One hundred experts write to European Commission warning EU legislation risks censoring global speech

  • Letter calls on Commission to consult free speech experts as part of review into censorial Digital Services Act (DSA)
  • Letter from free speech experts, which was coordinated by ADF International, comes after US Ambassador to EU and Google recently expressed concerns that DSA risks censoring American online speech

BRUSSELS (9 October 2025) – More than 100 free speech experts from around the world today wrote to the European Commission warning that an EU law risks censoring global speech online.

In a letter to the European Commission, the 113 experts, including a former VP of Yahoo Europe, a former US Senator, and politicians, academics, lawyers and journalists from around the globe, called on the Commission to consult free speech experts as part of its review into the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which will take place by 17 November.

The letter, which was coordinated by free speech legal advocacy organisation ADF International, states: “[The DSA] constructs a pan-European censorship infrastructure with loosely defined boundaries and the potential to suppress legitimate democratic discourse…

“The wide definition of illegal content allows the most speech-restrictive provisions of one single EU country to be imposed as a standard across the entire Union, and potentially worldwide, effectively importing the lowest common denominator of expression.”

The letter added: “The broad definition of ‘illegal content’ in the DSA, combined with existing jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) opens the door to worldwide takedowns.”

Signatories include ADF International Executive Director Paul Coleman, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom Kristen Waggoner, former Vice President of Yahoo Europe Jean-Marc Potdevin, former US Senator and former US Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback, Founder and General Secretary of the Free Speech Union Toby Young, former President of the American Civil Liberties Union Nadine Strossen, award-winning journalist and author Michael Shellenberger and Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Cross-party Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) also signed the letter, including ECR MEP Stephen Bartulica, EPP MEP Branko Grims, and Patriots MEP Virginie Joron, as well as McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University Robert P George, American philosopher and author Peter Boghossian, child protection advocate Chris Elston aka Billboard Chris and other experts from the UK, Europe, Latin America and the United States.

Read the full letter, see the full list of signatories and sign the public version of the letter here.

Opaque review process into DSA

The letter expresses concern over the European Commission’s opaque review process into the DSA and calls on the Commission to: “Conduct a comprehensive and inclusive consultation with independent experts in freedom of expression, constitutional law, and digital rights, ahead of the November review, inviting public comments.

“Publicly disclose the list of NGOs, civil society actors, and partner entities engaged in the review process, including the criteria and methodology used for their selection.

“Ensure that the review includes a rigorous legal analysis of the DSA’s compatibility with fundamental rights protections, especially under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Article 10 of the ECHR, and Article 19 of the ICCPR.”

Concerns from US Ambassador to the EU

The experts’ letter to the European Commission comes after the US Ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder last week expressed concern that the DSA risks censoring American citizens, and follows Google warning the DSA threatens American speech.

Ambassador Puzder last week said: “No President of either party, and I can tell you President Trump in particular, is going to tolerate a foreign government restricting the First Amendment fundamental free speech, free expression rights of American citizens, to an extent that the United States government can’t even regulate those rights.

“So we need to come to an understanding as to what’s happening with the Digital Services Act.”

Ambassador Puzder has also reportedly said the United States will make formal submissions under the European Commission’s review of its digital legislation.

The letter’s warning about the threat of global DSA censorship reinforces Ambassador Puzder’s and Google’s concerns.

 

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

“The European Commission claims the DSA will not censor speech and will merely create a safer online environment. In this letter, one hundred free speech experts vehemently disagree.

“The US Ambassador to the EU and Google recently expressed concern that the DSA threatens American online speech. This letter from experts reinforces these concerns and warns that the legislation threatens to impose an online censorship regime not just in the EU, but across the whole world.

“The Commission must urgently engage with these concerns in their review of the DSA, and act to ensure freedom of expression is protected online.”

 

French MEP and signatory of the letter Virginie Joron said:

“The French digital regulator ARCOM told me they believe the DSA allows them to censor any post anywhere in the world using the DSA. That means even an American citizen posting in Alabama could potentially have their online post taken down, even if the publication would be legal in the US.

“This already happened in 2023 after the Annecy terror attack in a playground in the South of France where a migrant from Syria stabbed four babies and toddlers. A reaction from a US citizen was taken down, as described in the report from the US Congress.”

As well as warning about the possibility of global takedown orders under the DSA, the letter also quotes the US House Judiciary Committee in highlighting another way the EU legislation risks censoring global online speech: “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.”

Read more about the DSA here.

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

(From left to right: Dr Adina Portaru, Brussels-based Senior Counsel, Europe for ADF International; French MEP Virginie Joron)

U.S. State Department: Arrest of Scottish Christian Grandmother is “Tyrannical”

  • Christian grandmother arrested a second time; criminally charged for holding a sign reading “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want” within 200m of a hospital
  • “The arrest of Rose Docherty is another egregious example of the tyrannical suppression of free speech happening across Europe”, warns U.S. State Department 

GLASGOW (29 September 2025) – The U.S. State Department has expressed concern over the arrest of 75-year-old Rose Docherty, as seen in a viral video over the weekend. 

The Glasgwegian grandmother has been criminally charged for holding a sign within 200m of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, reading: 

“Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.” 

In Scotland, “buffer zones” are enforced within 200m of every hospital, forbidding harassment, intimidation, and “influencing” of anyone seeking to access abortion services.  

"The United States will always speak out against these violations of fundamental rights."

- U.S. State Department Spokesperson

Responding to the arrest, the U.S. State Department told the Telegraph: 

“The arrest of Rose Docherty is another egregious example of the tyrannical suppression of free speech happening across Europe. 

“When 75-year-old grandmothers are being arrested for standing peacefully and offering conversation, common sense and basic civility are under attack. 

“The United States will always speak out against these violations of fundamental rights.” 

Despite only having offered consensual conversation and not having approached any individual, nor making any statement on abortion – Docherty has been charged with breaching the “buffer zone.” 

Reacting to her arrest, Rose Docherty said: 

“Everybody has the right to engage in consensual conversation. I held my sign with love and compassion, inviting anyone who wants to chat, to do so – and stood peacefully, not approaching anyone.  

“I should not be treated as a criminal for inviting people to chat with me – lending a listening ear. Conversation is not forbidden on the streets of Glasgow. And yet, this is the second time I have been arrested for doing just that.” 

In August, Scottish authorities dropped their case against Docherty for holding the same sign in the same place after a global outcry against the 75-year-old grandmother’s arrest, including concerns raised in an online post by the U.S. State Department. 

After her arrest this week, Docherty was held in custody for several hours. She was refused a chair to sit on in her cell, despite making it known that she had a double hip replacement. 

Docherty has been charged and released on bail. Stringent bail conditions prevent her from attending an area marked out to be wider than the initial “buffer zone” area, in a move the legal team at ADF International call “disproportionate”.  

Legal Counsel for ADF International, Lorcan Price commented: 

“It’s deeply concerning that Scottish policing resources are being ploughed into arresting and prosecuting a peaceful grandmother offering to speak to people in public, rather than focusing on the problems caused by real crime in Glasgow. 

“This is not a case about harassment, intimidation or violent protest – this is simply a grandmother, who held a sign offering to speak to anyone who would like to engage.” 

The law’s architect, Gillian Mackay MSP, admitted on BBC Scotland earlier this year that the vague prohibitions in the buffer zones law could criminalise someone for praying visibly from a window in their home within the zone, “depending on who’s passing by the window.” 

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance highlighted this law as a particular matter for concern in his Munich Security Conference speech in February of this year. 

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

Pictured: Rose Docherty, Lorcan Price (ADF International)

Glasgow Grandmother arrested AGAIN for offering conversations in abortion “buffer zone”

  • Christian grandmother arrested a second time; criminally charged for holding a sign reading “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want” within 200m of a hospital
  • Rose Docherty, aged 75, left without chair for two hours in a police cell – despite having two hip replacements 

GLASGOW (27 September 2025) – 75-year-old grandmother Rose Docherty has been arrested a second time and criminally charged for holding a sign within 200m of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, reading: 

“Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.” 

In Scotland, “buffer zones” are enforced within 200m of every hospital, forbidding harassment, intimidation, and “influencing” of anyone seeking to access abortion services.  

“I should not be treated as a criminal for inviting people to chat with me – lending a listening ear."

- Rose Docherty

Despite only having stood silently offering consensual conversation and not having approached any individual, Docherty has been charged with breaching the “buffer zone.” 

Reacting to her arrest, Rose Docherty said: 

“Everybody has the right to engage in consensual conversation. I held my sign with love and compassion, inviting anyone who wants to chat, to do so – and stood peacefully, not approaching anyone.  

“I should not be treated as a criminal for inviting people to chat with me – lending a listening ear. Conversation is not forbidden on the streets of Glasgow. And yet, this is the second time I have been arrested for doing just that.” 

In August, Scottish authorities dropped their case against Docherty for holding the same sign in the same place after a global outcry against the 75-year-old grandmother’s arrest, including concerns raised in an online post by the U.S. State Department. 

After her arrest this week, Docherty was held in custody for several hours. She was refused a chair to sit on in her cell, despite making it known that she had a double hip replacement. 

Docherty has been charged and released on bail. Stringent bail conditions prevent her from attending an area marked out to be wider than the initial “buffer zone” area, in a move the legal team at ADF International call “disproportionate”.  

Legal Counsel for ADF International, Lorcan Price commented: 

“It’s deeply concerning that Scottish policing resources are being ploughed into arresting and prosecuting a peaceful grandmother offering to speak to people in public, rather than focusing on the problems caused by real crime in Glasgow. 

“This is not a case about harassment, intimidation or violent protest – this is simply a grandmother, who held a sign offering to speak to anyone who would like to engage.” 

The law’s architect, Gillian Mackay MSP, admitted on BBC Scotland earlier this year that the vague prohibitions in the buffer zones law could criminalise someone for praying visibly from a window in their home within the zone, “depending on who’s passing by the window.” 

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance highlighted this law as a particular matter for concern in his Munich Security Conference speech in February of this year. 

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

Pictured: Rose Docherty, Lorcan Price (ADF International)

‘Hate Speech’ Case Over Bible Tweet Dragged Into 7th Year as Finnish Supreme Court Sets Hearing Date for 30th October 

Päivi reads her bible in the Finnish Parliament building.
  • Päivi Räsänen, former Finnish Minister of the Interior, faces third court hearing after two previous unanimous acquittals
  • Räsänen faces criminal charges for sharing her faith-based beliefs on marriage and sexuality, including on X in 2019
  • ADF International continues to coordinate Räsänen’s defence to protect everyone’s right to free speech   
Päivi reads her bible in the Finnish Parliament building.

HELSINKI (25 August 2025) – The Finnish Supreme Court has set the date for an oral hearing in the free speech case involving Finnish Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola. Both were previously unanimously acquitted of “hate speech” charges by two lower courts after publicly expressing their Christian beliefs. With the hearing scheduled for 30th October 2025, the state prosecutor’s censorship campaign against Räsänen and Pohjola will enter its seventh year. 

“It is shocking that after two unanimous acquittals, Päivi Räsänen is again being dragged to court to defend her fundamental right to freedom of speech. As we have warned for years, vaguely worded ‘hate speech’ laws allow ideological prosecutions like this to take place. We stand behind Päivi and we will continue to work toward the bigger victory when such ludicrous cases are no longer brought. In a free and democratic society, all should be allowed to share their beliefs without fear of punishment.

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International and part of Räsänen’s legal defence team

Charged for sharing Christan beliefs 

Räsänen, who is a medical doctor, Finland’s former Interior Minister, and a parliamentarian since 1995, was formally charged with “agitation against a minority group” in 2021. She was charged under a section of the Finnish criminal code titled “war crimes and crimes against humanity” for sharing her Christian beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics in a 2019 tweet, as well as a 2019 live radio debate and 2004 church pamphlet. Bishop Pohjola was charged for publishing Räsänen’s 2004 pamphlet.   

The high-profile lower court trials received significant global attention, particularly after the prosecution attacked core Christian teachings and cross-examined Räsänen and the Bishop on their theology in the court hearings.  

“It isn’t a crime to tweet a Bible verse, or to engage in public discourse from a Christian perspective. The attempts to criminalize me for expressing my beliefs have resulted in an immensely trying last few years, but I still hope for a positive result that will stand as a key precedent to protect the human right to free speech in Finland,” said Räsänen, grandmother of twelve.   

Censorship campaign persists despite court acquittals 

Two lower instance courts had previously acquitted Räsänen and Pohjola in April 2022 and November 2023 of all three charges. The prosecutor appealed for a third time, taking the charges concerning the booklet and the tweet to the Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments on 30th October 2025.  

Coordinated by ADF International, Räsänen’s legal defence will continue to highlight the strong protection that freedom of speech enjoys in international law, in addition to being integral to Finnish democracy.   

The defence previously submitted to the court that Räsänen’s use of the word “sin” in her tweet, which the prosecution had highlighted as “insulting” and therefore unlawful, was quoted directly from the Bible, and any judgment condemning its usage would directly condemn the Bible itself.    

The Bible on Trial  

During the high-profile trial before the Court of Appeal in 2023, the prosecution frequently attacked core Christian teachings and cross-examined Räsänen – who is one of Finland’s longest-standing members of parliament – and the Bishop on their theology.   

The Finnish State prosecutor, Anu Mantila, claimed that, “You can cite the Bible, but it is Räsänen’s interpretation and opinion about the Bible verses that are criminal”.   

To learn more details about the case and to support Päivi Räsänen, visit www.ADFinternational.org/FreeSpeechOnTrial  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only with credit to ADF International.
(from left to right: Päivi Räsänen, Räsänen with Paul Coleman, Räsänen with her husband Niilo)

U.S. State Department Doubles Down on Warning to UK: “Buffer Zones” are an “Egregious Violation” of Free Speech 

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce in 2022.
  • State Department issues a further condemnation of Britain’s “egregious” buffer zones, warning of a “concerning departure” from shared UK-US values
  • Birmingham Christian Isabel Vaughan-Spruce is back under investigation for silently praying near an abortion facility 
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce in 2022.

WASHINGTON, D.C. / LONDON (19 August 2025) – The United States has issued its strongest warning yet to the UK over so-called “buffer zones”, which have been used to target silent prayer and peaceful expression outside abortion facilities. 

In a comment to the Telegraph, the US State Department accused the UK government of committing an “egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty.”

“It is common sense that standing silently and offering consensual conversation does not constitute harm.”

- U.S. State Department Spokesperson

The comment comes in response to cases in which individuals – some elderly – have been arrested, charged, or even criminally convicted for simply for praying silently or offering consensual conversations within large censored zones outside abortion facilities.

Under current legislation in England & Wales, “influencing” a person’s decision to access an abortion facility, within 150m of the facility, is a crime carrying a potentially unlimited fine.

In Scotland, similar legislation exists, censoring the area within 200m of all hospitals.

A State Department spokesman told The Telegraph: 

“The United States is still monitoring many ‘buffer zone’ cases in the UK, as well as other acts of censorship throughout Europe. 

“The UK’s persecution of silent prayer represents not only an egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty, but also a concerning departure from the shared values that ought to underpin US-UK relations.  

“It is common sense that standing silently and offering consensual conversation does not constitute harm.” 

Free Speech in Retreat

The US government’s statement echoes Vice President JD Vance’s warning earlier this year at the Munich Security Conference, where he said free speech is “in retreat” across Europe, particularly in Britain. During Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s visit to the White House, the Vice President directly raised concerns about the UK’s restriction of free speech. 

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

The US State Department’s latest Human Rights Report also highlighted “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression” in the UK. 

Individuals Targeted for Prayer or Conversation

Among those punished under the laws is Livia Tossici-Bolt, a retired biomedical scientist, who received a two-year conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £20,000 in costs after standing near a Bournemouth abortion facility holding a sign that read: “Here to talk if you want to.” She described her prosecution as “a dark day for Great Britain.” 

Adam Smith-Connor, an army veteran, was convicted in November for praying silently for a few minutes in his head near the same abortion facility in Bournemouth, and ordered to pay £9,000 in costs. 

In Scotland, Rose Docherty, 75, was arrested in February for standing outside Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital with a sign reading: “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.” Last week, Scottish authorities dropped their case against her and guaranteed they would return her sign. 

And recently, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce – a charitable volunteer who has supported mothers in crisis for over 20 years – was placed back under investigation for praying silently near an abortion facility in Birmingham, despite having won £13,000 in compensation from West Midlands Police last year for having unfairly arrested her twice before for the same activity. 

“Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are cornerstones of any free society,” said Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International.  

“The UK’s treatment of individuals like Livia, Adam, Isabel and Rose for the false ‘crimes’ of praying silently or offering conversation shows just how far the country has strayed from its own proud traditions of liberty. The US State Department is right to call out this injustice. It is time for the UK government to restore fundamental freedoms, and repeal buffer zone legislation.” 

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

Pictured: Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Rose Docherty; Adam Smith-Connor; Livia Tossici-Bolt; Lorcan Price (ADF International)

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 

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

  • Tribunal upholds speech rights of Canadian campaigner Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston, striking down a government order that censored his X post under the country’s Online Safety Act.

  • Censored X post referred to controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook by her biologically accurate pronouns.

  • Censorship case, coordinated by ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, raised alarm over expanding global censorship powers and cross-border restrictions on speech.

MELBOURNE (1 July 2025) – The Administrative Review Tribunal has ruled in favor of Canadian campaigner Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston, striking down a government order that sought to censor his post on X under the country’s Online Safety Act.  

Elston’s February 2024 post criticized the appointment of controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook, and referred to her with biologically accurate pronouns. Elston’s post was deemed “cyber abuse” by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which ordered X to remove the content. X initially refused, and later geo-blocked the post in Australia. 

Both X and Elston challenged the order, arguing that the censorship was a violation of the fundamental right to free speech. Elston’s legal challenge was coordinated by ADF International, in conjunction with the Human Rights Law Alliance in Australia. The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne held a week-long hearing on the case commencing March 31, 2025. 

The Tribunal found that the eSafety Commissioner made the wrong decision in determining Elston’s post was “cyber abuse” and set aside the decision.   

“This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship. In this case, the Australian government alarmingly censored the peaceful expression of a Canadian citizen on an American-owned platform, evidence of the expansive reach of censorial forces, even beyond national borders. Today, free speech has prevailed."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International

“This is a victory not just for Billboard Chris, but for every Australian—and indeed every citizen who values the fundamental right to free speech,” Coleman continued.

The decision comes amid growing international concern over the Australian government’s expansive censorship powers. In May, the U.S. State Department condemned the eSafety Commissioner’s actions as part of a broader global trend toward coercive state censorship. 

“I’m grateful that truth and common sense have prevailed,” said Chris Elston. “This decision sends a clear message that the government does not have authority to silence peaceful expression. My mission is to speak the truth about gender ideology, protecting children across the world from its dangers. With this ruling, the court has upheld my right to voice my convictions—a right that belongs to every one of us. My post should never have been censored in Australia, but my hope is that authorities will now think twice before resorting to censorship”. 

More details on Billboard Chris’ censorship case available here. 

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

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.

.