Australian tribunal to rule on whether using biologically accurate pronouns online is grounds for censorship 

  • CASE CONTINUES: Musk’s “X” and Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” challenge Australian “eSafety Commissioner” for censoring online post criticizing gender ideology 
  • Testifying, campaigner “Billboard Chris” tells Tribunal: “It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body” 
  • Post referred to controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook by her biologically accurate pronouns 

MELBOURNE (2 April 2025) – The Australian eSafety Commissioner has argued that a post using the biologically-accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, before the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne this week. 

The post in question, which was subject to a “removal notice” at the hands of the eSafety Commissioner in April 2024, shared a Daily Mail article headlined “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” and which included pictures posted on social media by transgender activist, and WHO expert panel appointee, Teddy Cook.  

The takedown order is being legally challenged by Elon Musk’s platform “X”, and by the author of the post, Chris Elston, known as “Billboard Chris” online.  

ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance are supporting Elston’s legal case.  

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

- Chris Elston ("Billboard Chris")

“I want everyone to think for themselves”

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

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

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

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

Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added: 

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

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

Under cross-examination, Elston responded, “My goal is not to provoke outrage. My goal is to simply try to educate people, and encourage discussion. I want everyone to think for themselves.” 

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

Defining “serious harm” to justify censorship

In accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021, the eSafety Commissioner seeks to prove that Chris Elston’s post constitutes “cyber abuse material directed at an Australian adult”, including that it “was likely that the material was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm”. 

Counsel for the eSafety Commissioner has suggested that Elston’s post could meet this threshold.  

Expert witness, consultant medical psychiatrist Dr. Jill Redden, testified that using biologically-accurate pronouns for somebody identifying as transgender could cause “irritation” and upset, but would not likely cross the statutory threshold to constitute “serious harm”. 

When asked how long one might expect to experience serious psychological symptoms of that severity, Dr. Redden answered “several months”. Elston’s counsel pointed out that Teddy Cook had professed on an Instagram post to be “living my best life” just nine days after the X post at the centre of this case was published. 

Media professor testifies that biologically accurate pronouns are “anti-science” 

The eSafety Commissioner called Professor Rob Cover of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, a Professor of Digital Communication, as an expert witness. 

Professor Cover testified that he believes it is “harmful”, “offensive”, “untruthful”, “rude” and “anti-science” to use biologically accurate pronouns when referring to a person who identifies as transgender.  

He added that using sex-based language “adds to a kind of anti-trans rhetoric which is a common kind of misinformation…online and offline”. 

Cover considers his personal view to be “informed by science” and by “the truth of the person which wishes to be identified in that way in accordance with their reality.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pictured: “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston); Chris Elston with the ADF International team supporting his case

“Billboard Chris” fined, threatened with arrest in Brisbane days ahead of “ultimate” court challenge against government online censorship

  • Campaigner’s “X” post highlighting unsuitability of transgender activist serving on WHO “panel of experts” currently geo-blocked in Australia  
  • Musk’s “X” and Canadian “Billboard Chris” to bring case against Australian “eSafety Commissioner” over censored post, March 31st-April 4th
  • “Billboard Chris” forcibly moved while having street conversations in Brisbane days ahead of hearing

MELBOURNE (25 March 2025) – Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” was threatened with arrest, fined 806 Australian Dollars (AUD), and forcibly moved in Brisbane today after conducting consensual conversations with members of the Australian public. 

Video footage shows Chris Elston, who has almost 500k followers on social media platform “X”, freely invite conversations with members of the public in an open area in Brisbane city center.  

The campaigner wore a sign saying “children cannot consent to puberty blockers” as a means of inviting open conversation and debate on this topic. 

Despite the video footage showing that the public could freely move around Elston and choose whether or not to engage in conversation, the Canadian dad of two was nevertheless accused of “obstructing people”, issued the fine, and forcibly removed from the area by police. 

The “litmus test” case for international free speech 

Chris Elston is currently in Australia for a legal free speech challenge which has been described as a “litmus test” for the international protection of the right to free speech against government censorship. 

On 28 February 2024, Elston took to “X” to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED”. 

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

Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commissioner, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne.  

Billboard Chris, with the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside Elon Musk’s “X”, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions.   

The case will be heard in Melbourne for five days on the week beginning March 31st.  

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

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

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

“Children struggling with distress regarding their sex deserve better than ‘guidelines’ written by activists who only want to push them in one direction.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

PICTURED: Chris Elston (x2); Robert Clarke (ADF International); Elston with the ADF International team supporting his legal defence

Mexican Government Ignores Inquiry from International Human Rights Body Into Politician Censored and Convicted for Twitter/X posts on Gender

Mexican Congressman Gabriel Quadri.
  • Former Mexican congressman and presidential candidate Gabriel Quadri was convicted as a “political violator against women” for Twitter/X posts on gender. 
  • ADF International represents Quadri before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Mexico has failed to respond, prompting expedited consideration before the body. 

WASHINGTON, DC (18 February 2025) Gabriel Quadri, a former congressman and presidential candidate from Mexico, was convicted in May 2022 as a “political violator against women” for posts on Twitter/X expressing concerns about gender ideology. Specifically, Quadri commented that it was unfair for men who identify as women to take spaces in Mexico’s Congress reserved for women. 

The highest electoral court in Mexico ruled that Quadri’s posts were discriminatory and ordered him to delete his posts, issue a compelled public apology, and be registered as a gender-based political violator—censorship measures that infringed on his civil and political rights as a Mexican citizen and breach his human right to free speech. 

Quadri appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with the legal support of ADF International, demanding that the Mexican state be held accountable for violating his freedom of expression. In March of last year, the Mexican government was prompted to respond to the case. Failing to do so, the Commission has announced that Quadri’s case will be moving forward without Mexico’s response.  

“Mexico’s failure to respond to Gabriel Quadri’s case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights evinces a clear disregard for the basic human right to free speech. We are pleased that his case nevertheless will progress, and are hopeful that Mexico will be held accountable for its obvious human rights violations,” stated Julio Pohl, legal counsel for ADF International. 

“The Mexican government has seriously violated Quadri’s free expression rights, and it’s time for the Commission to act decisively for justice in his case and in defense of the free speech rights of all Mexicans.” 

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

“Gender based political violence” conviction  

Mexico has in place a law requiring equal representation of men and women in Congress. Quadri’s Twitter/X posts made the point that it is unjust for males to take advantage of the law to gain access to political positions designated for women.   

On February 8, 2022, Quadri posted on Twitter/X: “We should legislate to prevent that men that make themselves pass as women compete unfairly against women in organized sports, and that they do not usurp the political electoral positions that belong to women…”   

On February 16, 2022, he posted: “Let it be clear. In the House of Representatives of the 65th Legislature there is no parity between men and women. There are 252 men and 248 women, thanks to trans ideology and/or gender ideology. Men enter through the back door to (once again) displace women…”   

Salma Luévano, a MORENA then-member of Congress who identifies as a transgender woman, filed a complaint regarding the posts before the National Electoral Institute resulting in Quadri’s conviction. Luévano gained notoriety for fomenting unrest within Mexico’s Congress, including an incident where the president of the chamber was physically wrestled from his chair amidst calls to expel Quadri from the chamber.   

The Court ordered the following punitive measures following Quadri’s conviction: requirements to (i) delete the tweets, (ii) issue a public apology drafted by the Court and post a summary of the ruling on Twitter/X for 15 days, at two set times per day, (iii) complete two courses on gender-based violence and transgender violence, and (iv) be listed as a “gender-based political violator” on a national registry for two years and nine months.   

With the exhaustion of domestic remedies, ADF International petitioned the Inter-American Commission for justice for Quadri in December 2022. In January 2024, more than a year from the filing, the Commission called on the government of Mexico to respond. Now in 2025, after a failure by the Mexican government to respond, the case is moving forward within the Commission. 

Former Mexican Congressman Rodrigo Iván Cortés also was convicted for “gender based political violence” for social media posts. His case is pending before the Commission.     

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

As Rumble Returns to Brazil, International Free Speech Expert Investigates Brazilian Censorship Crisis with Visit

Brazil censorship
  • Rumble returns to Brazil just before Special Rapporteur for Free Expression meets with Brazilian lawmakers to investigate Brazil’s free speech violations.  
  • ADF International is representing five Brazilian lawmakers before the Inter-American Commission, asking the body to hold Brazil accountable for egregious censorship. 

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

BRAZIL (17 FEBRUARY 2025): The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur for Free Expression, Pedro Vaca, conducted an official visit to Brazil this week to investigate ongoing free speech violations by Brazilian authorities. The investigation follows multiple filings with the Commission as a result of escalating state censorship in the country, dating back to 2019, reaching a head in September with the suspension of X (Twitter). 

Vaca met with Brazilian lawmakers, whose censorship case is represented by ADF International before the Inter-American Commission. His visit follows the return of Rumble, a free speech video platform, to Brazil on February 9th. The platform had withdrawn its services in the country due to censorship demands.  

Julio Pohl, legal counsel for ADF International, stated:  

“Every Brazilian has the human right to free speech, but the fact is that millions of Brazilians have been subjected to unlawful censorship. The Special Rapporteur’s visit to Brazil signals that Brazil’s egregious human rights violations have not gone unnoticed. While the return of Rumble is an excellent step, there is significant work to be done. Censorship has no place in a free society, and it’s time for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to exercise its authority to hold Brazil accountable for the clampdown on free speech.” 

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

“We must continue to push back against censorship in our country, and put a stop to those who are abusing their power. What we have seen time and again in Brazil is an egregious silencing of political voices, citizens, journalists, or anyone who might share different viewpoints from Judge Alexandre de Moraes, President Lula da Silva, or others in control. We can’t afford to lose Brazil to authoritarianism, and I am grateful to the Special Rapporteur for taking an urgent look at this crisis. These attempts to silence and censor cannot be allowed to stand.” 

Brazilian lawmakers and freedom of speech advocates

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

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. 

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

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

Billboard Chris' case will be heard in Australia in March

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

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

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

Billboard Chris' case will be heard in Australia in March

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

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

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

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

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

Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commission, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Melbourne. 

Billboard Chris, with the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside Elon Musk’s “X”, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions.  

The case will be heard in Melbourne on the week beginning March 31st. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian Convert From Islam Freed After Imprisonment Over Facebook Posts

  • Contributor to Facebook group for Christian converts from Islam has been freed after over three years in detention 
  • Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo, father of 5, withstood severe conditions – and period of hunger strike – before being released from prison this month, with support from ADF International

CAIRO (2 February 2025) – The father of 5 imprisoned for participating in a private Facebook group about converting to Christianity from Islam has been freed from detention after 3 years – but his case remains open.

Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo, originally from Yemen, was part of a Christian Facebook group that discussed Islamic theology and apologetics. In 2021, Abdo was arrested while he was living as a UNHCR-registered asylum seeker in Egypt. He had originally fled to Egypt because he faced death threats in Yemen after converting to Christianity.  

"It isn’t right that a government should tear me away from my family, keep me in these awful conditions, only because of the faith in which I peacefully choose to believe."

- Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo

He was moved between several detention centers throughout his three years of imprisonment, even undergoing a hunger strike within his final six months in an act of desperation. The husband and father of five suffered from poor health in relation to his heart, liver, and kidneys. 

“I endured many hardships in prison. It isn’t right that a government should tear me away from my family, keep me in these awful conditions, only because of the faith in which I peacefully choose to believe. 

“I thank everyone who prayed for me while I was in prison, cared about and followed up on my case, and shared the joy of my release from prison,” commented Abdo upon his release. 

Abdo’s son, Husam Baqi, added: 

“It is hideous that individuals are not allowed to believe and express their beliefs freely and are imprisoned or killed for their faith.”

"This case shows the extremity of unchecked government censorship in the online age."

- Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo

Abdo continues to fight his open legal battle with support from ADF International, who helped secure his release by submitting his case to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 

A Global Trend of Online Censorship

Commenting on the case, Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy for Religious Freedom for ADF International, said: 

“The arbitrary detention of this husband and father without a criminal trial, and the lack of an opportunity for him to defend himself against alleged offenses, constitutes a severe violation of human rights. 

“The peaceful expression of one’s religious convictions cannot be a crime – not in Egypt, nor anywhere else in the world. This case shows the extremity of unchecked government censorship in the online age. The world must take note.” 

Support from around the World

While Abdo sufered in prison, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, described his unfair treatment as “grotesque”. 

“The imprisonment of Yemeni refugee Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo at the hands of Egyptian authorities is a surreal example of censorial blasphemy policies in action,” she said.  

Previously a prominent atheist, Ali announced in November that she was converting to Christianity. Because of her outspoken rhetoric against the Muslim Brotherhood, she faces constant death threats.  

“This is the logical conclusion to a trend that empowers authorities to brutalize innocent people for free expression on social media. From China to Pakistan, from Russia to Syria, from the UK to Egypt—free speech must urgently be defended from our age’s resurgent Stalinism,” she added.

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

PICTURED: Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo; Kelsey Zorzi, ADF International

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

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

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

Picture of Dr. Adina Portaru
Dr. Adina Portaru

Senior Counsel, Europe, ADF International

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Implications on Free Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Tech Platforms

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

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

Alleged “Hate Speech” Case

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

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

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

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

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

Penalties for Non-Compliance with the EU Digital Services Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Shadow Content Banning”

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

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

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

EU Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EU doubles down on social media censorship that ‘will not be confined to Europe’ following concerns about Musk’s free speech policy on X

  • Members of the European Parliament debated controversial Digital Services Act on Tuesday, which censors free speech both within and outside the EU, and could affect America
  • EU’s censorship stance in marked contrast with US, where President Trump this week signed Executive Order to end government censorship

STRASBOURG (24 January) – The European Union this week doubled down on social media censorship to “protect democracy” from “foreign interference”, following concerns about Elon Musk’s free speech policy on X.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full force in February 2024, is an EU regulation that aims to tackle “misinformation”, “disinformation”, and “hate speech” online.

By requiring the removal of so-called “illegal content” on social media platforms, it censors free speech both within and outside the EU and could even affect the speech of US citizens online.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) debated enforcement of the controversial act on Tuesday. 

MEP Iratxe García, leader of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, commented:

“In recent months, we have seen how Elon Musk and his social network X have become the main promoter for the far right by supporting Donald Trump and Alice Weidel’s AfD party through fake news and hate messages.

“We have also witnessed Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to remove fact-checking programs on Meta as an act of complicity with lies and manipulation… We must ensure the effective application of our rules and we must sanction those who break the rules.”

The European Commissioner in charge of enforcing the DSA, Henna Virkkunen, announced a number of measures to further crack down on speech, including doubling the number of staff working on enforcement from 100 to 200 by the end of 2025. 

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage."

- Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International

This puts the EU’s online free speech stance in stark opposition to that of the US, following President Trump this week signing an Executive Order to end government censorship.

Although Virkkunen claimed the DSA “does not censor content”, MEPs from across the political spectrum voiced well-founded concerns that, in fact, it does.

Hungarian MEP Schaller-Baross Ernő said:

“Let’s call a spade a spade! In its current form, the DSA can also serve as a tool for political censorship…

“I’m afraid that in Europe the left… is not learning again. But this DSA must be abolished in this form. We don’t need more officials in Europe who censor…

“Freedom of expression and equal conditions must be ensured. This is the foundation of our democracy. Let’s say no to political censorship!”

Polish MEP Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik said:

“For you, democracy is when people think, write and speak directly and say what you tell them to with your leftist way of thinking.

“Right-wing and conservative views are ‘thought crime’ and today’s debate should be called ‘The need to strengthen censorship to protect the trough of those who govern the European Union’.”

In addition to institutionalising censorship, the DSA also lays the ground for shadow banning, which was highlighted in this week’s debate.

Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, a global organisation dedicated to the protection of fundamental freedoms, including at the EU institutions, stated:

“On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order to end the weaponisation of the US government to promote censorship.

“On Tuesday, the European Commission made clear that it will be increasing its efforts to suppress speech, arguing that the Digital Services Act is needed to ‘protect democracy’ from so-called ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ online.

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage.

“This will usher in an unprecedented era of tension within the West itself over this most basic of human rights, and it is the responsibility of all who value freedom to side with the protection of free speech.

“As we saw clearly from Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk this summer, warning him not to breach the DSA ahead of his interview with Trump, the DSA will be used to censor views disfavoured by those in power.

“The DSA poses a grave threat to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, guaranteed to every person under international law. It is not the place of any authority to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on the rest of society.

“The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens across the world, as social media companies could regulate their content globally to comply with European standards.”

US Response to DSA

In response to former Commissioner Thierry Breton’s letter to Musk this summer, Congressman Jim Jordan, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee, wrote a strongly worded letter to Mr Breton.

In it, he said:

“We write to reiterate our position that the EU’s burdensome regulation of online speech must not infringe on protected American speech…

“Your threats against free speech do not occur in a vacuum, and the consequences are not limited to Europe. The harms caused by EU-imposed censorship spill across international borders, as many platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally.

“Thus, the EU’s regulatory censorship regime may limit what content Americans can view in the United States. American companies also have an enormous incentive to comply with the DSA and public threats from EU commissioners like you.”

Increasing Censorship Efforts

Other measures announced by Virkkunen this week include making a previously voluntary code of conduct on “illegal hate speech online” legally binding and advancing a framework called the European Democracy Shield (EDS).

The EDS uses fact checkers and NGOs to combat so-called “foreign information manipulation, interference, and disinformation”.

Anyone, be it an individual or an entity, can flag content they believe to be illegal.

Under the DSA, social media platforms can face massive fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for failing to remove so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech”.

The concept of “hate speech” has no basis in international human rights law.

Because of their loose and vague nature, prohibitions on “hate speech” rely on the subjective perception of offended parties rather than objective harm.

Further, the definition of “hate speech” is not harmonised at the EU level, meaning that what is deemed illegal in one country may not be in another.

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

Jim Demers: Justice Delayed and Overdue in Canada

Jim Demers is a Canadian pro-lifer who deserves justice.

The authorities have violated Canadian man Jim Demers' rights

Picture of Paul Coleman
Paul Coleman

Executive Director, ADF International

X-twitter Linkedin
Jim Demers is a Canadian pro-lifer who deserves justice.

Around the world, governments are enacting so-called “buffer zones”—restricted areas where the state dictates what can and cannot be said. These designated zones—incorporating public footpaths, bus stops, and even people’s homes—prohibit otherwise perfectly lawful activity from taking place within them.

They’re even being used to criminalize silent prayer in public places, as in the cases of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce and Adam Smith-Connor—two courageous UK citizens we’ve stood alongside.

As we’ll see, these restrictions on our lawful right to freedom of thought and expression have been going on for a long time. We want to introduce you to Jim Demers, a lifelong Canadian resident who has faced unrelenting opposition for his pro-life views.

Jim Demers' So-Called 'Crime'

Back in 1996, Jim stood peacefully on a public sidewalk outside an abortion facility in Vancouver, holding a sign that quoted the American Convention on Human Rights:

“Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.” This peaceful act of expression led to Jim’s conviction as a criminal. He was imprisoned alongside violent offenders—all for exercising his right to free expression.

His so-called “crime”? Holding a pro-life sign within the “bubble zone” created by the Access to Abortion Services Act of British Columbia. Jim was convicted for “protesting against abortion services” and “sidewalk interference” inside the zone. But Jim didn’t speak to or interact with any members of the public or staff at the abortion facility, nor did he obstruct access to the facility in any way.

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

Censorship Zones Silence Pro-Life Viewpoints

We can all agree that harassment is wrong. Indeed, in many countries that have introduced these buffer zones, harassment is already illegal. These zones are about silencing pro-life viewpoints in the exact place where a pro-life viewpoint might be needed the most. 

Both international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Yet the unjust and discriminatory Act under which Jim was convicted still stands to this day—nearly 30 years later.

The shrinking space for free speech in Canada results from such laws being left to stand for decades, creating the false impression that these restrictions are legitimate. Let us reiterate to you today that they are not.

Jim brought his case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2004. Twenty years later, the Commission still has not delivered a judgment, choosing instead to simply sit on his case. This is arguably the most severe case of an alleged backlog at any international human rights body.

Conclusion: We Will Stand with Jim Demers and He Deserves Justice

Now, we are standing with Jim. We have reactivated his case and are calling on the Commission to finally rule that Canadian authorities violated his rights. This case isn’t just about Jim—it’s about protecting the freedom of every person to express themselves without fear of criminal prosecution.

If international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mean anything, then Jim’s rights—and the right of every person to free expression—must be defended.

“I hope I’m never silent when bad things are happening, and I hope nobody else is silent either when bad things are happening. I have dedicated my life to speaking out in defence of the unborn, and because of this, I was criminally convicted and even spent time in jail.” Jim’s courage reminds us that silence is never an option when freedoms are at risk. He deserves justice, no matter how delayed.

Facebook’s Commitment to Winding Back Censorship

Zuckerberg announces censorship windbacks

Practice what you preach, allow free speech

Zuckerberg announces censorship windbacks

After we – and many other free speech groups – spent years sounding the alarm on the suppression of open conversation online, Mark Zuckerberg has this week committed to winding back censorship across all Meta platforms – including Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.

In a monumental announcement, the CEO admitted that the third-party “fact-checkers” employed to moderate content on Meta were “too politically biased”, and that it’s “time to get back to our roots around freedom of expression.”

This isn’t just good news for Instagrammers and influencers. It marks a sea change in the public landscape, indicating an expectation that our right to free speech will be honoured—whether on or offline.

We can celebrate this important milestone and will be watching closely to see if Zuckerberg follows through on his promises. But at ADF International, we’re still keenly aware that the threat to free speech comes not only from privately run internet platforms but also from governments.

Our Cases of Online Censorship

Take Päivi Räsänen. This Finnish member of parliament will soon be heading to a criminal trial at the Supreme Court because of a Bible-verse tweet she posted in 2019. It wasn’t a social media platform that censored her Christian view—it was the state authorities. The case is due before the Finnish Supreme Court this year.

Or take Chris Elston, a.k.a viral internet sensation Billboard Chris. Last February, he posted about his disapproval of the WHO’s selection of an infamous transgender activist to be on a panel setting guidelines for global transgender policy.

It wasn’t a social media platform that decided that his opinion shouldn’t be heard—it was the Australian authorities. We’re supporting his fight for free speech as he goes to court in March, alongside “X,” who wants to be able to host his viewpoint without government interference.

It’s easy to become discouraged as we live through an era where speaking the truth can land you in legal trouble. But this week, we mark yet another clear indication that we’re moving the needle in the right direction.