freedom of speech Archives

Life at Risk: A Defining Week for the UK

In the span of just five days, the British Parliament took two deeply troubling steps that threaten serious consequences for the legal protection of human life.

On Tuesday, 17 June, Members of Parliament (MPs) voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion — removing all criminal penalties for women who end their pregnancies at any stage. This decision eliminates essential legal protections for both mothers and babies, including for dangerous at-home abortions that take the lives of fully viable babies up to birth.

Just three days later, on Friday, 20 June, MPs also voted to move forward with a bill that would legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, empowering doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to those deemed to have less than six months to live.

Together, these decisions send a deeply unsettling message: that life is only worth protecting when it is considered supposedly healthy, wanted, or useful.

Abortion Up to Birth — After Just Two Hours of Debate

The vote to decriminalise abortion took place with only two hours of debate — despite the sweeping implications of the proposal.

While current UK law already allows abortion beyond 24 weeks in a range of broadly defined circumstances, this amendment removed critical legal protections for viable babies in the womb and for women in difficult situations.

Supporters presented the move as an act of compassion toward women, but in reality, only 1% of British women support abortion until birth.

What the law now permits is not just rare: it is extreme. It removes protections that help prevent dangerous, self-managed, late-term abortions and leaves women to face serious risks alone, often in desperation.

This is not compassion. It is abandonment.

Assisted Suicide: A Dangerous Precedent

The bill to legalise assisted suicide follows the same deeply flawed logic. If passed, it will enshrine into law the false logic that ending a life can be an acceptable form of care. While its advocates insist it will be accompanied by “safeguards,” evidence from other countries tells a different story.

Take Canada, for example. Less than ten years after assisted suicide became legal, it now accounts for 4% of all deaths nationwide — a figure that continues to climb. Vulnerable people, especially those who are elderly or disabled, report feeling pressured toward death when what they truly need is support, dignity, and community.

Once a healthcare system begins to treat death as a solution, it becomes the cheaper, easier, and ultimately, default response.

A Culture of Abandonment — Not Autonomy

Both the abortion amendment and the assisted suicide bill were framed as measures that expand personal freedom. But in truth, they represent a profound abandonment — wrapped in the language of choice.

When the law permits abortion at 35 weeks, or offers lethal drugs in place of palliative care, it tells society that life is no longer sacred. Instead, the right to life is treated as negotiable — granted only to those society deems worthy.

A Better Vision for Britain

But this is not the only way forward.

There is another Britain — one that values every human life, from the youngest child in the womb to the most fragile person nearing life’s end. It is a Britain shaped by the truth that every person bears God’s image and possesses inherent dignity.

Both measures now go to the House of Lords. While the abortion amendment cannot be fully blocked, it can still be challenged and delayed. The assisted suicide bill, meanwhile, faces opposition from many peers who have pledged to resist its advance.

The Lords must give these bills the scrutiny they lacked in the Commons — and ask the hard questions others ignored.

This is a moment that calls for moral clarity. For people of faith to respond — not only in Parliament, but in practice. By supporting mothers in crisis. By walking with the dying. By upholding the dignity of the disabled. And by telling a different story: that every life is a gift, and that no one is beyond the reach of love.

Britain is facing a crossroads. And now, more than ever, we must have the courage to say no to death — and yes to life, in every stage, and every circumstance.

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

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

Washington/Sydney (2 July 2025) – The Australian government’s authority to censor opinions expressed on “X” is under scrutiny after an investigation by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee into the activities of Australia’s “eSafety Commissioner”, Julie Inman-Grant.

The groundbreaking report into international state censorship highlights concerns only days before news broke of a legal win for free speech against the same State Office.

“This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship."

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

Elon Musk’s “X”, and children’s safety campaigner Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), challenged the eSafety Commissioner’s decision to censor a tweet using biologically-accurate pronouns to describe a trangender activist appointed to an “expert” position on gender at the WHO.

Elston’s post was deemed “cyber abuse” by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which ordered X to remove the content. X initially refused, and later geo-blocked the post in Australia.

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

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

In his finding, Deputy President O’Donovan noted compelling words from Elston’s own testimony to evidence his satisfaction that Elston was not engaging in abuse, but rather, expressing his deeply-held convictions about biological truth:

“He [Chris] does not believe that a man can transition to being a woman or vice versa. He summarises his position as follows:

“Because I believe that sex is immutable, I am personally convicted that I will not use incorrect pronouns to describe any person, including trans-identifying people who identify as the opposite sex. I will use their preferred names, but I only use sex-based pronouns, because I don’t think it is loving, progressive, or ethical to lie to a person and affirm that they are something that they are not. I believe that calling a man a woman (and vice versa) is not only untrue, but also has implications for the rights and safety of women and children.”

[141] “I am satisfied that it is his universal practice to refer to a transgender person by the pronouns that correspond to their biological sex at birth. I am also satisfied that when he classifies a person as either a man or a woman, he determines which classification to use by reference to their biological sex at birth, rather than the gender related characteristics that they currently express. I am satisfied that he believes doing otherwise has implications for the rights and safety of women and children…”

In May, the U.S. State Department condemned the eSafety Commissioner’s actions as part of a broader global trend toward coercive state censorship.

U.S. Government reports concerns about international censorship efforts

The new report released this week from the House Judiciary Committee reveals new evidence showing how an international WEF-linked advertising consortium, the “Global Alliance for Responsible Media” (GARM), leveraged its vast advertising power to coordinate censorship efforts. The GARM was found to be working not only with major global advertisers, but also with foreign regulators, including Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman‑Grant, to suppress disfavoured online speech.

In published emails, the report shows that Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman‑Grant explicitly relied on GARM’s insights, stating it “ha[d] some very powerful levers at [its] disposal” and requesting updates to inform her regulatory decisions.

The Committee’s report concludes that GARM’s coordinated international efforts—with its commercial might and foreign regulator collusion—constrain citizens’ ability to access content freely, contravening free speech principles, undermining consumer choice, and posing serious antitrust concerns.

Comments and reactions

Reacting to the ruling upholding his freedom to speak the truth on “X”, children’s safety campaigner Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston said:

“I’m grateful that truth and common sense have prevailed.

“This decision sends a clear message that the government does not have authority to silence peaceful expression.

“My mission is to speak the truth about gender ideology, protecting children across the world from its dangers.

“With this ruling, the court has upheld my right to voice my convictions—a right that belongs to every one of us.

My post should never have been censored in Australia, but my hope is that authorities will now think twice before resorting to censorship”.

Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, which co-ordinated Elston’s legal challenge said:

“This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship.

“In this case, the Australian government alarmingly censored the peaceful expression of a Canadian citizen on an American-owned platform, evidence of the expansive reach of censorial forces, even beyond national borders.

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

In a post responding to the news, “X” Global Government Affairs Team said:

“In a victory for free speech, X has won its legal challenge against the Australian eSafety Commissioner’s demand to censor a user’s post about gender ideology or face an approximately $800,000 AUD fine. The post is part of a broader political discussion involving issues of public interest that are subject to legitimate debate. This is a decisive win for free speech in Australia and around the world. X will continue to fight against coercive state censorship and to defend our users’ rights to free speech.”

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

Pictured: Chris Elston; Chris Elston with ADF International’s Lois McLatchie Miller at the Sydney Opera House; Chris Elston with the ADF International team who co-ordinated his legal case

freedom of speech

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

Australia Billboard Chris free speech freedom of speech Paul Coleman

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

Feature premiere of timely documentary highlights erosion of freedom of expression in Britain, including through recent prosecutions of citizens who have silently prayed near abortion facilities
NYT Bestselling author Rod Dreher, film writer/director Isaiah Smallman, and victims of state censorship including Adam Smith-Connor (convicted for silent prayer) to attend black tie evening on Monday 30th June

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

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

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

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

- Isaiah Smallman, Filmmaker

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trailer below:

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

More Information

Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

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

Pictured: Lois McLatchie Miller, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce

freedom of speech Religious freedom UK

The Digital Services Act and Online Speech in Europe

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

Paul Coleman

Executive Director, ADF International

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.

.

brussels censorship digital services act dsa EU free speech freedom of expression freedom of speech online censorship Paul Coleman

Police arrest ADF International team member and Canadian child protection advocate Billboard Chris for their signs, while ignoring violent counter-protestors

Belgian police arrest Lois McLatchie Miller and Chris Elston, for peacefully displaying a sign that read: “Children are never born in the wrong body”

Belgium Billboard Chris brussels Chris Elston europe free speech freedom of speech

International Body to Decide Case of Mexican Politician Censored for Gender Comments on “X”

Former Mexican congressman and presidential candidate Gabriel Quadri’s fight for free speech continues before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as ADF International submits a brief on the merits of his case.

freedom of speech Latin America Mexico

As Albanese claims electoral victory, U.S. State Dept warns Australia: Don’t censor free speech on 𝕏

U.S. State Dept. “deeply concerned” about foreign censorship on U.S. social media platforms – including Australia’s censorship of Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston)
Elston legally challenged the Australian eSafety Commissioner for censoring his post on gender ideology last month. ADF International supported the case

MELBOURNE (5 May 2025) – As the Labour Party claim victory in Australia’s election, the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor has issued a warning to the government not to censor free speech on U.S. social media platforms.

Listed as an example of such “concerning” behaviour is the decision of the Australian eSafety Commissioner to require Musk’s 𝕏 to censor Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), who posted a criticism of gender ideology, and used biologically accurate pronouns to describe an Australian “transgender” activist, in a now “geo-blocked” post in 2024.

Elston is a public campaigner against puberty blockers being given to children.

“If our free speech can't be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?”

- Chris Elston ("Billboard Chris")

The State Department’s statement, released on social media, reads:

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

“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech; Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting gender ideology.

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

Reacting to the news of the State Department’s intervention, Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”) said:

“It’s tremendous to have the State Department support what we all know is true: free speech is a fundamental right, critical to a democratic society.

If our free speech can’t be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?”

Both 𝕏 and Billboard Chris, who was supported by ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, legally challenged the decision in Melbourne last month. The result is expected in the second half of this year.

Australia censored post using biologically accurate pronouns to describe "transgender" activist

The Australian eSafety Commissioner defended the decision to censor Elston’s post before a Tribunal in Melbourne last month by arguing that a post using the biologically accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, in accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act.

The post in question, which was subject to a “removal notice” at the hands of the eSafety Commissioner in April 2024, shared a Daily Mail article headlined “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?” and which included pictures posted on social media by transgender activist, and WHO expert panel appointee, Teddy Cook.

In February 2024, Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), took to U.S. social media platform “X” to share the article, adding the comment:

“This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.”

“People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.”

The takedown order was legally challenged by Elon Musk’s platform “X”, and by Elston. ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance are supporting Elston’s legal case.

In his evidence, Elston told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of the tweet was a specific comment to the Daily Mail’s story on Teddy Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly, to make a political comment about the ideological bias present amongst those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world.

Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added:

“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.”

Asked further about why he chose to post on this matter, Elston explained: “Because the World Health Organisation has global influence. We should have evidence-based care.”

Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pictured: (1,2) “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston)engaging in street activism; (3) Chris Elston with the ADF International team supporting his case; (4) Chris Elston with Lois McLatchie Miller (ADF International) in Sydney

free speech freedom of speech

U.S. State Department calls out Australian government for “coercing” Musk’s 𝕏 to censor truth on gender

“Censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety”, reads U.S. State Dept. statement calling out Australia’s censorship of Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston)
Elston legally challenged the Australian eSafety Commissioner for censoring his post on gender ideology last month. ADF International supported the case

Washington, D.C. (3 May 2025) – The U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor has called out foreign governments who “coerce” U.S. social media platforms to censor users for speaking the truth.