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

  • Feature premiere of timely documentary highlights erosion of freedom of expression in Britain, including through recent prosecutions of citizens who have silently prayed near abortion facilities 

  • NYT Bestselling author Rod Dreher, film writer/director Isaiah Smallman, and victims of state censorship including Adam Smith-Connor (convicted for silent prayer) to attend black tie evening on Monday 30th June 

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

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

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

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

- Isaiah Smallman, Filmmaker

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trailer below:

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

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

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

Pictured: Lois McLatchie Miller, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce

The Digital Services Act and Online Speech in Europe

Paul Coleman at EU Parliament

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

Picture of Paul Coleman
Paul Coleman

Executive Director, ADF International

X-twitter Linkedin

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

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

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

How We Got Here

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Severe" Threat to Online Speech

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

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

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

Sadly not.

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

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

European Commission's Power Over Regulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States Weighs In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: The DSA Has a Far-Reaching Censorial Impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Chris Elston ("Billboard Chris")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Chris Elston ("Billboard Chris")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unpacking the EU Digital Services Act

Man on his phone in a digital realm design
Man on his phone in a digital realm design

Given the impact of digital services on the online and offline world, states, or, in this case, a supranational union with delegated powers, are increasingly seeking to regulate this domain. We live in an age where Big Tech holds unprecedented power—the annual revenue of these giants economically places them ahead of many states’ annual budgets. The DSA is the EU’s first comprehensive and binding regulation of digital service providers in more than twenty years.

What is the Digital Services Act?

Although it purports to create “a safe online environment,” the DSA is among the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age.

The DSA is a legally binding regulatory framework that gives the European Commission authority to enforce “content moderation” on very large online platforms and search engines (those with more than 45 million users per month) that are established, or offer their services, in the EU.

Most of its provisions came into force in February 2024. Platforms that fail to comply with the regulation face massive financial penalties and even suspension. Through the platform’s compliance with the DSA, individuals can suffer censorship, suspension from online platforms, and criminal prosecution (under national law).

The stated objective of the DSA is “ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, addressing the dissemination of illegal content online and the societal risks that the dissemination of disinformation or other content may generate, and within which fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the EU] are effectively protected, and innovation is facilitated”.

The Commission claims that the DSA creates “legal certainty,” “greater democratic control,” and “mitigation of systemic risks, such as manipulation or disinformation”—but, in reality, it is an authoritarian censorship regime antithetical to democracy.

Why is the DSA an extreme threat to fundamental freedoms?

The DSA requires platforms to censor “illegal content,” which it broadly defines as anything that is not in compliance with EU law or the law of any Member State (Article 3(h)). This could result in the lowest common denominator for censorship across the whole EU. Furthermore, authoritarian governments could adopt the blueprint, claiming that Western liberal states endorse it.

The DSA is deeply flawed. It is built on the idea that “bad speech” is best countered by censorship rather than robust discussion. Furthermore, the DSA gives the European Commission broad power over how platforms handle speech, which undermines the free expression essential to democratic societies.

If a censorship law such as the DSA is the “gold standard,” as the Commission has praised its own construct, authoritarian governments of the world will readily adopt the model.

Allowing “illegal content” to potentially be determined by one country’s vague and overreaching laws pits the DSA against international law standards that require any restrictions on speech to be precisely defined and necessary. This is extremely problematic given the increasing number of absurd so-called “hate speech” laws potentially criminalizing peaceful speech throughout Europe.

  • Example 1: Germany’s highly controversial NetzDG Law, enacted in 2017, forces digital service providers to enforce sweeping online restrictions on certain kinds of content, linking to provisions of the criminal code and including the broad offence of “insult”. A person in Germany could see something “insulting” online that they claim is illegal under German law, file a complaint under the DSA, and trigger a take-down of the content for all countries in the EU, including countries where “insult” is not a criminal offense.

  • Example 2: The DSA forces digital service providers to block specific people or messages, even those that come from outside the EU, from being heard by Europe. A Latin American president says something that a German believes violates German law. Under the DSA, that speech could be blocked (“content moderated”) from all EU countries.

How does the DSA censor speech?

The DSA is at the heart of Europe’s censorship industrial complex, consisting of a number of interwoven regulations and codes that give an unaccountable bureaucracy broad power to censor speech. Censorship occurs through vast “content moderation” networks coupled with a powerful enforcement mechanism to force platforms to comply.

“Content Moderation”

The unelected and largely unaccountable Commission has positioned itself under the DSA to enable sweeping censorship in the name of “public safety” and “democracy”. It does this through a complicated mega-structure that allows the Commission to pull the strings of censorship, making private enterprises complicit and forcing them to comply with the threat of draconian fines.

The DSA creates a censorship industrial complex consisting of an expansive web of outsourced content flaggers, national coordinators, monitoring reporters, and other authorities, with the European Commission at its head. This is a business model dependent on finding content to censor and inconsistent with the standards of the rule of law.

The structure is intentionally unnavigable for the regular citizen to determine what is allowable speech. As platforms have the obligation to moderate content, the Commission can hide behind the DSA to claim that it itself is not censoring speech.

The DSA applies directly to all Member States without requiring national implementation. National regulators work with existing legal frameworks, and they create new structures to apply the DSA alongside domestic laws. In the event of a conflict, the DSA overrides national laws.

Content is policed by so-called “trusted flaggers,” including NGOs and private entities, and may even include law enforcement agencies like Europol. This deputizes organizations with their own agendas to enforce censorship at scale.

This system of “flaggers” reports content that they deem “illegal” to the platform. The platform must prioritize flagged content for removal. If the platform deems the content illegal, it must quickly remove it or disable access (by geo-blocking or hiding visibility).

Very large platforms also are obligated to proactively prevent “illegal content” by conducting regular risk assessments to identify how their services may spread “illegal content”. Under Article 34, these include “negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes, and public security” and “effects in relation to gender-based violence, the protection of public health and minors and serious negative consequences to the person’s physical and mental well-being”. The efforts include: adapting their design, terms and conditions, algorithmic systems, advertising, content moderation, including for “hate speech,” and awareness-raising measures.

Enforcement

A powerful enforcement mechanism ensures compliance. Under the threat of enormous financial penalties and suspension, digital service providers are forced to censor and potentially suspend individuals, and individuals may even be criminally prosecuted.

Penalties for Individual Users:

  • If, after content is flagged, the platform deems it illegal after its own review, it must remove it or disable access and notify the account.

  • If individuals persistently post “illegal content,” platforms can suspend their accounts (after having issued a warning and with an obligation to be proportionate and for a reasonable period of time).

  • Every Member State has a designated Digital Services Coordinator to enforce compliance with the DSA. The Coordinator can seek court orders to rule on the “illegal” nature of content on platforms and then fine and potentially suspend online platforms. If a user posts content that the platform suspects violates criminal laws in so far as it is “involving a threat to the life or safety of a person or persons” (Article 18(1)), the platform is required to notify the police, triggering potential domestic prosecution.

    • This could happen under one of the many over-broad “hate speech” criminal laws in Europe. If the “hate speech” was subjectively determined to threaten the life or safety of a person or persons, it is possible that even peaceful speech without a real threat could be prosecuted (e.g., if, in the case of Päivi Räsänen, someone argued that her Twitter bible post endangered those who identify as LGBT).

Penalties for Platforms

  • Platforms evaluate content under the threat of crippling fines with every incentive to censor and none to uphold free speech. They face little to no punishment for unjustly banning content and enormous penalties if they refuse to censor.

  • If a platform refuses to remove or restrict access to “illegal content” after it has been flagged—especially by a “trusted flagger” or regulatory authority—the platform may face serious repercussions.

  • The Digital Service Coordinators have broad powers to investigate platforms, issue orders, impose fines, and escalate cases to the European Commission. When dealing with very large platforms, the Commission can override the Coordinators at any time, giving it direct control over censorship enforcement. For these platforms, the Commission has the same powers as the Coordinators but lacks the requirement of “independence” to which the Coordinators are subject. (Article 50(2)).

  • The Commission or national regulators can impose fines of up to 6% of the platform’s global annual turnover for non-compliance, amounting to billions. If non-compliance persists, platforms may face periodic penalty payments. Finally, it can restrict access to the platform within the EU or suspend operations.

Enhanced Enforcement

  • The planned “European Democracy Shield” will strengthen the DSA and impose even stricter regulations on online speech. Its stated aim is to protect the EU from foreign information manipulation and interference, particularly in the digital realm, focusing on the integrity of elections and political processes. Together with the DSA, it can be weaponized to target peaceful expression, further empowering unelected bureaucrats to censor.

  • The DSA grants emergency powers that allow the European Commission to demand additional censorship measures from online platforms during times of crisis, without sufficiently precise definitions or limitations.

    • Crisis is defined as “where extraordinary circumstances lead to a serious threat to public security or public health in the Union or in significant parts of it” (Article 36(2)); “Such crises could result from armed conflicts or acts of terrorism, including emerging conflicts or acts of terrorism, natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as from pandemics and other serious cross-border threats to public health” (para 91).

    • The Commission may adopt a decision requiring very large platforms to take certain actions in response to the crisis: 1) assess how their services contribute to a serious threat, 2) apply measures to prevent, eliminate, or limit the threat, 3) report back to the Commission on those measures.

    • The potential extraordinary measures it identifies are: “adapting content moderation processes and increasing the resources dedicated to content moderation, adapting terms and conditions, relevant algorithmic systems and advertising systems, further intensifying cooperation with trusted flaggers, taking awareness-raising measures and promoting trusted information and adapting the design of their online interfaces”. (para 91)

    • In a worst-case scenario, the European Commission could crack down on speech at will whenever it decrees a crisis and force platforms to “mitigate risks”. This would prevents citizens from accessing information and sharing views, handing extraordinary power to bureaucrats to control narratives in times of upheaval. 
Paul Coleman's quote concerning the EU and the US on the DSA and censorship.

Is there recourse for a censored individual or platform forced to comply with the DSA?

The DSA severely limits the power of national courts to protect citizens’ free speech rights. National courts become the censorship long arm of the Commission. International appeal is possible but costly and onerous.

Appeal Options for Individuals

A censored individual can try to appeal directly to the platform, use a certified out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism, or appeal to the Digital Services Coordinator. While the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies offer a relatively easy appeal option (5 euros for the individual to submit), their decisions are not binding, and the platforms are only required to engage in good faith. If the platform does not, it leaves the individual user with only more expensive and lengthy judicial recourse. Faced with that reality, many are likely to just submit to censorship or preemptively self-censor.

Judicial Recourse

Individuals or the platform can technically challenge censorship in national courts, but the courts are required to comply with Commission decisions. Article 82 states: a “national court shall not take any decision which runs counter to that Commission decision. National courts shall also avoid taking decisions which could conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings”.

Individuals or platforms can take their cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), but this is a complex and costly process with strict requirements. The CJEU system takes 1-2 years for a ruling, sometimes longer, and rarely grants interim relief measures.

Is the DSA a problem only for Europe?

The DSA is a digital gag order with global consequences because it can censor you no matter where you live. Because the DSA applies to “Very Large Online Platforms” and search engines accessed within the EU but with a global presence, DSA censorship impacts the entire world.

Extraterritorial Applicability

The DSA explicitly states its extraterritorial applicability as it covers platforms used by people “that have their place of establishment or are located in the Union, irrespective of where the providers of those intermediary services [the platforms] have their place of establishment”. (Article 2(1))

While the DSA states in Article 9(2)(b) that takedown orders should be “limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve its objective,” there remain grave extraterritorial concerns.

De Facto Global Censorship Standards

Platforms may be inclined to adapt their international content moderation policies to EU censorship. If platforms deem something “illegal” under EU rules, that content may be banned everywhere, even in countries with strong free speech protections.

In its letter to European Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee wrote: “Though nominally applicable to only EU speech, the DSA, as written, may limit or restrict Americans’ constitutionally protected speech in the United States. Companies that censor an insufficient amount of ‘misleading or deceptive’ speech—as defined by EU bureaucrats—face fines up to six percent of global revenue, which would amount to billions of dollars for many American companies. Furthermore, because many social media platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally, restrictive censorship laws like the DSA may set de facto global censorship standards.”

Europe in the Dark

Individuals outside of Europe could find themselves censored within Europe. This could happen to even a head of state or individual with enormous international reach. In the worst case, blocking content from reaching the 500 million inhabitants of the European Union has the potential to cut an entire continent out of the conversation—a draconian move with world-changing impact.

What is ADF International doing to challenge the DSA?

The DSA is irreconcilable with the human right to free speech. It must be repealed or substantially reformed to protect open discourse and fundamental freedoms in the EU and across the world. We cannot allow the DSA to become the global model for digital speech control.

ADF International is committed to challenging violations of free speech resulting from the DSA and building critical momentum to repeal or substantially reform this censorial framework. We are working to amend or strike down the parts of the DSA that undermine freedom of expression.

There is no disagreement that certain expression is illegal (e.g. child exploitation, incitement to terrorism) and every social media platform has a legal obligation to restrict this content. The DSA goes far beyond this. Instead, the DSA has created a censorship mega structure to ban “illegal content” without defining what “illegal content” is. Over time, this mega structure could censor speech that any person in any EU country considers “illegal” according to whatever law is either in force now or may be passed in the future. Behind the 100+ pages of complex legislation hides a blank cheque for censorship.

What can be done to challenge the DSA at the European level?

  • Equip Member States to initiate an action for annulment before the CJEU – Articles 277 and 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU): Grounds to invoke include the lack of competence of the Commission, an infringement of the Treaties and the EU Charter (free speech), and a misuse of powers. This could result in having the DSA or parts of it declared “inapplicable”.

  • Mobilize Member States in the Council to repeal the DSA through a political decision: Repealing legislation once adopted is very difficult, and the procedure is similar to that for adopting the legislation. The Commission could initiate the repeal, but that appears politically unlikely. Instead, Member States in the Council can build a critical mass and take action.

  • Preliminary reference procedure before the CJEU – Article 267 TFEU: In the course of national litigation, any party or the judge, ex officio, can raise a question of EU law, particularly on its interpretation. Such questions could include the conformity of the DSA (e.g., the definition of illegal content under Article 3(h) and the obligation to act against illegal content under Article 9(2)(b)) with Article 11 of the EU Charter (freedom of expression and information). The decision to submit the reference to the CJEU rests entirely with the national judge, except for the situation when the case is at the court of the last instance, and the question of interpretation of EU law is necessary to decide the legal question at issue.

  • Engage in the DSA review process: According to Article 91 of the DSA, by 17 November 2025, the Commission shall evaluate and report to the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic and Social Committee. The scope of this first review is limited, and it will be followed by another review in 2027 and then every five years.

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.