“Litmus Test” Court Case Against Government Censorship of Musk’s “X” to be Heard Next Month, Australia

Billboard Chris' case will be heard in Australia in March

  • As Australia prepares for a national puberty blocker review, a court battle ensues regarding censorship of voices opposed to gender ideology 

  • “X” post highlighting unsuitability of transgender activist serving on WHO “panel of experts” currently geo-blocked in Australia 

  • Musk’s “X” and Canadian internet star “Billboard Chris” to bring case against Australian “e-Safety Commissioner” over censored post, March 31st  

Billboard Chris' case will be heard in Australia in March

MELBOURNE (13 February 2025) – As Australia faces a significant review into the use of so-called “gender-affirming care” on children, including through the administration of toxic “puberty blockers”, the government is preparing to face court for censoring critics of gender ideology and its harm on children. 

Chris Elston, known as Billboard Chris, a Canadian father of two, took to “X” (formerly Twitter) on 28th February 2024 to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of a UN trans expert REVEALED”.

"This is a serious issue with real world implications, and we need to be able to discuss it."."

- Chris Elston (a.k.a. "Billboard Chris")

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the suitability of Australian transgender activist Teddy Cook to be appointed 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 Commission, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Appeals 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 on the week beginning March 31st. 

Members of the public are invited to join in supporting Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris  

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

“No child has ever been born in the wrong body. As a father, I have grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s wellbeing. This reality is being increasingly recognised around the world, with government after government ordering a review into the use of toxic puberty blockers. This is a serious issue with real world implications for families across the globe and we need to be able to discuss it. 

“Children struggling with distress regarding their sex deserve better than ‘guidelines’ written by activists who only want to push them in one direction,” said Billboard Chris, engaging in a legal battle for free speech with support from ADF International. 

Ahead of the court date, Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who is serving as part of Billboard Chris’s legal team, said: 

“This significant legal showdown with Australian authorities represents a litmus test for free speech in a world seeing increasing push back against global censorship.  

“We’re used to hearing about governments silencing or punishing citizens for their ‘wrong’ speech in parts of the world with strict blasphemy laws – but now, from Australia, to Mexico, to across the EU, we see Western governments increasingly take authoritarian steps to shut down views they don’t like, often by branding them as “offensive”, “hateful”, or “misinformation.”  

“In a free society, ideas should be challenged with ideas, not state censorship. For years, Chris has been speaking an important truth to which many in Australia are now waking up – children cannot consent to puberty blockers.  

We’re proud to stand with Billboard Chris in defending the right to live and speak the truth.” 

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

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

Pictured: Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”); Elston with the ADF International team supporting his legal defence; Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International

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

How the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) Affects Online Free Speech in 2025

Dr. Adina Portaru is ADF International's EU Digital Services Act expert

Nicknamed the ‘Digital Surveillance Act’, the EU’s key online platform legislation hits its one-year mark in February 2025

Picture of Dr. Adina Portaru
Dr. Adina Portaru

Senior Counsel, Europe, ADF International

Dr. Adina Portaru is ADF International's EU Digital Services Act expert

The EU Digital Services Act (DSA), which took effect last February, has been hailed as a landmark law designed to bring order to the digital world. Yet, beneath the surface of supposedly protecting democracy lies a framework fraught with overreach, ambiguity, and the erosion of fundamental freedoms.

The EU Commission claims that the Digital Services Act is needed to “protect democracy” by tackling so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech” online. It promises to create a safer online space by holding digital platforms—particularly “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs) such as Google, Amazon, Meta and X—accountable for addressing these terms.

However, its implementation raises grave concerns. By mandating the removal of broadly defined “harmful” content, this legislation sets the stage for widespread censorship, curtailing lawful and truthful speech under the guise of compliance and safety. The result will be a sanitized and tightly controlled internet where the free exchange of ideas is stifled.

Ultimately, the EU Digital Services Act will allow the silencing of views online that are disfavoured by those in power.

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a democratic society and includes the right to voice unpopular or controversial opinions. For this reason, ADF International is committed to ensuring that the right to freedom of speech is firmly upheld.

The Implications on Free Speech

The Digital Services Act’s regulatory framework has profound implications for free speech. 

Under the DSA, tech platforms must act against “illegal content”, removing or blocking access to such material within a certain timeframe. However, the definition of “illegal content” is notably broad, encompassing vague terms like “hate speech”—a major part of the DSA’s focus.

The DSA relies on the EU Framework Decision of 28 November 2008, which defines “hate speech” as incitement to violence or hatred against a protected group of persons or a member of such a group. This circular definition of “hate speech” as incitement to hatred is problematic because it fails to specify what “hate” entails. 

Due to their vague and subjective nature, “hate speech” laws lead to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement, relying more on individual perception rather than clear, objective harm. Furthermore, the lack of a uniform definition at the EU level means that what is considered “illegal” in one country might be legal in another.

Given all this, tech platforms face the impossible task of enforcing uniform standards across the EU.

The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens worldwide, as tech companies may impose stricter content regulations globally to comply with European requirements.

How will the EU DSA impact your freedom of speech in 2025?

Big Tech Platforms

Tech platforms aren’t just removing clear violations—they’ve also started removing speech that could be flagged as “harmful”. If you post a political opinion or share a tweet that some might find offensive, it might get flagged by an algorithm. To avoid massive fines or penalties, platforms will err on the side of caution and remove your post, even if it’s perfectly lawful.

Platforms rely on the automated removal of “harmful” information. These tools are widely known to be inaccurate, often fail to consider context, and therefore flag important and legal content. And if it’s not the algorithms that flag your content, it may be regular users who disagree with what you’re saying.

Alleged “Hate Speech” Case

There are many instances in which “hate speech” laws have targeted individuals for peacefully expressing their views online, even before the DSA came into effect. ADF International is supporting the legal defence of Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish Parliamentarian and grandmother of 12, who stands criminally charged for “hate speech”.

Päivi shared her faith-based views on marriage and sexual ethics in a 2019 tweet, a radio show, and in a 2004 pamphlet that she wrote for her church, centred on the Biblical text “male and female he created them”.

Päivi endured two trials and years of public scrutiny before she was unanimously acquitted of “hate speech” charges by both the Helsinki District Court and the Court of Appeal. Despite her acquittal, the state prosecutor has appealed the case, taking it to the Finnish Supreme Court.

It’s obvious that these laws aren’t only about combatting hate and violence; rather, they may target any speech deemed controversial or that challenge the status quo.

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Penalties for Non-Compliance with the EU Digital Services Act

The penalties for failing to comply with the EU Digital Services Act are severe.

Non-compliant platforms with more than 45 million active users could be fined up to 6% of their global annual turnover. For tech platforms like Google, Amazon, Meta, and X, this means billions of euros. So, even the biggest tech companies can’t afford to fall short of the DSA regulations.

If a platform repeatedly fails to comply with the DSA, the EU Commission can impose a temporary or permanent ban, which could result in the platform’s exclusion from the EU market entirely. For platforms that rely heavily on this market, this would mean losing access to one of the world’s largest digital markets.

The risks are high, and tech platforms will scramble to ensure they comply—sometimes at the expense of your fundamental right to free speech.

Section 230, the DSA, and the UK Online Safety Act

The US, the EU, and the UK take different approaches to regulating online speech. While Section 230 protects platforms from liability in the US, the Digital Services Act and the UK Online Safety Act enforce stricter content moderation rules, requiring platforms to remove “illegal” and “harmful” content or face severe penalties.

Below is a comparison of how each framework handles platform liability, free speech, and government oversight:

Feature USA (Section 230) EU (Digital Sservices Act) UK (Online Safety Act)
Legal Basis First Amendment protects free speech; Section 230 shields platforms from liability. EU regulation on transparency and accountability, resulting in content moderation. UK law regulating online content to prevent harm, with strict enforcement.
Platform Liability Section 230 protects platforms from liability for most user-generated content. Large platforms must remove illegal content or face penalties. Platforms must remove harmful but legal content or face fines.
"Hate Speech" Protected unless it incites imminent violence. Platforms must remove illegal "hate speech". Requires platforms to remove content deemed harmful, even if legal.
"Misinformation" Generally protected under free speech laws. Platforms must take action against "systemic risks" like "disinformation". Platforms must mitigate risks from "misinformation", especially for children.
Government Censorship The government cannot censor speech except in rare cases (e.g., incitement to violence). “Trusted flaggers” can flag content for removal, but independent oversight applies. The regulator (Ofcom) enforces rules, and platforms must comply.

“Shadow Content Banning”

In the digital age, we rely increasingly on digital technology to impart and receive information. And it’s essential that the free flow of information is not controlled by unaccountable gatekeepers policing what can and cannot be said.

ADF International’s stance is clear: this legislation will result in dangerous overreach that threatens the very freedoms it claims to protect.

In January, our legal team attended a plenary session and debate at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg regarding the enforcement of the DSA. The discussion brought to light significant concerns across the political spectrum about how the DSA may impact freedom of speech and expression, and rightfully so.

EU Parliament

Several members of the EU Parliament (MEPs), who initially favoured the legislation, raised serious objections to the DSA, with some calling for its revision or annulment. A significant point of contention was the potential for what they termed “shadow content banning”—removing content without adequate transparency.

This includes cases where users might be unaware of why their content was banned, on what legal basis, or how they can appeal such decisions. Most of the time, they’re left with nothing but a generic AI response and no explanation. 

Some MEPs, like French MEP Virginie Joron, referred to the DSA as the “Digital Surveillance Act”.

Despite intense opposition, the EU Commission representative and the Council of the EU representative promised to enforce the DSA more rigorously. They vowed to double down on free speech by enforcing more thorough fact-checking and anti “hate speech” laws “so that “hate speech” is flagged and assessed [within] 24 hours and removed when necessary”.

They failed to provide comprehensive responses to the concerns raised about the DSA’s potential to erode fundamental rights, leaving critical questions about its implementation and implications unresolved.

Conclusion: EU Digital Services Act or “Digital Surveillance Act”?

The EU Digital Services Act’s enforcement mechanisms are riddled with ambiguity. Terms like “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech” are too wide and vague to serve as a proper basis for silencing speech. These terms are too easily weaponized, enabling those in power to police dialogue and suppress dissent in the name of safety.

By placing excessive pressure on platforms to moderate content, the DSA risks creating an internet governed by fear—fear of fines, fear of bans, and fear of expressing one’s views. If the DSA is allowed to stifle open dialogue and suppress legitimate debate, it will undermine the very democratic principles it claims to protect.

Policymakers must revisit this legislation, ensuring that efforts to regulate the digital sphere do not come at the cost of fundamental freedoms.

Europe’s commitment to freedom of speech demands better. Through our office in Brussels, we at ADF International are challenging this legislation because it’s not up to governments or unaccountable bureaucrats to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on society.

What Is the Censorship Industrial Complex and How is it Affecting Our Free Speech Rights?

The Censorship Industrial Complex and what you need to know

A Global "Censorship Industrial Complex" Demands a Global Response

The Censorship Industrial Complex and what you need to know

What was once confined to dystopian fiction has now become an undeniable reality; censorship has become one of the most pressing issues in our digital age. Under the banner of combating “mis-, dis-, and mal-information,” sweeping laws and regulations are being deployed to muzzle voices and suppress free expression on an unprecedented scale.

At its core, censorship is about power—who has it and who gets to decide what is said and what isn’t. This has led to what can be termed the “censorship industrial complex”—a robust and dangerous alliance of governments, international institutions, tech giants, media outlets, academic institutions, and advocacy groups collaborating to control the flow of information, primarily online.

Much like the “military-industrial complex” that US President Dwight Eisenhower warned about in 1961—an influential alliance between government and defence contractors—the “censorship industrial complex” suggests a similar coalition, this time with the intent to control public discourse. Eisenhower warned that when government and industry become too connected, they end up putting corporate or political interests above the public.

As said in the Westminster Declaration: “We understand that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship.” If we fail to address this growing web of censorship, the right to free speech will be chipped away, piece by piece.

How Global Censorship Laws Impact Free Speech Across Borders

The “censorship industrial complex” operates on a global scale, from the suppression of religious speech and political dissent in authoritarian countries to the increasing censorship of conservative or religious perspectives on social media in democratic countries.

The global fight for free speech has reached a critical point, complicated by the vast web of censorship laws across countries. Speech allowed in one country is restricted or criminalized in another, preventing people from sharing ideas across borders. 

And in democratic countries in Europe and the Americas, the threats to free speech are mounting and severe.

“Hate Speech” Legislation as a Tool for the Censorship Industrial Complex

This year, the Irish government debated a “hate speech” law that, if adopted, could criminalize the possession of “hateful” material with up to five years in prison. This law raised alarm among free speech advocates, who asserted that vague definitions of “hate” could lead to suppressing legitimate discourse.

In June, ADF International briefed Irish lawmakers on the dangers and gathered free speech advocates in Dublin to oppose the draconian bill. While the Irish government signalled it would not proceed with the bill, similar legislation likely will be attempted again in the future.

Similarly, in April, Scotland passed a law criminalizing “stirring up hatred” against protected categories, including transgender identity, with a possible seven-year prison sentence. This law also includes ambiguous terms that could criminalize speech perceived as “offensive”.

Wherever these laws are put in place, the term “hate” isn’t clearly defined, opening the door for anything deemed offensive to be categorized as a “hate crime.”

The free speech crisis is far from restricted to one bill in one country. As we’ve seen, restrictive legislation spreads and with it, the erosion of our fundamental freedoms.

Digital Censorship as a Cornerstone for the Censorship Industrial Complex

A peaceful online statement can lead to criminal charges or even prison time in many parts of the world, and the threat of financial penalties is used to pressure and intimidate tech giants like X to censor unwanted speech, leaving anyone at risk for sharing their beliefs.

ADF International is supporting the legal defences of several individuals whose free speech rights have been attacked at national and international levels. Their cases transcend national borders, emphasizing the international nature of the “censorship industrial complex”.

Our Legal Work Against Digital Censorship

Former Mexican congressman Gabriel Quadri was convicted of “gender-based political violence” for tweets on transgender ideology and fair play in female sports. Civil society leader Rodrigo Iván Cortés was convicted of the same for his peaceful expression. Both were sentenced to publish court-written apologies daily on social media and placed on an offender’s registry.

Finnish Parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen has faced charges, trials, and hours of police questioning since a 2019 tweet quoting the Bible’s Book of Romans, in which she questioned her church’s support of a Pride parade.

Citizen journalist and Canadian Billboard Chris was censored for tweeting the truth that a trans-activist shouldn’t serve on a World Health Organization panel for children. Australia’s “E-Safety Commission” tried to force X to take the post down and when X refused, they forced the platform to geo-block it.

Egyptian Father of five Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo has spent over two years in prison for being part of a Facebook group created for those interested in converting to Christianity.

In Nigeria, Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu was brutally killed by her classmates after she posted a message in a class WhatsApp group, thanking Jesus for helping her with her exams. Her murder was filmed and widely shared. Rhoda Jatau, who allegedly shared a video of Deborah’s killing, condemning it, was also accused of blasphemy. She spent 19 months in prison before being released on bail. In December 2024, following a two-and-a-half-year legal ordeal, a judge in Bauchi State, Nigeria, acquitted Rhoda Jatau of “blasphemy” charges.

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

“Online Safety” Clampdown in Europe

Two major pieces of online speech legislation were passed in Europe over the last two years: the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA).

The UK’s Online Safety Act aims to “combat harmful content online” by requiring platforms to moderate it or face penalties. However, it has the clear markings of censorship.

A U.S. Congressional Committee has criticized this law, along with the UK’s recent nationwide “buffer zones” legislation, calling it part of a “tsunami of censorship” threatening free speech in America.

The House Judiciary Committee pressed concerns about free speech in the UK and Europe highlighting on Twitter (X):

“Generally speaking, they require platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content…The UK’s laws mirror or go beyond the EU’s laws & include Orwellian practices to investigate speech.”

The Financial Stakes and the Censorship Industrial Complex

“What do platforms risk if they don’t comply? Penalties are as high as six percent of global revenue from the EU’s DSA and 10% of global revenue from the UK’s OSA. Billions of dollars for most major platforms.

“The Digital Services Act and Online Safety Act enable bureaucrats in the EU and the UK to put platforms out of business. So now, social media companies and their employees are incentivized to overregulate speech on their platforms to preserve their business.”

ADF International’s Executive Director, Paul Coleman, stated, “If British politicians do not act to protect free speech, all other considerations aside, the UK will continue to suffer severe reputational harm on the world stage.”

Award-winning author and journalist Michael Shellenberger recently spoke at the European Parliament about the threats posed to free speech by the DSA at an event attended by ADF International. His message to the EU and President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen was simple: “Back off your attacks on freedom of speech.”

Our Georgia Du Plessis participated in a roundtable discussion at the Parliament with Shellenberger, MEP Fernand Kartheiser, and former MEP Rob Roos about the DSA and freedom of expression. ADF International is committed to ending the free speech crisis.

Online Censorship Under the Guise of Cybersecurity

Barbados is debating a cybercrime bill that could imprison people for up to seven years for causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress” online.

Under the proposed law, it would be a criminal offense to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” or share content that might subject someone to “ridicule, contempt, or embarrassment.” Even vague notions like “annoyance” and “inconvenience” could lead to prosecution.

Such laws will be used to stifle dissent, intimidate critics, and force self-censorship. The risk? Peaceful expression could be criminalized under the guise of cybersecurity.

We brought this issue before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC, emphasizing that freedom of speech is under direct threat.

While governments have a duty to combat real online crimes like hacking or incitement to violence, targeting “annoyance” crosses a dangerous line. These regulations, which are supposedly designed to protect the public, are increasingly being weaponized against the public.

The proposed legislation raises a critical question: who defines what is offensive or annoying? Without clear definitions, enforcement becomes arbitrary and ripe for abuse. History shows us how such vague laws can pave the way for authoritarian crackdowns on free speech.

The chilling effect is real: people self-censor to avoid crossing invisible lines and even face the threat of imprisonment.

Ban of ‘X’ in Brazil

Brazil has also been grappling with extreme censorship, making it one of the Americas’ most restrictive countries for free speech.

In August, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes blocked X in the country, citing concerns over “misinformation” and “hate speech” affecting the national elections. He didn’t want Brazilians freely engaging in dialogue online in such a way as to impact the elections, so he abused his office to shut down X.

ADF International filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about the prohibition, representing five Brazilian legislators who were prevented from reaching their audience of millions ahead of a national election.

In September, over 100 global free speech advocates – including 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.

The United States’ Role in Dismantling the Censorship Industrial Complex

The incoming Trump administration is poised to tackle the global censorship issue.

President Trump’s first major policy statement since his victory outlined his plan to restore free speech. He asserts that this fundamental right has been diluted by federal officials who have worked with tech executives to suppress views they don’t like.

Documents uncovered through lawsuits and released by X owner Elon Musk reveal how US agencies collaborated with social media platforms to remove content.

The US’s approach could have wide-ranging effects on censorship laws worldwide, as the US plays a significant role in setting international precedents around free speech and Internet governance.

The US may encourage other countries to protect free speech and, in so doing, work to end the global censorship crisis.

Conclusion: The Censorship Industrial Complex Threatens Our Freedom of Speech

The “censorship industrial complex” is a network of ideologically aligned governmental, nonprofit, media, tech, finance, and academic institutions that are colluding to censor vast swaths of speech they claim threatens democracy, including speech on a wide array of critical social and political issues.

They are weaponizing terms like “hate” and “misinformation/ disinformation” to censor speakers directly, pressure digital platforms to censor, and threaten to shut down platforms that refuse to bend the knee to censorship demands.

Throughout history, those in power have always sought to censor speech with which they disagree.

We must confront the “censorship industrial complex” and safeguard the right to free speech if we are to ensure a future where ideas can flourish without fear of suppression.

United Nations experts call for immediate release of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, denounce blatant human rights violations in Nigeria

Nigerian prisoner Yahaya Sharif-Aminu
  • Experts with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention call for the immediate and unconditional release of Nigerian Yahaya Sharif-Aminu. 
  • Sharif-Aminu currently remains in prison while awaiting Supreme Court appeal following death sentence for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics on WhatsApp; ADF International is supporting his appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. 
Nigerian prisoner Yahaya Sharif-Aminu

GENEVA (3 DECEMBER 2024) The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) has called for the immediate release and reparations for Nigerian Yahaya Sharif-Aminu in a just-published opinion. Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging in 2020 for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics in a closed WhatsApp group. He is currently awaiting appeal at the Nigerian Supreme Court with the legal support of ADF International. 

In their opinion, the WGAD finds that Nigerian authorities deprived Sharif-Aminu of various fundamental human rights in international law, including freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression, and urges Nigerian authorities to “take the steps necessary to remedy the situation” without delay. The WGAD also urges the government of Nigeria to “ensure a full and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Sharif-Aminu and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.” The full opinion can be read here. 

“We are grateful to the members of the WGAD for speaking out on Yahaya’s behalf and for their denouncement of the blatant human rights violations he has been enduring,” said Sean Nelson, legal counsel for ADF International. “It is past time for Nigerian officials to heed the advice of human rights advocates across the globe, release Yahaya and abolish the blasphemy laws that have plagued religious minorities in Nigeria for far too long. No person should be punished, prosecuted, or threatened with death for their peaceful expression and their faith. We pray for Yahaya’s unconditional release and for all people worldwide to continue to raise their voices on his behalf.” 

Kola Alapinni, international human rights lawyer and lead attorney on Sharif-Aminu’s case, said: “The WGAD has reviewed the full facts of the unjust charges against Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, and have come to a clear and decisive statement that his rights have been violated grievously. I thank them for their call for his immediate release. Officials in Nigeria should listen—Yahaya’s ongoing detention is indefensible.” 

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

A video from ADF International features testimonies from Yahaya’s mother, father, and uncle, who recount the traumatic experiences endured by Yahaya and their family.

Death sentence for “blasphemy”   

In 2020, Sufi Muslim Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging for “blasphemy”. His alleged crime involved sending song lyrics on WhatsApp that were deemed blasphemous toward the prophet Mohammed.    

With support from human rights legal advocacy group ADF International, Sharif-Aminu has appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Nigeria and is challenging the constitutionality of Sharia-based blasphemy laws. He remains in prison awaiting the Supreme Court appeal. His case is far from an isolated incident. Together with minority Muslims, the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is especially severe. In 2022, approximately 90% of all Christians worldwide that were killed for their faith were in Nigeria.   

International pressure has been mounting to free Yahaya and end blasphemy laws. Last year, the European Parliament overwhelmingly called for the immediate release of Sharif-Aminu, and a group of 209 international and Nigerian human rights advocates wrote to then-Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, calling for Sharif-Aminu’s immediate release. 

In addition, in May of this year, United Nations experts called for Sharif-Aminu’s immediate and unconditional release.  

Sharif-Aminu’s potentially landmark Supreme Court appeal could end blasphemy laws in his home state of Kano and across northern Nigeria. A positive decision could lead the way toward abolishing blasphemy laws around the world.  

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

“Hate Speech” Element Dropped from Censorial Irish Bill

What's the purpose of "hate speech" laws? Text with Irish flag. "Hate speech" elements were dropped in Sept. 2024.

Inform yourself about the Irish “hate speech” bill, and you’ll find the censorial truth.

UPDATE 21 September 2024: In a win for free speech, the Irish government dropped “hate speech” from proposed legislation. ADF International briefed Irish lawmakers on the dangers and, in June, gathered free speech advocates in Dublin to oppose the draconian “hate speech” bill.

Hate speech laws in Ireland increase censorship

Censorship. It’s an elusive term animated throughout history with growing relevance today. “Hate speech” laws loom large over Western political and social conversations. Blasphemy laws criminalize faith-based speech and belief in countries like Nigeria and Pakistan. By now, almost everyone is aware of censorship.

Some may think of George Orwell’s 1984; others, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Censorship takes many forms – like book burning and imposing “newspeak” – but Ireland now leads the dystopian cause with its hotly debated “hate speech” bill.

And so, as the state-driven tide of censorship sweeps the world, Europe stands at the forefront of the ongoing conversation. Why? Because almost every Western nation has introduced “hate speech” laws enabling authorities to enforce penalties for certain speech they deem unpopular or unorthodox.

These laws are introduced under the guise of combatting “a rise of hate”, or offensive speech that can make people feel insulted or uncomfortable. But criminalizing speech is not the answer. Rather, allowing more robust speech that facilitates open debate instead. That’s why we stand against so-called “hate speech” laws like the proposed one in Ireland.

“Hate Speech” Dropped From New Law – What It Means

Thankfully, the Irish government has indicated it will not proceed with the most censorial elements of the proposed “Hate Speech” Bill.

With the world watching, the people of Ireland said ‘no’ to state censorship, and it’s working.

The Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill 2022, currently stuck in the Irish Senate, will proceed without the draconian speech elements that had previously been advanced. Remember, incitement to hatred remains illegal under existing law.

Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has recognized that there is a lack of consensus on the proposed bill’s “hate speech” restrictions.

The Minister for Justice is reported as saying: “The incitement to hatred element [of the bill] does not have a consensus, so that will be dealt with at a later stage.”

Pro-censorship actors may seek to bring in a separate new law in the future.

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

The Irish “hate speech” bill seeks to criminalize the possession of material “likely” to incite hatred. This includes memes and photos saved on devices, with up to five years of jail time. Yes, photos on personal devices. Yet, there is no clear definition of what “hate” entails.

Therefore, this is a dangerous trajectory. ADF International highlights the dangers of the “hate speech” bill while briefing Irish lawmakers on how to uphold freedom of speech.

What are “Hate Speech” Laws?

So-called “hate speech” laws are ambiguously worded laws that criminalize certain speech beyond what is acceptable in a democratic society.

Despite having no basis in international law, all European Union Member States have vague and subjective “hate speech” laws. The United Nations, EU, and Council of Europe concur that “hate speech” lacks a universally agreed-upon definition. Nonetheless, the European Commission seeks to make “hate speech” an EU-wide crime on the same list as trafficking and terrorism.

These laws, with the wrong police and prosecutor, can be weaponized against any person and any form of speech. Thus, explicitly violating the state’s obligation to protect free speech.

Do “Hate Speech” Laws Deter Hate?

The short answer is no. But because “hate speech” laws rely on vague terms such as ‘insult,’ ‘belittle,’ and ‘offend,’ they are inconsistently interpreted and arbitrarily enforced. Oftentimes, the threat of serious criminal penalties accompanies charges.

Rather than combat hate, the criminalization of speech based on subjective criteria creates a culture of fear and censorship.

An offence is considered hateful in reference to the hearer or reader, making it subjective with little to no regard for the content of the speech itself. They are incompatible with free societies. 

How the Proposed Irish "Hate Speech" Law is Different than Others

The Irish “hate speech” bill would move the needle further. If passed, we could expect commonplace prosecutions like Päivi Räsänen’s for posting a Bible verse on “X” in 2019 about her biblical worldview on marriage and sexuality. In fact, Ireland’s censorial law would go even further than Finland’s.

We’re ramping up public advocacy to expose the unprecedented dangers of what the Irish government is doing. All have the right to live and speak the truth without fear of censorship or retaliation. That’s why we’re asking Irish lawmakers to uphold their obligation to protect free speech under international human rights law.

Consequently, the Irish “hate speech” bill has two major facets that other laws like Finland’s do not include. For example:
  • It leaves the issue of gender open-ended by including a list of “protected characteristics” allowing for unlimited “gender identities” like ‘non-binary’ and ‘two-spirit’. These self-identities would receive protection supported by criminal law.
  • It allows authorities to criminalize private possession of memes or any content “likely” to incite violence or hatred “…against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics”.

This means “misgendering” someone could land you a criminal prosecution, fine or worse. If the Irish “hate speech” bill becomes law, Irish police would have the power to search phones, camera rolls, and emails for prosecutable content.

It’s paramount that we all spread awareness about the dangers of this bill.

Why Ireland is Pushing This Now

The Irish government claims that the law is necessary following rising incidents of violence in the country, which many tie to uncontrolled migration. But peace and security on the streets do not require “hate speech” laws suppressing peaceful speech.

With key terms deliberately undefined, how are we to know what kind of speech could be subject to prosecution? “Hate speech” laws are Western blasphemy laws by another name; both are state driven.

The thought of Irish police raiding homes and phones to seize banned books and memes invokes thoughts of Orwell and the darker moments of the last century. 

Our right to freedom of expression is protected by numerous international human rights treaties. The European Court of Human Rights even affirmed that the right to freedom of expression protects not just popular ideas but also those that shock, offend, and disturb.   

Yet, some argue that unpopular speech should be censored by the state. But where is the logical stopping point?

Have We Learned Nothing From Finland? 

“Hate speech” laws are detrimental to a society seeking to protect freedom of speech or thought. In Finland, we’ve supported Päivi’s defence for almost five years with two unanimous acquittals. She was charged with three counts of “hate speech” because of her “X” post, a pamphlet she authored for her church, and comments she made during a radio programme.

In January 2024, the state prosecutor appealed her case to the Finnish Supreme Court. On 19 April, the high court agreed to hear the appeal, so Päivi will face her third criminal trial in three years. However, the legal process is Päivi’s punishment because the state has unlimited funds to prosecute offenders of their “hate speech” laws. Prosecutions cost taxpayer funds, while reputations sometimes become irreparably harmed.

If Päivi’s now famous “hate speech” case took place in Ireland, she could be prosecuted for simply possessing the pamphlet she wrote for her church congregation on the biblical definition of marriage, even if it was never published online.

Ireland should be a place where important conversations about issues that matter – even about controversial and sensitive topics thrive. When these conversations are shut down, we all lose out.

Conclusion: Ireland Must Reject Its New “Hate Speech” Bill

In summary, “hate speech” laws leave the door wide open to state censorship and oppression. And yet, the Irish government has been moving forward with a new bill to criminalize “hate speech” since 2022.

This could be one of the most far-reaching clampdowns on free speech by a modern democracy. It implicates memes, jokes, and books. Instead of protecting free speech and public safety, this law is poised to set a draconian precedent of intolerance against those who express beliefs outside the state-approved orthodoxy. 

Unpopular speech needs the most protection, and in a free society, free speech is required. Individuals should be able to express their beliefs without fear or oppression. The Irish “hate speech” bill is a far cry from the liberal democratic ideals the Irish government claims to profess.

The Irish government has chosen to uphold freedom of speech.

Brazil, Elon Musk, X, and Censorship: What You Need to Know

freedom of speech is universal

The Brazilian Supreme Court blatantly violated free speech rights by banning X after the company’s chairman, Elon Musk, declined to censor disfavored views.

This story originally appeared in Alliance Defending Freedom on 6 September 2024

When Elon Musk bought Twitter (now known as X) in 2022, he did so with the stated purpose of restoring free speech on a platform that had been credibly accused of censoring disfavored views. And no matter whether one agrees with everything Musk has said or done since then, it is clear he has taken meaningful steps toward achieving that goal.

Unfortunately, many in the United States and around the world have opposed Musk’s attempt to advance free speech. This opposition has become painfully apparent in Brazil, where the country’s highest court is engaging in blatant and unacceptable censorship against Musk and X.

Brazil’s highest court violates free speech rights

In 2019, the Brazilian Supreme Court gave itself the power to carry out criminal investigations into “fake news,” defamation, slander, and threats against the honor of the Court. This was a dangerous abuse of power, and the consequences of such a draconian measure have now been laid bare.

Fast forward five years, and Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and Musk have been engaged in a dispute stemming from de Moraes’s demands that X censor messages the justice disfavors. On Aug. 28, 2024, de Moraes gave Musk 24 hours to name a legal representative for X in Brazil.

Musk declined to name a representative because Brazil had threatened the previous representative with jail time. On Aug. 30, de Moraes officially suspended X nationwide in Brazil. In addition, he froze the bank accounts of Starlink, another company partially owned by Musk that provides internet via satellite.

In his order suspending X, de Moraes said the platform presented a “real danger” of “negatively influencing the electorate in 2024, with massive misinformation, with the aim of unbalancing the electoral result, based on hate campaigns in the digital age, to favor extremist populist groups.”

In other words, the suspension was not solely motivated by X’s lack of legal representation. It was motivated, at least in part, by de Moraes’s fears that allowing certain speech on X might lead to an electoral result he personally would not like.

Despite de Moraes’s clear violation of free speech, the full Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the order on Sept. 2. Under the ruling, Brazilians who attempt to access X using a VPN will face a fine of around $9,000.

Supreme Court order flouted multiple laws

It takes only a basic understanding of free speech to see the major problems with this order. Once the government begins censoring or pressuring others to censor messages based on vague criteria and subjective terms like “misinformation,” it opens the door to widespread suppression of any views the government doesn’t like.

For this reason, national and international law protect free speech in Brazil, and the Brazilian Supreme Court clearly violated both.

First, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice.”

X is certainly a medium through which many Brazilians wish to express, think about, and discuss ideas. Recent estimates prior to the shutdown said roughly 40 million Brazilians use the social platform. By suspending X because it refused to censor information that they disliked, de Moraes and the rest of the court violated those users’ rights to engage in free expression on the platform.

In addition, Article 220 of the Brazilian Constitution states that “any and all censorship of a political, ideological, and artistic nature is forbidden.” But given de Moraes’s reasoning that X could “negatively” affect elections in 2024 to “favor extremist populist groups,” it’s hard to read the justice’s order as anything other than censorship of a political and ideological nature.

Brazilians, just like Americans, have the fundamental right to free speech, which is why ADF International did not sit idly by when the Brazilian Supreme Court issued its dangerous decision.

ADF International takes action

Following the illegal order, ADF International worked around the clock to respond. Within 24 hours, attorneys submitted a petition asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over Brazil) to intervene and defend free speech.

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas,” said Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Legal Advocacy for Latin America. “Intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is key because without free speech, all human rights are jeopardized.”

Musk himself even thanked ADF International for the quick and important work to defend free speech.

While Brazilian officials may claim to protect democracy, they are actually undermining it by manipulating what information citizens can share and access. Free speech is a fundamental right for all people worldwide, and we must continue defending it when it comes under attack.

Top human rights body called on to intervene against Brazil’s “extreme” censorship of “X”

  • Social media platform “X” suspended from use in Brazil in unprecedented state clampdown on free speech  
  • ADF International calls on Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to intervene

WASHINGTON, DC (2 September 2024) – In light of the unfolding censorship crisis in Brazil, legal advocacy organization ADF International has called on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to urgently intervene to protect freedom of speech. 

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas."

- Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s director of legal advocacy for Latin America

On Friday, 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 decision imposes a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800 / almost $9,000) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via a virtual private network (VPN). 

The same Justice has also issued an order to freeze the assets of the company Starlink, a satellite internet provider. The company is a subsidiary of SpaceX, an entirely different company in which Elon Musk is a minority shareholder, following X’s refusal to comply with the censorship orders.

On Monday 2 September, the Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the decision to ban “X” nationwide, further suspending the right to free speech online. 

Appealing to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to uphold freedom of expression, lawyers from free speech-supporting legal advocacy group ADF International petitioned the body – which has jurisdiction over Brazil under the American Convention on Human Rights– to intervene in the “dire” situation: 

“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.” 

Musk thanked ADF International for its intervention. 

Read the full letter to the Commission here.  

State censorship of so-called “populist” views

The orders to censor online content are based on a pretext of combatting disinformation and fake news. Based on this pretext, the state has targeted conservative voices for censorship, including blocking pro-life messages during the 2022 election campaign, which contained a message contrary to the pro-abortion position held by then-candidate Lula da Silva.   

"Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere.

- Michael Shellenberger, journalist targeted for criminal investigation for reporting on the censorship efforts of Brazilian courts

Other targeted speech included repudiations of the Nicaraguan government’s suppression of religious freedom and the concern it could happen in Brazil, and criticism of Lula’s promotion of sexually explicit content in school curricula. 

“The most oppressive culture of censorship in the West”

Various journalists and public figures including journalist, Paulo Figueiredo, and bestselling American author, Michael Shellenberger, have already been targeted with secret criminal investigations for reporting on the authoritarian drift of the Brazilian courts and their censorship efforts.   

Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Legal Advocacy for Latin America, stated: 

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is key because without free speech, all human rights are jeopardized. We are particularly concerned that the Brazilian state is targeting Christian expression, including pro-life views and other faith-based speech.”

Michael Shellenberger, founder of Public, author, and professor, stated:

“I am being criminally investigated by Brazilian authorities for exposing their attempts to censor. Brazil has reached a crisis point where a lone Supreme Court judge could wield his authority to shut down X in the country.   

Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere. It’s not only bad policy and bad politics, it’s a blatant violation of basic human rights for authorities to ban the speech of their own citizens. It’s inconceivable that human beings should be censored and silenced by other human beings simply because they disagree with their speech. As the situation continues to deteriorate, my hope is that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will intervene rapidly in defense of the right of all to speak freely in Brazil”.  

Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil, said:

“The attempts by Judge Alexandre de Moraes to censor and silence the people of Brazil simply cannot stand. Our constitution specifically prohibits all censorship and guarantees the right to freedom of expression; these are not only constitutionally-protected rights, but basic, human rights that should be guaranteed and preserved for all Brazilians. Censorship has no place in a free society, and I implore all who are able to join me in vehemently opposing these kinds of restrictions.”   

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

Pictured: Michael Shellenberger; Tomás Henriquez

Across The Globe, Pointing Out Men Can’t Become Women Could Land You In Court

Gabriel Quadri, censored for stating biological reality.

This story originally appeared in The Federalist on 8 August 2024

Picture of Elyssa Koren
Elyssa Koren

Legal Communications Director

The world has been shocked to see riots erupt throughout the United Kingdom following an appalling stabbing in Southport, England, last week, where three children died.

But we should be alert to how the response of Britain’s new Labour government to the disorder is creeping beyond a crackdown on violence. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said on Monday that social media companies should address “misinformation,” which suggests this crisis could be exploited to censor peaceful speech online.

The fear is that the unrest in the UK will be used as an excuse to further infringe on free speech online in the country. In fact, there are many parts of the world where a perfectly peaceful tweet could land you criminal charges or even a prison sentence.

For example, take note of what happened in 2022 to congressman Gabriel Quadri in Mexico. Quadri was prosecuted for his Twitter posts on the dangers of transgender ideology, including comments about keeping female sports safe and fair.

As millions opine freely on the myriad controversies at the Olympics, this should give us pause. Both Quadri and civil society leader Rodrigo Iván Cortés were convicted for “gender based political violence,” including “digital violence,” and punished in an absurd and demeaning manner for peacefully expressing the truth about biological reality online.

A testament to the pound of flesh the state demands from those who dare to speak against its orthodoxies, Quadri and Cortés were ordered to publish a court-written apology on X every day at set times and placed on an offender’s registrar. Having exhausted all avenues for justice in Mexico, ADF International is appealing their cases to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Prosecution in Finland

Look too to what has transpired over the last five years in Finland, a country with deep roots in the rule of law. Longstanding parliamentarian and grandmother Päivi Räsänen is being criminally prosecuted for a Bible verse she tweeted in 2019.

Quoting from the book of Romans, Räsänen objected to her church’s decision to sponsor a pride parade. For this, she endured hours of police interrogation, three criminal charges, and two onerous trials. Despite being unanimously acquitted at both, she soon will be tried again at the Supreme Court of Finland, where ADF International is backing her legal defense.

Räsänen’s case, in a supposedly free country, demonstrates that the censorial vigor of the state knows no bounds when it comes to silencing expressions of truth that expose the ideological falsehoods of the day.

Räsänen stoked no violence and evinced no hate, and yet she is being prosecuted for “hate speech” under the “war crimes and crimes against humanity” section of Finland’s criminal code, which carries a potential prison sentence of two years. You better believe that if a much loved, and oft re-elected, civil servant of more than 20 years can be tried for a tweet, then the citizens of Finland are going to think twice before they hit post.

Cases in the EU, Australia, Ireland, Scotland, Brazil

In Australia, street advocate Billboard Chris was censored for tweeting the truth that trans-activist Teddy Cook should not serve on a World Health Organization panel for children’s transgender policy given Cook’s aberrant sexual practices.

Chris posted a Daily Mail article on X entitled, “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” Australia’s “E-Safety Commission” tried to force X to take the post down.

When X refused, they forced the platform to geo-block it, and now, Chris, supported by ADF International, and alongside X, is suing in defense of his right to speak freely.

The Irish parliament is currently debating a “hate speech” law, which, if adopted, could criminalize the possession of “hateful” material with up to five years in prison. And in April, Scotland passed a law criminalizing “stirring up hatred” against protected categories, including transgender identity, with a possible seven-year prison sentence.

As is always the case where these laws take root, “hate” is undefined. Consequently, it’s open season for a “hate crime” when such a transgression could be literally anything under the sun perceived as hateful by an offended party.

Brazil is undergoing a crisis of extreme censorship, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Earlier this spring, a Supreme Court judge threatened to wield his authority to shut down X in the country. 

Journalists, including American author Michael Shellenberger, are being criminally investigated for exposing the state’s censorial crimes. Now X is deploying its legal team to preserve free speech on the platform in Brazil.

At the international level, the European Commission is advancing efforts to make “hate speech” an EU crime, on the same legal level as trafficking and terrorism. Most recently, the European Commission has accused X of violating the EU Digital Services Act, triggering the promise of legal action from Elon Musk, who claims that X resisted an “illegal secret deal” to comply with EU rules to censor “misinformation.”

Raising our Voices in Resistance

Everyone must be free to peacefully debate the issues of our time, online or wherever they may find themselves, without fear of government punishment. But across the world state-driven censorship is proving to be one of the most insidious problems of our age. And it is not by accident that the brunt force of the state is often leveraged to silence expressions of basic truth, in particular in the digital space.

Next time you reflexively exercise your free speech rights by firing off a tweet, remember those who have incurred the wrath of the state simply for doing the same. We must vigilantly resist the rising tide of censorship, and also the urge to self-censor, instead raising our voices to advocate for those silenced and sanctioned for nothing more than a tweet.