies member Marcel van Hattem, Senator Eduardo Girao, & ADF International Director of Advocacy for Latin America, Tomás Henríquez

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