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

Billboard Chris' case will be heard in Australia in March
  • 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
Billboard Chris' case will be heard in Australia in March

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.

Vous êtes actuellement en train de consulter le contenu d'un espace réservé de YouTube. Pour accéder au contenu réel, cliquez sur le bouton ci-dessous. Veuillez noter que ce faisant, des données seront partagées avec des providers tiers.

Plus d'informations
Débloquer le contenu Accepter le service requis et débloquer les contenus

“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”.

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

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.  

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

“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

Germany plans to unveil censorship zones which violate freedom of speech and free assembly

Pavica Vojnovic standing outside of a facility which is inside of a censorship zone.

All of Germany must reject this bill because whether pro-life or not, censorship zones would ensnare everyone

Pavica Vojnovic outside of an abortion facility where censorship zones silence pro-life speech.

The German government is planning to introduce so-called censorship zones in certain locations – just like the UK. These censorship zones around abortion facilities are established to silence the pro-life view. These zones are not “pro-choice”, they’re no-choice.

And their actions deliberately ignore recent rulings by the Federal Administrative Court. Several weeks ago, the federal government approved a draft law on censorship zones to be established in certain locations in front of and around German abortion-related facilities in which certain opinions can no longer be expressed and certain peaceful activities prohibited.

What are censorship zones?

Censorship zones are areas defined by the local administration or even the legislature where specific opinions, actions or gatherings are prohibited. These zones censor certain expressions of opinion, hence the name ‘censorship zone’.

A look at Great Britain shows where restrictions on peaceful prayers can lead. In recent months, several people have been arrested there due to local censorship zones. The arrests occurred because individuals were quietly praying on a public street. The zones there have led to even silent prayer and, thus, thoughts being criminalized. We must not stand for this. Here’s why: 

Censorship zones violate fundamental freedoms

Censorship zones are advanced under the guise of protecting women, but they are levied against peaceful individuals who in no way condone the harassment of women. After all, harassment is already prohibited under German criminal law.

What is most dangerous, however, is the fact that certain opinions are banned because they’re unpopular. Even if we disagree on abortion, we should agree that basic human rights—like free expression and free thought—are too important to throw out the window. 

We all have the basic human right to think, act, and pray in accordance with our convictions.

Only recently, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of opinion of a pro-life prayer group.

They gathered across the street from an abortion facility and quietly prayed. The police did not find harassment while observing the group in Pforzheim.

Similarly in the UK, A pro-life activist is being investigated for a third time for praying silently in a censorship zone.

She had nothing with her, did not prevent women from entering the abortion facility, and did not even speak to anyone. A silent prayer in her mind was enough to bring her to court – a serious violation of freedom of thought.

Censorship zones are clearly having serious consequences for fundamental freedoms in the UK and we cannot let the same thing happen in Germany. 

These zones silence without offering help

Censorship zones do nothing to protect women. Rather, they block women from hearing about the offers of help available to them.

The sad reality is that these zones fail the women who choose abortion out of a sense of helplessness. By banning peaceful offers of help and alternative options, many women will feel even more alone.

Shouldn’t women in crisis pregnancies have access to help and alternative options to abortion?

If the state can ban freedom of expression and assembly in front of certain establishments, why not in other places?

There is no logical endpoint for such censorship

Freedom of expression, assembly, and freedom of religion benefit all people. These fundamental rights cannot be restricted under the pretext of harassment – which is already a criminal offence.

This bill is aimed at silencing pro-life views, to get those who stand up for the lives of the unborn to self-censor and remain silent. That’s why we’re pushing back against these censorial laws – will you help us?

The bill, which was approved by the cabinet on January 24th, 2024, will now be forwarded to the Bundesrat, which can already introduce amendments. This will be followed by the legislative process in the Bundestag, which will end with a vote on the law.

As the legal impact of these zones becomes clear, we must remain committed to defending the basic human right to free expression, including preventing the proliferation of “thought crimes” where people can even be prosecuted for silent prayer.  

Will you stand alongside us for the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly?

We must stand up for our fundamental rights together.