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“The DSA threatens free speech across the world and must be repealed.”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

EU doubles down on social media censorship that ‘will not be confined to Europe’ following concerns about Musk’s free speech policy on X

  • Members of the European Parliament debated controversial Digital Services Act on Tuesday, which censors free speech both within and outside the EU, and could affect America
  • EU’s censorship stance in marked contrast with US, where President Trump this week signed Executive Order to end government censorship

STRASBOURG (24 January) – The European Union this week doubled down on social media censorship to “protect democracy” from “foreign interference”, following concerns about Elon Musk’s free speech policy on X.

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.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) debated enforcement of the controversial act on Tuesday. 

MEP Iratxe García, leader of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, commented:

“In recent months, we have seen how Elon Musk and his social network X have become the main promoter for the far right by supporting Donald Trump and Alice Weidel’s AfD party through fake news and hate messages.

“We have also witnessed Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to remove fact-checking programs on Meta as an act of complicity with lies and manipulation… We must ensure the effective application of our rules and we must sanction those who break the rules.”

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. 

“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."

- Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International

This puts the EU’s online free speech stance in stark opposition to that of the US, following President Trump this week signing an Executive Order to end government censorship.

Although Virkkunen claimed the DSA “does not censor content”, MEPs from across the political spectrum voiced well-founded concerns that, in fact, it does.

Hungarian MEP Schaller-Baross Ernő said:

“Let’s call a spade a spade! In its current form, the DSA can also serve as a tool for political censorship…

“I’m afraid that in Europe the left… is not learning again. But this DSA must be abolished in this form. We don’t need more officials in Europe who censor…

“Freedom of expression and equal conditions must be ensured. This is the foundation of our democracy. Let’s say no to political censorship!”

Polish MEP Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik said:

“For you, democracy is when people think, write and speak directly and say what you tell them to with your leftist way of thinking.

“Right-wing and conservative views are ‘thought crime’ and today’s debate should be called ‘The need to strengthen censorship to protect the trough of those who govern the European Union’.”

In addition to institutionalising censorship, the DSA also lays the ground for shadow banning, which was highlighted in this week’s debate.

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

“On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order to end the weaponisation of the US government to promote censorship.

“On Tuesday, 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.

“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.

“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 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.”

US Response to DSA

In response to former Commissioner Thierry Breton’s letter to Musk this summer, Congressman Jim Jordan, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee, wrote a strongly worded letter to Mr Breton.

In it, he said:

“We write to reiterate our position that the EU’s burdensome regulation of online speech must not infringe on protected American speech…

“Your threats against free speech do not occur in a vacuum, and the consequences are not limited to Europe. The harms caused by EU-imposed censorship spill across international borders, as many platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally.

“Thus, the EU’s regulatory censorship regime may limit what content Americans can view in the United States. American companies also have an enormous incentive to comply with the DSA and public threats from EU commissioners like you.”

Increasing Censorship Efforts

Other measures announced by Virkkunen this week include 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”.

Anyone, be it an individual or an entity, can flag content they believe to be illegal.

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”.

The concept of “hate speech” has no basis in international human rights law.

Because of their loose and vague nature, prohibitions on “hate speech” rely on the subjective perception of offended parties rather than objective harm.

Further, the definition of “hate speech” is not harmonised at the EU level, meaning that what is deemed illegal in one country may not be in another.

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