Prosecutor Backs Down in Case Against Scottish Grandmother in Major Free Speech Victory

  • Procurator Fiscal withdraws warning, confirms Rose Docherty will not be charged for offering consensual, peaceful conversation inside abortion “buffer zone” in Glasgow 
  • Docherty held a sign reading “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, if you want” – ADF International co-ordinated her legal defence

GLASGOW (14 August 2025) – In a win for freedom of expression in Scotland, the Procurator Fiscal has decided not to proceed with a prosecution against 75-year-old grandmother Rose Docherty, who was arrested earlier this year for holding a sign offering to talk with anyone who wished (see video above).  

The authorities have further guaranteed that Docherty’s sign will be returned to her from Police Scotland. 

"This is a victory not just for me, but for everyone in Scotland who believes we should be free to hold a peaceful conversation."

- Rose Docherty

On 19 February 2025, Docherty – a lifelong Glaswegian – stood peacefully within 200 metres of Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth II Hospital campus holding a sign that read:

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

Her quiet presence fell within the so-called “buffer zone” around the hospital, where a new law prohibits harassment, intimidation, or influencing decisions about abortion. Despite engaging in none of these activities, Rose was arrested and later offered a formal warning requiring her to admit wrongdoing and refrain from similar actions in future.

Refusing to compromise her conscience by admitting to an offence she did not commit, Docherty – supported by the legal team at ADF International – rejected the warning outright. This week, the Procurator Fiscal confirmed the case has been dropped and the warning withdrawn.

Reacting to the news, Rose Docherty said:

“This is a victory not just for me, but for everyone in Scotland who believes we should be free to hold a peaceful conversation.

“I stood with love and compassion, ready to listen to anyone who wanted to talk. Criminalising kindness has no place in a free society.”

Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International, said:

“No one should fear arrest for offering a consensual conversation. Rose’s case is a stark example of how ‘buffer zone’ laws can be weaponised to silence peaceful expression. 

“We are relieved that common sense has prevailed, but the fact that Rose was arrested and threatened with prosecution shows the urgent need to protect fundamental freedoms in Scotland.”

Docherty’s arrest drew international attention, with the US State Department publicly expressing concern about her arrest, adding: “Freedom of expression needs to be protected.  We call on governments, whether in Scotland or around the world, to respect freedom of expression for all.”

Gillian Mackay admits buffer zones impact prayer within homes

In February, Gillian Mackay MSP admitted that prayer by a window in one’s own home could be an offence within a buffer zone – depending on who is passing by.

Speaking to BBC’s “Scotcast” Podcast, the Green Party Politician repeatedly denied that prayer was being criminalised under the law. 

But when asked if “performative prayer” with “clasped hands”, visible from a window, could be prosecuted, she responded: “well, that depends on who’s passing by the window…”

The admission came despite previously accusing US President JD Vance of spreading “shameless misinformation” when he highlighted concerns that “even private prayer within [people’s] own homes may amount to breaking the law” in his Munich Security Conference Speech earlier this year.

Lois McLatchie Miller, Scottish spokesperson for ADF International, said: 

“We were concerned when such legislation was proposed that we’d witness a slippery slope of censorship. Less than a year after the law coming into force, Gillian Mackay has admitted that it could impact silent prayer even in private homes, depending on who’s passing by the window. And what’s more, we’ve seen an innocent grandmother arrested just for offering conversation. Who are the authorities to determine which conversations, thoughts, or prayers members of the public do or don’t want to have?”

ADF International will continue to offer legal support to individuals like Rose Docherty, defending the right to peacefully engage in conversation or prayer without fear of criminalisation.

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

U.S. State Dept. Highlights Alarming Decline in Free Speech in the United Kingdom 

Adam Smith-Connor

  • New report notes “significant human rights issues” including criminal and civil laws which limit free expression 

  • Case of army veteran convicted for silent prayer highlighted as example of censorship crisis 

Adam Smith-Connor

LONDON (13 August 2025) – A newly released U.S. State Department Human Rights Report has sounded the alarm over mounting restrictions on freedom of expression in the United Kingdom – both in public spaces and online. 

The “2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices”, published this week, notes that “the human rights situation worsened in the United Kingdom” during the year 2024, adding: 

“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression…” 

“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression."

- State Department's "2024 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: UK"

Criminalizing Peaceful Expression in Public Spaces

The report identifies buffer zone laws which restrict “influence” around abortion facilities as matters of concern in the restriction of free expression.  

Citizens have been prosecuted for engaging in silent prayer or for peacefully offering information within these zones. 

The report notes that such restrictions criminalize even “efforts to influence others when inside a restricted area, even through prayer”.

The State Department notes that “in October, an individual was convicted in England for engaging in silent prayer…”. Adam Smith-Connor – an army veteran and father of two – was tried and convicted for praying silently for a few minutes across the road from an abortion facility in Bournemouth, where a local “buffer zone” was in place. Smith-Connor was ordered to pay £9,000 in costs. With support from ADF International, he is appealing the ruling later this year. 

J.D. Vance highlighted this case as one of the worst examples of censorship in Europe during his speech at the Munich Security Conference in Munich. 

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

Broad and Vague Speech Crimes Online

Looking at the online world, the report highlights the Online Safety Act 2023, which came into force in 2024, which threatens free speech online and “expressly expanded Ofcom’s authority to include American media and technology firms with a substantial number of British users, regardless of whether they had a corporate presence in the UK…

“…Experts warned that one effect of the bill could be government regulation to reduce or eliminate effective encryption (and therefore user privacy) on platforms,” noted the State Department. 

The report also highlighted that in April 2024, Scotland implemented the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, introducing sweeping new offenses for “stirring up hatred” through speech or online communication. The penalty for speech deemed to be offensive under this law is up to seven years imprisonment. 

Reacting to the report, Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister & Legal Counsel for ADF International in London, said: 

“It’s plain to see that the censorship crisis is worsening in the UK – from citizens being arrested and prosecuted just for praying in their heads, to the Online Safety Act clamping down on free expression online. Whilst these developments are deeply concerning, it’s encouraging to see Britain’s US allies highlight these issues, as more and more Brits speak out in defence of our hard-fought freedom of speech.” 

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

Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor; Lorcan Price (ADF International)

Christian Arrested for Silent Prayer Back Under Investigation

  • Crown Prosecution Service to advise on charging Isabel Vaughan-Spruce again for praying silently near abortion facility in Birmingham
  • Charitable volunteer, who was cleared in court and received a payout from police for being unjustly arrested twice for her silent prayers, has been consistently praying in same location for twenty years

Birmingham (10th August 2025) – West Midlands Police have confirmed a live investigation into Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who has been engaging in silent prayer on a public street near an abortion facility in Birmingham.

This marks the third time in which the police have responded to Vaughan-Spruce’s silent prayers. In 2023, the charitable volunteer was acquitted in court after being arrested for praying in a local “buffer zone”, under a Public Spaces Protection Order which banned “expressions of approval or disapproval” of abortion. The incident occurred while the abortion facility was closed. The prosecution offered no evidence to support a conviction.

“Silent prayer cannot possibly be a crime – everyone has the right to freedom of thought.”

- Isabel Vaughan-Spruce

Despite being cleared of any wrongdoing, Isabel was arrested again for the same silent thoughts in the same location weeks later, opening an investigation that lasted several months. In August 2024, Vaughan-Spruce successfully challenged her two unjust arrests and received a settlement from West Midlands Police of £13,000.

Vaughan-Spruce, who has been a charitable volunteer supporting mothers in crisis pregnancy for twenty years, has continued to pray nearby the abortion facility on a weekly basis. West Midlands Police have begun a practice of posting two police officers to watch her pray silently. On regular occasions, she has been approached by officers and asked if she is praying.

Vaughan-Spruce submitted a complaint to the police force for repeatedly harassing and interrogating her while failing to explain how she had been in breach of any law. The complaint noted that her treatment was at odds with the previous clear verdict from the courts and CPS guidance on the matter.

Her formal complaint was declined on the basis of there being a live investigation against her, despite her never being formally informed that this was the case.

West Midlands Police have now confirmed that they await advice from CPS considering next steps on the allegations against Isabel. CPS has previously decided that acts of standing silently in prayer do not meet its evidential and public interest thresholds to warrant prosecution. This approach appeared to be formalised under new guidance which noted that conduct which was not ‘overt’ would fall outside the scope of criminality (LINK). This is believed to be the first test of CPS guidance under the controversial national “buffer zone” legislation.

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce commented:

“Despite being fully vindicated multiple times after being wrongfully arrested for my thoughts, it’s unbelievable that I am still being harassed by police for silently pray in that area, and yet again find myself under investigation for the same prayers I have said for twenty years. Silent prayer cannot possibly be a crime – everyone has the right to freedom of thought.” 

Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF International, who have supported Vaughan-Spruce’ legal defence, said:

“’Buffer zones’ are among the most concerning frontiers of censorship in the modern west. We all stand against harassment and abuse, but the ‘buffer zone’ lawbroadly bans “influence”, which is being interpreted by police officers to target innocent people who happen to stand in a certain place and believe a certain thing. We will continue to robustly challenge this unjust censorship, and support Isabel’s right to think and believe freely.”

Footage of Isabel’s arrest in 2022 went viral worldwide:

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: Isabel Vaughan-Spruce (x2); Isabel being arrested for her prayers (November 2022, March 2023); Jeremiah Igunnubole

Life at Risk: A Defining Week for the UK 

March for Life 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.

March for Life UK

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

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

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

The Digital Services Act and Online Speech in Europe

Paul Coleman at EU Parliament

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

Picture of Paul Coleman
Paul Coleman

Executive Director, ADF International

X-twitter Linkedin

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

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

Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago. The internet is the frontline in this assault on free speech in Europe, particularly through the Digital Services Act, which I will come to shortly.

How We Got Here

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Severe" Threat to Online Speech

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

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

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

Sadly not.

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

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

European Commission's Power Over Regulation

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

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

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

Six years ago, Päivi posted a picture of a Bible verse and expressed her Christian views on sexuality on X. She was criminally prosecuted for alleged “hate speech” and has been unanimously acquitted in two trials. But the state prosecutor has appealed the case again. And shockingly, her case—in which she faces trial for posting online—is now pending before Finland’s Supreme Court.

Now, under the DSA, deeply problematic national laws restricting speech—like the “hate speech” legislation used to prosecute Päivi —could be broadly applied across the EU by this simple principle:

If it’s considered illegal in one place, it could be in every place. And I do mean every place.

The United States Weighs In

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is thankfully the case that freedom of expression is guaranteed in Article 11 of the EU Charter, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

According to these and the jurisprudence of the ECHR, any limitations to free speech must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. And so, serious questions can and should be raised about whether the DSA is compatible with these binding obligations to protect freedom of expression. It is my strong view, as you may have guessed from this speech, that it is not. So, what can be done about this?

Member states could initiate an action for annulment before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Through this, the whole or parts of the DSA could be declared inapplicable, if they are deemed to infringe on the EU Charter or Treaties.

Conclusion: The DSA Has a Far-Reaching Censorial Impact

The same question, of considering whether the DSA is compatible with binding obligations to protect free speech, is key for the upcoming DSA review, in which the Commission must evaluate the act in view of other legal commitments.

It is imperative that every opportunity is taken in the review, which must occur by mid-November this year, to raise concerns about the censorial impact of the DSA.

This could be accomplished through written or oral questions to the European Commission and even by inviting Commissioner Henna Virkkunen to discuss the legislation in the European Parliament. After all, if the Commissioner is as in favour of freedom of expression as she claims to be, why would she refuse?

It is vital to include representatives of civil society, tech companies and digital rights groups in such conversations, as they can share their invaluable expertise on this important issue.

As elected representatives of your people, you are also in an excellent position to bring the public’s attention to the grave risks to free speech posed by the DSA. The truth is that every single European’s rights are jeopardized by this legislation. The more the public is aware of and speaks out about this, the more pressure the Commission will feel. And the more likely we are to defeat this law.

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

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

.