Brazilian legislators challenge unlawful state censorship at international body

  • Senator Eduardo Girao & Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques & Ricardo Salles claim violations of their free speech rights following persistent state censorship in Brazil, including 39-day ban on X (Twitter) ahead of elections. 
  • ADF International, representing legislators before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, petitions international body to condemn Brazilian censorship and uphold free speech.  

Left to right: Senator Eduardo Girao, Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Ricardo Salles and Gilson Marques.

WASHINGTON, DC (20 December 2024) In light of the ongoing state-driven censorship crisis in Brazil, five Brazilian legislators, including Senator Eduardo Girao and members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques, and Ricardo Salles, are challenging the violations of their free speech rights before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, represented by ADF International.  

The Commission has jurisdiction over Brazil as a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights. The American Convention robustly protects freedom of speech, including prohibitions on prior restraint (censoring expression before it has occurred) and special protections for political speech. Article 13 protects the “right to freedom of thought and expression” which includes “the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds… through any other medium of one’s choice… The exercise of the right…shall not be subject to prior censorship… [and] may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls … or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.” 

The legislators claim violations of their rights under the Convention, including their freedom of expression and the equal protection of the law, as a result of escalating state censorship, dating back to 2019, which recently reached a head with the X (formerly known as “Twitter”) ban.  

In their legal challenge now filed with the Commission, the legislators note that state-sponsored censorship, including the 39-day ban of X, is “disproportionate and of dubious legal basis” and “has affected the conventional rights of the Victims in a direct, particular, and serious way.” 

The petition goes on to say that the country’s X blockade “violated the rights of more than twenty million people in Brazil who are users of the platform, having prevented them from accessing the dissemination and reception of information during that time.” 

Julio Pohl, ADF International’s lead legal counsel on the case, stated: “The world watched as Brazilian authorities blatantly clamped down on the free speech rights of over 20 million Brazilians by shutting down X ahead of the national elections. While the ban was eventually lifted, the fact remains that millions of Brazilians, including the five legislators now taking their case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, were subjected to unlawful censorship during a critical time in their country. Censorship has no place in a free society, and it’s time for the Commission to intervene and condemn the vast and ongoing violations of free speech being perpetrated by Brazilian authorities.” 

YouTube

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

Load video

Julio Pohl & Marcel van Hattem

Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil and one of the legislators who filed the petition, commented:  

“What we have seen time and again in Brazil is an egregious silencing of political voices, citizens, journalists, or anyone else who might share different viewpoints from Judge Alexandre de Moraes or others in control. This is a major violation of all Brazilians’ free speech and expression rights. We can’t afford to lose Brazil to authoritarianism, which is why I am taking my case to the international level with the help of ADF International. These attempts to silence and censor cannot be allowed to stand.”  

Eduardo Girao, Senator for Brazil and party to the petition, stated:  

“Brazil is facing a very serious censorship problem. While our constitution protects our rights to speak and express ourselves freely as citizens of Brazil, Brazilians throughout the country are afraid to share their beliefs for fear of persecution and punishment. We must push back against censorship in our country, and it is my hope that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will fulfill its obligation to condemn the human rights violations that are taking place in our country.”  

YouTube

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

Load video

Julio Pohl & Eduardo Girao

State-sponsored censorship 

Censorship in Brazil has been a persistent and escalating problem in Brazil since 2019. The state has targeted conservative voices, including blocking pro-life messages during the 2022 election campaign, which contained views contrary to the pro-abortion position held by then-candidate Lula da Silva.   

On 30 August 2024, 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 ban was in effect for 39 days. 

ADF International petitioned the Commission to urgently intervene, stating, “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.” 

Elon Musk thanked ADF International for its intervention.  

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

Even with the lifting of the X ban, the state of censorship in Brazil remains severe. 

Left to right: ADF International legal counsel Julio Pohl, Chamber of Deputies member Marcel van Hattem, Senator Eduardo Girao, & ADF International Director of Advocacy for Latin America, Tomás Henríquez

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

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. She is awaiting a judgment.

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.

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.

𝕏 back online in Brazil after a 39-day blockade

  • Justice Alexandre De Moraes lifts ban on social media platform following conclusion of national elections
  • Brazilians prevented from engaging in online conversations during election period
  • ADF International, who have filed petition before Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, highlight a “breach of human rights”

Brasília (8 October 2024) – After a 39-day blockade, social media platform “𝕏” is back online in Brazil.

Justice Alexandre De Moraes, who controversially banned the platform in August, has lifted the blockade following the conclusion of national elections.

The stated objection of the ban was to prevent “misinformation” and “hate speech” ahead of the election. Free speech advocates at ADF International described the censorship of Brazilians as “a breach of human rights”.

ADF International has filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in relation to the social media ban, representing five Brazilian legislators who were obstructed from communicating with their audience of millions ahead of a national election.

The legislators – Senator Eduardo Girao & Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques & Ricardo Salles – claim severe violations of their free speech rights from persistent state censorship, dating back to 2019, reaching a head with the 𝕏 ban.

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.

Reacting to the end of the 39-day blockade, Tomas Henriquez, ADF International's Director of Advocacy for Latin America said:

“That people can freely exchange ideas is a good thing. In that sense, that X is back online in Brazil is good, though let’s not forget that de Moraes’s demands were and remain unlawful.

“De Moraes is only now agreeing to lift the blockade, after the elections are over. Censorship has been a persistent and escalating problem in Brazil since 2019. We will continue to make the case that the actions of De Moraes and the greater climate of censorship are unacceptable, until the day that freedom of expression and information are once again secured for all in Brazil.”

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

PICTURED: Tomas Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Advocacy, Latin America

“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.

Liz Truss, Michael Shellenberger, join over 100 free speech champions in condemning ban on “X” in Brazil 

  • International journalists, politicians and thought-leaders sign open letter to Brazilian congress: “Freedom of expression is not negotiable” 
  • Five Attorneys General, Lord David Frost, Eva Vlaardingerbroek, David Starkey CBE, Rod Dreher, Babylon Bee’s Seth Dillon, Senior UK, US, European and Latin American politicians and professors unite to call for ban on “X” to be overturned 

(12 September 2024) – Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, “Twitter Files” journalist Michael Shellenberger and over 100 international free speech advocates have joined an open letter condemning the suspension of “X” in Brazil in an open letter to the Brazilian congress.

Read the letter in full, which is now open to signature from members of the public, here.

The letter, signed by five US Attorneys General, three members of the UK House of Lords, Daily Wire’s Megan Basham, bestselling author Rod Dreher, podcaster Tammy Peterson, “Babylon Bee” CEO Seth Dillon, X “Spaces” host Mario Nawfal, former US Senator Sam Brownback, and leading academics including Princeton’s Dr. Robert P. George, emphasizes the importance of free speech following a severe censorial crackdown in Brazil. 

"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, author & journalist targeted for criminal investigation for reporting on the censorship efforts of Brazilian courts

The letter describes the shutdown of “X”, purchased by Elon Musk in 2022, throughout the country as “a dangerous escalation” of the “troubling trend of global censorship of speech.” 

Addressed to the Brazilian Congress, the letter continues: 

“There is no quicker path to the demise of democracy than the erosion of free speech. 

We urge the Brazilian government to restore the free flow of information, and respect the rights of its citizens to express their views without fear of retribution.” 

A violation of human rights

The initiative was coordinated by legal advocacy group ADF International, which has also written to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over Brazil under the American Convention on Human Rights) to demand its urgent intervention against the violation of free speech. 

The censorship crisis in Brazil reached a peak on Friday 30th August, when 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 that it had singled out for censorship.   

The decision threatened 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 also has 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 with different shareholders, following X’s refusal to comply with the censorship orders.

"If Brazil is allowed to continue in this authoritarian vein, other countries across the West could likely follow in its footsteps."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF International

Free speech is "not a privilege"

The letter, demanding the immediate restoration of free speech in Brazil, attracted signatures from sports star and advocate Riley Gaines, journalists Andy Ngo and Melissa Chen, public intellectuals Dr. Peter Boghossian and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, childrens’ rights campaigner Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), and historian David Starkey.  

Concluding, the letter reads: “Freedom of expression is not negotiable, nor is it a privilege – it is the cornerstone of every democratic society. We must defend it whenever it is under threat, whether in Brazil or anywhere else in the world.” 

Michael Shellenberger, the author and journalist behind “The Twitter Files,” signed the letter, having been targeted for criminal investigation for reporting on the censorship efforts of Brazilian courts. 

Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, which coordinated the open letter, said: 

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Every Brazilian has the fundamental human right to free speech. What Brazilian authorities are doing is directly in violation of both Brazilian and international law, and the global community must hold them accountable.   

If Brazil is allowed to continue in this authoritarian vein, other countries across the West could likely follow in its footsteps, imposing draconian orders to silence speech and banning digital meeting places. It is imperative that we use our voices to speak up for free expression while we have still have the freedom to do so.”  

Commenting on the censorial clampdown, Shellenberger said: 

“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.” 

In May, Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil, also commented on the censorship taking place:

“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: Paul Coleman, Michael Shellenberger

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.

Internet sensation ‘Billboard Chris’ in legal battle for right to debate “harmful” gender ideology on “X”

  • Father of two, global campaigner, and internet sensation ‘Billboard Chris’ appeals Australian censorship orders, with support from ADF International
  • “X” post highlighting unsuitability of transgender activist serving on WHO “panel of experts” currently geo-blocked in Australia

MELBOURNE (10 July 2024) – ‘Billboard Chris’ – the activist known for wearing a sandwich board reading “children cannot consent to puberty blockers” and engaging in conversations in viral videos across the world – has mounted a legal defence of free speech in Australia, with support from ADF International.

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”.

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the suitability of transgender activist Teddy Cook to be appointed to a World Health Organization “panel of experts” set to advise on global transgender policy.

"As a father, I have grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s wellbeing...we need to be able to discuss it."

- "Billboard Chris", in a legal battle for free speech with support from ADF International

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 X, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions.

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

“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 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,” Billboard Chris, engaging in a legal battle for free speech with support from ADF International.

Next steps

The legal team representing Elston have filed a statement of facts and contentions, and the evidence which Elston will rely on with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal now awaits the response from the eSafety Commissioner, due August 8th, before moving to set a hearing date.

YouTube

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

Load video

“It is vital we challenge the global spread of censorship. We’re used to hearing about governments punishing citizens for their ‘wrong’ speech in parts of the world where strict blasphemy laws are still enforced – but now, from Australia, to Mexico, to Finland, 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. We’re proud to stand with Billboard Chris – and others around the world punished for expressing their peaceful views – in defending the right to live and speak the truth,” commented Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who is serving as part of Billboard Chris’s legal team.

“Vital we challenge the global spread of censorship”

The Australian case comes at a time of increased suppression of views shared on “X” at the hands of governments across the world.

In Mexico, former congressman Rodrigo Iván Cortés and sitting congressman Gabriel Quadri have been convicted of “gender-based political violence,” and placed on an offenders’ register, for Twitter posts. For expressing their views on biological sex, both have been ordered to publish a court-written apology on X every day for 30 days, 3 times a day, as a form of public humiliation. ADF International is seeking justice for both men at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

In Finland, parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, a former government minister and grandmother, is currently being prosecuted before the Supreme Court, having been criminally charged for “hate speech” for a 2019 Bible-verse tweet. She was charged under the Finnish criminal code’s section on “War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity,” carrying a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. ADF International is supporting her legal defence.

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. Initiatives such as the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation could have significant implications for how governments police speech, especially as European Commission VP Věra Jourová singled out X for “the largest ratio of mis/disinformation posts”.

In November 2023, free speech champions across the world signed an open letter to Elon Musk, coordinated by ADF International, requesting he back legal cases against government-enforced censorship of posts on X.

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

Ireland’s hate speech law could “censor the entire internet”, warns Michael Shellenberger 

  • Bestselling author & journalist warns Irish parliamentarians against “elite panic” shutting down public discourse 
  • New polling shows 1 in 4 Irish already feel they can’t speak openly in the pub 
  • “Irish Free Speech Summit”, supported by ADF International, highlights leading public voices challenging government censorship

DUBLIN (27th June 2024) – Global voices have united in concern about the “hate speech” bill pending before Irish parliament, as 1 in 4 Irish say they are worried about the erosion of free speech.

Speaking at the Irish parliament this month, “Twitter Files” journalist Michael Shellenberger stated clearly that “there is no hate crisis in Ireland” and that the case for censorship was brought about by “elite panic” trying to stifle open conversation and discourse among the Irish people. 

The bill would make it an offence to possess (for distribution) material that could lead to “hatred” in Ireland, with punishment of up to 5 years in prison.  

The bill would also impact the right to share views on social media across much of the world, with directors and executives of social media platforms with international HQs in Ireland (X, Facebook, and more) held accountable to the Irish government if found to be platforming undefined “hate speech”. 

"The world is watching Ireland. As the home of various international social media headquarters, the bill would have a global impact on what we can all discuss online."

- Michael Shellenberger, "Twitter Files" journalist & author

“The world is watching Ireland. The censorial “hate speech bill”, if passed, would not only shut down conversation nationally – as the home of various international social media headquarters, it would have a global impact on what we can all discuss online.

“A sweeping ban on undefined “hate” gives authorities the power to determine which viewpoints are acceptable to voice. World history warns us that such power can be easily abused,” said Michael Shellenberger, international bestselling author and journalist behind the “Twitter Files”. 

Far-reaching consequences

On the same day, giving the keynote address at the Ireland Free Speech Summit, which sold out amongst members of the public, Shellenberger suggested the goal of the bill may be to “censor the entire internet”.

YouTube

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

Load video

The bill offers no clear definition of what “hate” entails. Experts warn this could pave the way for the criminal prosecution of a wide range of expression considered unfavorable by authorities.  

The bill would further make refusal to give a password to an electronic device a crime, which would allow authorities to search and possibly find materials that are “hateful”.

1 in 4 Irish concerned about right to free speech being eroded

New national polling commissioned by ADF International reveals a deep-seated concern amongst the Irish for the erosion of free speech, with a quarter revealing they already feel restricted in expressing their views and opinions in social settings like a pub, or in their place of work or study.  

In the survey, conducted by Whitestone Insight*, 90% confirmed that free speech was “very important” to them – while the Irish parliament debates  new and wide-ranging “hate speech” legislation, with egregious implications for the basic human right to free speech. 

“The proposed “hate speech” legislation would be one of the worst examples of censorship in the modern West. The bill purports to stamp out ‘hate speech,’ but fails to define what ‘hate’” is – allowing authorities to censor any speech the state opposes. 

That’s why voices from around the world are speaking up for the right to debate and discuss ideas – here in Ireland, and everywhere,” said Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International. 

Global voices speak out against censorship

At the 2024 Free Speech Summit in Dublin on 18th June, international free speech champions  gathered with politicians to highlight the issues at stake under the bill.  

YouTube

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

Load video

“Father Ted” screenwriter Graham Linehan was among the famous faces gathered, challenging attempts to censor Ireland: 

“We’re all coming together with different viewpoints, beliefs, and perspectives – but we agree on one thing. We should be allowed to freely discuss and debate ideas in Ireland. Our free speech must not be curtailed by a censorial government. It’s essential that the parliament consider the draconian impact that the hate speech bill could have on Irish society – and keep the public square open for all,” said Graham Linehan, screenwriter of “Father Ted”, who is billed to speak at the Summit.  

Independent Senators Rónán Mullen and Sharon Keogan spoke out against the bill, with Mullen highlighting that thie bill is “far too vague”: 

“When it comes to democracy, I believe in it. When it comes to the right to test each other’s ideas, I believe in it. And we can’t do that if we’re operating under the chilling fear of giving offence to somebody who wraps that up as hatred, claims that it’s against the law, attacks you as a mob online, causes social media companies to take down your stuff so that you’ve failed to communicate before you even begin to try…If nobody was ever prosecuted under this law, the process itself would become the punishment,” said Mullen in his address. 

Also speaking up at the event were cleric and broadcaster Fr Calvin Robinson; Cambridge academic Dr. James Orr; Irish journalist Laura Perrins; Philosophy Professor Gerard Casey; feminist campaigner Laoise de Brún; GB News host Andrew Doyle; psychotherapist and Director of Genspect, Stella O’Malley; and international bestselling author Andy Ngo.

 

Speaking to censorship within the gender debate specifically, Genspect director and psychotherapist Stella O’Malley said: 

“I am finding the gender world increasingly hardline, and there is a lack of understanding about the importance of free speech, which is a cornerstone and a fundamental to a civilisation. We need to be able to speak about this freely rather than stumbling over what is the fashionable phrase to use right now.” 

For more information on the Ireland Free Speech Summit, click here. 

*Methodology note: Whitestone Insight surveyed 1,027 Republic of Ireland adults online from 15th-20th March 2024. Whitestone Insight is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables are available at whitestoneinsight.com. 

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