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

Defence filed in Bible Tweet “hate speech” case headed to Finland’s Supreme Court 

  • Long-serving Parliamentarian and grandmother Päivi Räsänen to stand trial a third time for expressing Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality on “X” (formerly Twitter) 
       
  • Prosecution calls for tens of thousands in fines and censorship of MP’s Bible-Tweet; ADF International supports Räsänen’s legal defence  

HELSINKI (21 May 2024) – Former government minister and sitting Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen has submitted her defence to the Finnish Supreme Court ahead standing trial a third time for her Bible-verse tweet. 

The State prosecutor appealed the case despite the Christian grandmother of 12 being acquitted unanimously of “hate speech” charges before both the Helsinki District Court, and the Court of Appeal. The charges are found under the “war crimes and crimes against humanity” section of the Finnish Criminal Code. 

Commenting on the submission of her defence, Räsänen said: 

“The heart of the trial is the question of whether teachings linked to the Bible can be displayed and agreed with. I consider it a privilege and an honour to defend freedom of expression, which is a core right in a democratic state. 

An acquittal by the Supreme Court would serve as a stronger precedent than lower court rulings for subsequent similar charges. It would provide a clearer and stronger safeguard for the freedom of Christians to present the teachings of the Bible – and it would strengthen the principle of freedom of expression in general.” 

The Bible on Trial 

Police investigations against Räsänen started in June 2019. As an active member of the Finnish Lutheran church, she had addressed the leadership of her church on Twitter/X and questioned its official sponsorship of the LGBT event ‘Pride 2019’, accompanied by an image of Bible verses from the New Testament book of Romans.

Following this tweet, further investigations against Räsänen were launched, going back to a church pamphlet Räsänen wrote 20 years ago, based on the text “male and female he created them.” 

“This was not just about my opinions, but about everyone's freedom of expression. I hope that with the ruling of the Supreme Court, others would not have to undergo the same ordeal."

- Päivi Räsänen

Police investigations against Räsänen started in June 2019. As an active member of the Finnish Lutheran church, she had addressed the leadership of her church on Twitter/X and questioned its official sponsorship of the LGBT event ‘Pride 2019’, accompanied by an image of Bible verses from the New Testament book of Romans.  

Following this tweet, further investigations against Räsänen were launched, going back to a church pamphlet Räsänen wrote 20 years ago, based on the text “male and female he created them.” 

Over several months, Räsänen endured a total of thirteen hours of police interrogations about her Christian beliefs – including being frequently asked by the police to explain her understanding of the Bible.    

A “chilling effect” on religious freedom 

Her legal team, backed by ADF International, have submitted to the court that the case should be dismissed and costs to be awarded to Räsänen. 

The defence argue that Räsänen has the right to freedom of expression in international law, and that so-called hate speech laws do not extinguish that right. 

The defence have further highlighted the fact that Räsänen has consistently underlined that all people have dignity and should not be discriminated against – inconsistent with the behaviour of somebody guilty of spreading “hate”. 

The submission from the defence reads: 

“Vague or far-reaching laws against advocacy of hatred, or blasphemy, offence to religious feelings and similar offences are not only arbitrary; they can also lead to the direct and structural marginalization of religious or belief communities.”  

The parliamentarian’s case will again be heard alongside Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who faces charges for publishing Räsänen’s pamphlet two decades ago.   

Their cases have garnered global media attention, as human rights experts voiced concern over the threat posed to free speech in Finland.   

To find out more about the case, and to contribute to Päivi’s legal defence, click here.  

Lorcan Price, Irish Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International, supporting Räsänen’s legal defence said:  

“This is a watershed case in the story of Europe’s creeping censorship. In a democratic Western nation in 2024, nobody should be on trial for their faith – yet throughout the prosecution of  Päivi Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola, we have seen something akin to a ‘heresy’ trial, where Christians are dragged through court for holding beliefs that differ from the approved orthodoxy of the day.  

The state’s insistence on continuing this prosecution after almost five long years, despite such clear and unanimous rulings from the lower courts is alarming. The process is the punishment in such instances, resulting in a chill on free speech for all citizens observing. ADF International will continue to stand alongside Räsänen and Pohjola every step of the way as they face their next day in court. Their right to speak freely is everyone’s right to speak freely.”  

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

WHO Pandemic Agreement: free speech experts welcome progress as negotiations near conclusion

Giorgio Mazzoli in front of the UN in Geneva. The WHO pandemic treaty is negotiated by UN member states.
  • Earlier versions of the text required parties to “combat” or “prevent” undefined concepts like “misleading information”, “misinformation”, and “disinformation”.  
  • ADF International spearheaded global advocacy to ensure pandemic treaty upholds freedom of expression. 
  • Latest negotiating text addresses free speech concerns – vigilance against potential regression crucial as negotiations resume today. 
Giorgio Mazzoli in front of the UN in Geneva. The WHO pandemic treaty is negotiated by UN member states.

GENEVA (30 April 2024) – The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, a new international treaty due to be adopted in June, has drawn worldwide criticism for its potential crackdown on freedom of expression as part of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. An earlier version required the “management” of so-called “infodemics,” defined as “too much information … during a disease outbreak” causing “confusion” as well as “mistrust” in health authorities, regardless of the veracity of the information in question. A more recent version of the agreement included language mandating parties to “cooperate, in accordance with national laws, in preventing misinformation and disinformation,” essentially granting individual states the discretion to define which information fits within these categories, and potentially censor it.    

Global advocacy efforts to protect free speech yielded fruits as the latest proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement removed the vague mandates for parties to “prevent” misinformation and disinformation. In a significant shift, the current text no longer contemplates the imposition of potentially sweeping restrictions on freedom of speech to address these phenomena. Instead, it recognizes the importance of building trust and ensuring timely, transparent, accurate, science- and evidence-informed information.  

"It is vital that the Pandemic Agreement safeguard freedom of expression against potential censorship threats. We commend WHO Member States for acknowledging the critical importance of government transparency and accountability in sharing pandemic-related information, rather than endorsing arbitrary speech suppression."

- Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International

“Long-awaited development” 

“It is vital that the Pandemic Agreement safeguard freedom of expression against potential censorship threats. We commend WHO Member States for acknowledging the critical importance of government transparency and accountability in sharing pandemic-related information, rather than endorsing arbitrary speech suppression. We trust that these advances will be consolidated in the final text without any rollbacks on language protecting fundamental freedoms,” said Giorgio Mazzoli, human rights expert and Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International, who led the legal organisation’s global advocacy effort.   

Negotiations continue today 

Today marks the resumption of negotiations on the draft text, scheduled to conclude on May 10th. Later next month, the World Health Assembly (WHA) is expected to adopt the agreement, aimed inter alia at strengthening the WHO’s role in preventing, preparing for, and responding to future pandemics. 

Over the last months, ADF International warned that the agreement could severely restrict freedom of expression, a fundamental human right that encompasses the right to impart, seek and receive information under international law. ADF International has highlighted the potential human rights implications of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and offered legal advocacy to key stakeholders. 

“Freedom of expression, especially during pandemics, is essential to ensure scrutiny and accountability over critical public health decisions. It is imperative that the Pandemic Agreement does not lead to a lowering of existing standards by promoting incursions into free speech in the name of public health, when it is possible for both to be upheld in careful balance. As negotiations near their final stages, Member States must steer clear of any regression in this area,” concluded Mazzoli.  

 

Further information: 

  • October 2023: Negotiating text which required states to combat so-called infodemics: https://t.co/wdrlqG1pHO 
  • March 2024: Negotiating text which demanded that parties cooperate “in preventing misinformation and disinformation”: https://t.co/wdrlqG1pHO 
  • April 2024: new draft without vague mandates and the confirmation of the importance of freedom of information: https://t.co/vtmrw4elmv 
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only