Musk sets sights on EU online censorship law after Australian free speech win

  • X owner endorses repeal of EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA)
  • On Tuesday, X and Canadian campaigner Chris ‘Billboard Chris’ Elston were successful in striking down an Australian government order from the country’s eSafety Commissioner, that censored Elston’s X post. The legal challenge was coordinated by ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance
  • Recent investigative report by the US House Judiciary Committee called out international censorship, including from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner and DSA

BRUSSELS (3 July 2025) – Elon Musk has set his sights on an EU online censorship law, following his free speech win in Australia earlier this week.

The tech billionaire said “Yes” in response to an X post from ADF International, a Christian legal advocacy organisation that defends free speech, which said: “Today, the EU takes a significant step toward strengthening online censorship, transforming the ‘Code of Conduct on Disinformation’ into a mandatory part of the Digital Services Act.

“The DSA threatens free speech across the world and must be repealed.”

On Tuesday, an Australian tribunal upheld a challenge from X and Canadian campaigner Chris ‘Billboard Chris’ Elston, striking down a government order that censored Elston’s X post. The legal challenge was coordinated by ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance of Australia.

Elston’s February 2024 X post referred to controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook by her biologically accurate pronouns. The post was deemed “cyber abuse” by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which ordered X to remove the content, under the country’s Online Safety Act.

Following a week-long hearing commencing March 31, 2025, the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne ruled this week that the eSafety Commissioner made the wrong decision in determining Elston’s post was “cyber abuse” and set aside the decision. Read more about the win here.

Paul Coleman, an international lawyer specialising in free speech and ADF International’s Executive Director, said: “From the EU’s Digital Services Act to Australia’s Online Safety Act, laws restricting free speech online follow a similar censorial playbook across the world.

“Through legislation like these, we are today witnessing a coordinated global attack on free speech. Elon Musk is right to stand up to DSA censorship and use his platform to advocate for free speech online.

“Following our free speech win in Australia, ADF International we will continue to challenge online censorship in the digital marketplace of ideas.”

Code of Conduct on Disinformation

ADF International’s thread on X, which Musk re-posted with his comment, said: “Today [1 July], the EU takes a significant step toward strengthening online censorship, transforming the ‘Code of Conduct on Disinformation’ into a mandatory part of the Digital Services Act. The DSA threatens free speech across the world and must be repealed.

“The EU’s DSA has created one of the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age. It is an authoritarian framework that enables unelected bureaucrats to control online speech at scale—both in Europe and globally—under the guise of ‘safety’ and ‘protecting democracy’.

“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 with over 45 million users per month. Platforms that fail to comply face massive financial penalties and even suspension.

“It requires platforms to remove ‘illegal content,’ defined as anything not in compliance with EU or Member State law at any time, now or in the future. This creates the ‘lowest common denominator’ for censorship across the EU, effectively exporting the most restrictive laws to all Member States. The DSA’s approach to loose concepts such as ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ ‘hate speech,’ and ‘information manipulation’ may lead to wide-sweeping removal of online content.”

US House Judiciary Committee report

An investigative report by the House Judiciary Committee recently exposed Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant’s coordination with international bodies to censor lawful online speech.

In addition to the eSafety Commissioner, it also called out DSA censorship, saying: “In recent years, foreign governments have adopted legislation and created regulatory regimes in an effort to target and restrict various forms of online speech.

“Foreign regulators have even attempted to use their authority to restrict the content that American citizens can view online while in the United States. In particular, the European Commission (EC) and Australia’s eSafety Commissioner have taken steps to limit the types of content that Americans are able to access on social media platforms.”

The report went on to discuss the DSA and said: “Vague, overly burdensome regulations targeted at so-called ‘systemic risks’ create an environment in which platforms are more likely to remove or demote lawful content to avoid potential fines. The ability of European regulations to exert extraterritorial influence over American companies and consumers in this manner is often referred to as the ‘Brussels Effect.’”

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

Pictured: Paul Coleman, Chris Elston with ADF International’s Lois McLatchie Miller, Chris Elston 

Free Speech Victory in Australia for Billboard Chris as “X” post censorship overturned  

  • Tribunal upholds speech rights of Canadian campaigner Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston, striking down a government order that censored his X post under the country’s Online Safety Act.

  • Censored X post referred to controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook by her biologically accurate pronouns.

  • Censorship case, coordinated by ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, raised alarm over expanding global censorship powers and cross-border restrictions on speech.

MELBOURNE (1 July 2025) – The Administrative Review Tribunal has ruled in favor of Canadian campaigner Chris “Billboard Chris” Elston, striking down a government order that sought to censor his post on X under the country’s Online Safety Act.  

Elston’s February 2024 post criticized the appointment of controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook, and referred to her with biologically accurate pronouns. Elston’s post was deemed “cyber abuse” by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which ordered X to remove the content. X initially refused, and later geo-blocked the post in Australia. 

Both X and Elston challenged the order, arguing that the censorship was a violation of the fundamental right to free speech. Elston’s legal challenge was coordinated by ADF International, in conjunction with the Human Rights Law Alliance in Australia. The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne held a week-long hearing on the case commencing March 31, 2025. 

The Tribunal found that the eSafety Commissioner made the wrong decision in determining Elston’s post was “cyber abuse” and set aside the decision.   

“This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship. In this case, the Australian government alarmingly censored the peaceful expression of a Canadian citizen on an American-owned platform, evidence of the expansive reach of censorial forces, even beyond national borders. Today, free speech has prevailed."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International

“This is a victory not just for Billboard Chris, but for every Australian—and indeed every citizen who values the fundamental right to free speech,” Coleman continued.

The decision comes amid growing international concern over the Australian government’s expansive censorship powers. In May, the U.S. State Department condemned the eSafety Commissioner’s actions as part of a broader global trend toward coercive state censorship. 

“I’m grateful that truth and common sense have prevailed,” said Chris Elston. “This decision sends a clear message that the government does not have authority to silence peaceful expression. My mission is to speak the truth about gender ideology, protecting children across the world from its dangers. With this ruling, the court has upheld my right to voice my convictions—a right that belongs to every one of us. My post should never have been censored in Australia, but my hope is that authorities will now think twice before resorting to censorship”. 

More details on Billboard Chris’ censorship case available here. 

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

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.

.

‘Surveillance and control’: Experts convene at European Parliament to warn about EU online censorship law, following US State Department expressing concern

  • First-of-its-kind, cross-party event, co-hosted by politicians and ADF International, examined threats to free speech posed by Digital Services Act (DSA)
  • Journalist and best-selling author Rod Dreher, a friend of US Vice President JD Vance, said the VP loves Europe but opposes the continent’s censorial ruling class
  • Pressure on DSA builds, following US State Department expressing concern over censorial impact of the law

Brussels (21 May 2025) – Experts this morning warned about the threats of an EU online censorship law, in a first-of-its-kind, cross-party convening at the European Parliament.

The well-attended conference, which was co-hosted by ADF International, and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, was entitled “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression”.

The event followed the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour, a bureau within the US State Department, expressing concern about the censorial impact of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

At the event, which was attended by MEPs and staffers from across the political spectrum, think-tankers, journalists and others, Ms Joron warned that although the DSA was meant to create a “safe online environment”, it has “morphed into a tool that risks undermining our fundamental freedoms”.

She added: “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act. The European Commission, alongside some parliamentarians, has seized upon the DSA as a political tool to control speech, particularly targeting platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram.

“The DSA was meant to protect our digital space, not to control it… The DSA, once a shield for our rights, risks becoming a Trojan horse for surveillance and control.”

Mr Coleman, an international human rights lawyer specialising in free speech and Executive Director of ADF International, a Christian legal organisation that defends freedom of expression, told the conference: “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 of this assault on free speech in Europe—particularly through the Digital Services Act.”

He added that “serious questions can and should be raised” about whether the DSA is compatible with “binding obligations to protect freedom of expression”.

He commented from his position of legal expertise that it was his “strong view” that “it is not”. 

In his speech, Mr Bartulica warned that “hate speech”, which politicians want to use the DSA to “address”, is “impossible to define” as a legal concept.

He said quoting Christian Scripture could even be considered “hate speech” by those in power.

Mr Coleman mentioned the case of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, which is supported by ADF International, in his speech, as a “harrowing example of what censorship under the DSA could look like in practice”. 

He said: “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.”

Mr Bartulica also said that in the EU “we have regulated or controlled speech and not free speech”.

He added: “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel—we’ve seen where mass censorship leads. Under communism and other totalitarian regimes, it’s not a pretty picture.

“There’s a totalitarian impulse in many of these people in Brussels, who are just waiting to censor speech they don’t like.”

JD Vance opposes Europe’s censorial ruling class

Also speaking at the event was American journalist and bestselling author Rod Dreher.

Mr Dreher, who is a friend of US Vice President JD Vance, said that following the Vice President’s speech in Munich, that people had asked him if VP Vance hates Europe.

He said: “Of course” the VP does not hate Europe—he loves it enough to speak the truth about its censorship crisis.

But Mr Dreher did say the VP opposes Europe’s censorial ruling class.

Mr Dreher observed that “elites would prefer to suppress discussion of discontent and its sources”—smearing such discussion as “hate speech”—rather than acknowledge the serious problems plaguing their societies.

Drawing on the wisdom of Soviet dissidents, he recommended that in the face of “soft totalitarianism” in the West today that people “refuse to participate in any event where one cannot speak the truth… Prepare to suffer for the truth”.

How to oppose the DSA

In his speech, Mr Coleman also gave concrete ways in which the DSA can be opposed.

He said: “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.

“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 jeopardised 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.”

Background

Today’s conference was the first of its kind in the European Parliament to focus on the threats to free speech posed by the DSA, to offer concrete answers on how to oppose them, and to discuss the fundamental importance of freedom of expression for societal flourishing, in that context.

The gathering of free speech experts adds to steadily building pressure on the DSA, following a letter reportedly sent to the European Commission last week by the US House Judiciary Committee, expressing concern over the legislation.

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, also met with Congressman Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, in Washington DC last week.

In a post on X, she said: “Candid exchange with @Jim_Jordan [Chairman Jordan].”

She went on to claim in the post: “Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the EU and is strongly protected by our digital rules. Happy to continue our good discussion.”

Earlier this month, the US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor expressed concern over the censorial impact of the DSA.

The State Department bureau posted on X: “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.”

The post continued: “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 [Marco Rubio] said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”

The Digital Services Act

EU politicians have stated their desire for the DSA to “address’ so-called “mis” and “disinformation” online—vague and subjective terms, which experts have warned can be used to justify censorship.

The regulation would provide an incentive to put pressure on tech companies, including American ones, to censor speech, rather than risk massive financial penalties for non-compliance.

There are additional concerns in the US about the DSA potentially having an extraterritorial impact and being used to censor speech inside America.

An attempt at using the regulation to censor speech in the US was seen last summer, when former Commissioner Thierry Breton warned Elon Musk to not breach the DSA ahead of his X interview with then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Find more information on the DSA here.

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

The Finnish Line: The Supreme Case of Päivi Räsänen After 6 Years

Päivi Räsänen’s case has been ongoing for 6 years. Now her fate rests at the Finnish Supreme Court

A Nation Watches as One of Its Most Respected Leaders Goes to the Supreme Court for Speaking Her Faith

Päivi Räsänen’s case has been ongoing for 6 years. Now her fate rests at the Finnish Supreme Court

The case of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen is more than a legal battle; it’s a test of Europe’s commitment to democratic values.

As one of Finland’s most respected politicians, Päivi now faces the Finnish Supreme Court for peacefully expressing her Christian beliefs online.

Her story is a powerful reminder of what it means to be a Christian in today’s pervasive culture of censorship. It also demonstrates unwavering faith in the face of prosecution and punishment for so-called “hate speech”.

ADF International is proud to stand alongside Päivi as her legal ordeal reaches its 6th year.

A Life of Conviction

Päivi was still a very young girl when her parents decided she could go to the church in their small village of Konnunsuo, just inside the Finnish border from Russia. It’s a region known for hundreds of beautiful lakes and one less beautiful prison, where Päivi’s father worked, tending the gardens. While he and his wife were not Christians, they respected the faith and didn’t feel it would do little Päivi any harm to learn a bit of the Bible.

Time would prove them both wrong and right about that, but as a child, Päivi was fascinated with the things she learned in those Sunday morning classes.

“It was very, very affecting and important for me,” she remembers, nearly six decades later. “I was about 5 or 6 years old, and I remember well, even at that age, those talks the teachers shared with us about Jesus.”

Biblical concepts like grace and sin, salvation and judgment, she says, “were so concrete. Even as a small child, you have to think about these issues. And I remember praying that I would have my sins forgiven, and that Jesus would come into my life.”

How seriously Päivi took her new conversion became clear shortly afterward, when the prison warden came riding along the road by her family’s house on his bicycle. She urgently waved for him to stop. He did, looking down into her big, earnest, little-girl eyes to ask what was wrong.

“Do you love Jesus?” she asked. “You can’t get to heaven if you do not know Him.”

Embarrassed, the warden looked around and saw Päivi’s mother, standing nearby. “You should take your baby out of that Sunday school today!” he yelled. “Before she loses her mind!”

If her mother was concerned about her husband’s boss’s opinion, she didn’t show it. Päivi stayed in Sunday school. But it was by no means the last time Päivi spoke up for her faith. Or drew sharp opposition for doing so.

The Start of Päivi’s Career

Although she went to the University of Helsinki to study medicine, Päivi spent at least as much time there sharing her faith. For five years, she led a student missionary group in weekly door-to-door visits around campus, drawing other young people into discussions about moral values and cheerfully engaging them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“It was an important time in my life,” she remembers, “an important schooling. Every week, I was discussing quite difficult issues with students from different backgrounds and areas of study. I had to think very thoroughly about how my faith stands — how the Bible stands — in the face of these difficult questions. I learned to discuss ideas. I learned to debate.”

Her extracurricular evangelism also changed her life in another way. Twice during those years, Päivi joined other Christian students from all over Finland on mission trips to London, led by a tall, smiling young man named Niilo Räsänen.

He and Päivi took a shine to each other, began to date, and soon were married. They went on to raise four daughters and a son, as Niilo became a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church and head of one of the denomination’s seminaries.

Päivi, meanwhile, went into general practice medicine. She quickly developed a reputation as both an excellent doctor and a thoughtful, outspoken defender of life.

“I had decided already during my studies that I would not end the life of a child in the womb,” she says. In her spare time, she wrote books and pamphlets on the subject. That led to television and radio appearances, where she drew on those debate skills she’d honed back in college. Her strong, winsome arguments began to attract wide attention. People asked if she was interested in standing for office — perhaps campaigning for a seat in Parliament.

“At first I refused,” she says. “I thought it was not my place.” But people continued to urge her to run … and one of those urging was her husband.

“Actually, I think I was the first,” Niilo says. “But she wasn’t interested.” One day, though, he drove her through Helsinki, past the building where Parliament met. He pointed at the building. “Look at your future workplace,” he told her.

The 1990s brought a severe economic recession to Finland. Päivi’s patients were hit hard by what was happening and often poured out their worries to her.

“I could see a lot of problems in people’s lives,” she says — problems born of what was happening in her country’s politics and culture. “I thought I would like to try and influence the society and improve the welfare of the people. To not only give them medicine, but to try to heal the consequences of these problems.”

A person in Parliament could do that, she decided. The next time someone suggested she stand for office, Päivi was ready. “I answered, ‘Yes.’”

Päivi as a Parliamentarian

Päivi Räsänen has served continually in the Finnish Parliament since 1995. For 11 of those years, she acted as chairman of the Christian Democrats, a party she chose for its support of her Christian values and unswerving opposition to abortion. For four years, she also served as her nation’s minister of the interior, overseeing internal national security and migration issues.

Päivi reading her Bible at parliament

“I have felt, very deeply, that this has been my calling,” she says. “I’ve been happy to have the opportunity to influence our society, our country, and to try to make better living conditions for people, especially families and children and the elderly.

“In some ways, it is very similar to working as a doctor. People come to you to talk about their problems, and then you try to find some solution. That’s been my work in Parliament.” She’s learned, she says, that “politics is one way to show love to your neighbour.”

You might think that attitude would have enhanced Päivi’s interactions with Finland’s religious leaders — “church affairs” was another aspect of her responsibilities as minister of the interior, and her work brought her into contact with most of the prominent clerics of her country.

Still, even knowing these leaders so well, she was stunned to learn, in the summer of 2019, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland — her own denomination and the one in which her husband served as a pastor — had pledged its full support for an upcoming Helsinki Pride event.

“I knew that our church at that time was already quite divided,” Päivi says, “and there was a lot of progressive liberal thinking among our pastors.” Still, “that the whole church leadership had decided to support the event, publicly and financially, was a strong disappointment to me — and to many other Christians.”

Many friends confided to her their intention to resign from the church. Päivi seriously considered joining them. “I was praying, ‘What should I do now? Should I leave the church, too?’”

The Tweet That Sparked a Trial

But, on her knees, her Bible open before her, “I received a very clear vision,” Päivi says, “that now was not my time to jump out of this sinking boat — that I should try to wake people up. I was especially worried about our young people losing their trust in the Bible, with the leadership of the church teaching something so much against what the Bible teaches.”

“What the Bible teaches.” After a moment, she reached for her cell phone, turned to Romans 1:24-27, and snapped a photo. She pulled up her X (formerly Twitter) account, attached the picture, called it to the attention of the Evangelical Lutheran leadership, and added one simple question:

“How does the doctrine of the church, the Bible, fit together with the fact that shame and sin are raised as a matter of pride?”

She pressed “Tweet.”

And her life changed, forever.

Explain this word, 'sin', she was asked.

Päivi’s communique thoroughly rocked “the boat” and woke up everyone in it. Including Päivi.

A few weeks after she had posted the tweet, she opened a newspaper and read — to her astonishment — that local police had received a complaint about her message and were investigating. Their evidence would determine whether the nation’s chief prosecutor would bring her to trial for her beliefs.

“At first, I didn’t believe it,” Päivi says. “I thought, ‘No, no, this must be from a summer intern who doesn’t know what he’s saying.’” But a call to her local precinct confirmed that officers were indeed looking into the matter. When could she come in and speak with them?

Over the next few months, Päivi would be required to sit for a total of 13 hours of police interrogation.

“It was an absurd situation,” she remembers, “sitting there in a small room in the station, being interrogated about my Christian beliefs.” The policeman asking questions kept an open Bible on the table between them. He pointed at it as he probed her theology: “What is Romans about?” “Tell me about the first chapter.” “Walk me through Genesis.” “Explain this word, ‘sin.’”

Päivi found the whole thing almost laughable. “Just a few years before, I was the [cabinet] minister in charge of police, and now I was sitting here, being interrogated.” But the people of Finland understood what was happening: one of the most well-known political figures in their country was being detained at police headquarters for quoting Scripture to bishops.

“Someone joked on social media that maybe we were going to have Bible studies at the police station,” Päivi says, smiling. “But … these discussions were very good. I had the opportunity to [share with] that policeman very thoroughly the teachings of the Bible, from Genesis to the message of the Gospel … because he asked me to.

“Do you really want to hear this?” she asked him. “Because this has been such an important book to me. When I read it, I understand the message of the Gospel: that Jesus has died for my sins.”

“It was lovely,” she says, smiling, “telling that to the policeman.”

She left an impression. “If it were up to me,” he told her, after their last discussion, “you wouldn’t be sitting here. I hope we don’t have to meet like this again.”

Charged With “Hate Speech”

They didn’t. But Päivi had to wait more than a year to learn that the Finnish prosecutor general was formally charging her with three counts of “agitation against a minority group” — one, for publicly voicing her opinion on marriage and human sexuality in a 2004 pamphlet distributed at her church; two, for comments she made on the same topics on a 2019 radio show; and three, for the tweet directed at the leadership of her church.

Under Finland’s criminal code, “agitation against a minority group” falls under the section of “war crimes and crimes against humanity” punishable by tens of thousands of dollars in fines — and up to two years in prison.

Päivi knows better than most the penalty for breaking this particular law. After all, she was a member of the Finnish Parliament when it unanimously adopted these changes to the country’s criminal code 13 years ago.

“In Finland, as in all European countries, you have a law that prohibits so-called ‘hate speech,’” says Elyssa Koren, legal communications director for ADF International. Like most such laws, she says, this one carries with it the possibility of criminal charges. That’s not all the laws have in common.

These laws are often presented, Koren says, as a way “to reduce social tensions, to curb hostility, to foster conditions of peace. It’s a very reductive way of looking at societal problems … the idea that if you have less ‘hate speech,’ you’ll have less hate.” Unfortunately, she says, the laws are also “vaguely worded, overly broad, and don’t define ‘hate.’”

“‘Hate,’ really, is just in the eye of the beholder,” she says. “And what happens is what we’ve seen with this case: people are prosecuted for perfectly peaceful expression in the name of preventing ‘hate.’” When the law was passed in the Finnish Parliament, “nobody was much aware what the consequences would be. Päivi’s case is the litmus test for how the law will be applied to religious speech.”

Päivi says she sees now that she and her colleagues underestimated the implications of the law they all voted for. Many serving with her in the Finnish Parliament, she says, believe that “if I were to be convicted, then we would have to change the law.

“I’m not the only one in Finland who has spoken and taught about these issues,” she says. “There are thousands and thousands of similar writings. If my writings are banned, then [many] sermons and interviews and writings would be in danger. If I were convicted, it really would start a time of persecution among Christians.”

Which, unfortunately, seems to be the idea.

“‘Hate,’ really, is just in the eye of the beholder.”

Päivi Räsänen

Faith Under Fire

Päivi and her co-defendant — Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who is charged with publishing the 2004 pamphlet on marriage and sexuality Päivi shared with her church — were stunned when the prosecutor opened her case against them by showing Bible verses on a courtroom screen. Her ignorance of Christian theology was palpable, and she made no secret of her determination to see Päivi and Bishop Pohjola punished for views so contrary to contemporary secular morality.

“It’s become clear,” Koren says, “that they are not prosecuting Päivi Räsänen … they’re really prosecuting the Bible and Christian beliefs at a very high level. What’s at stake is the fundamental question of whether people — particularly people in the public eye — have the freedom to voice their Christian convictions in the public space.”

“What the prosecutor essentially is calling for,” says Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, “is the criminalization of the orthodox Christian position on fundamental Christian doctrine regarding marriage, sexuality, sin, and so forth. It’s shocking to see such brazen anti-Christian legal argumentation within a criminal context.”

Even more unsettling, Coleman says, is the fact that “there’s nothing unique about the situation in Finland. It doesn’t have worse law than anywhere else. It has a better legal system than most places. If this can happen in Finland, it can happen in any Western country.”

In fact, he says, “the same censorial sentiments exist in the U.S. — at all heights of power. On almost every college campus. In all of the major companies, particularly Big Tech. They exist in much of the U.S. political system and in the mindset of many law professors.

That line — between what we’re seeing take place in Finlans and what could very soon happen in the U.S. — is far smaller than most people realize. Or want to admit.”

A Ruling Due Before the Supreme Court

In March 2022, the Helsinki District Court unanimously acquitted Päivi and Bishop Pohjola of all charges, saying, “It is not for the district court to interpret biblical concepts.” A month later, the prosecutor appealed that ruling — something she is allowed to do under Finnish law. In November 2023, the Helsinki Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s acquittal.

The prosecutor then appealed both decisions to the Finnish Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case.

What the prosecution has secured, Koren says, “is another year or two during which Päivi is still under this pressure. Her reputation and her integrity as a civil servant are clouded by the fact that she continues to be criminally prosecuted for her peaceful expression.”

Still, Niilo says, “We don’t worry. Whatever happens, we will take it as God’s will and see what comes next.”

Paivi and Paul

“It’s remarkable,” Päivi says, “how God uses this.” From the beginning, she says, “I had a deep, deep feeling this was in God’s hands, that He was opening a door. There’ve been so many opportunities to testify about Jesus … before these courts, in front of police officers, even to those who vehemently disagree with me. It’s given me a lot of joy.

“I’ve received messages from people who’ve told me that, as they’ve followed the trials and listened to my interviews, they’ve started to read the Bible and pray. They’ve found Christ.

“I got a call from a 22-year-old man who told me that he knew almost nothing about Christianity but was listening to a radio interview where I said, ‘If you want to know Jesus, you can pray, He will come into your life.’ He has been a Christian now for over two years. Jesus came into his life.”

As a lawyer who feels called to defend freedom of religion and speech,” Coleman says, “it’s been the great privilege of my career to be [able] to support and defend Päivi. I’m not exaggerating by saying she is, ultimately, the reason why we exist.

“She’s tough. Really tough. Yet … always smiling, always kind. Over the past five years, I’ve sat through two trials with her, sat around her kitchen table, seen her in every context in between. She’s just such an unbelievably authentic person. The same in every context, whether being cross-examined for her faith, or hosting us for dinner after the hearing.”

During one hearing, Coleman says, “the prosecutor — who, bear in mind, has said horrible things about her and wants to put her in jail — was visibly unwell. And, at one of the breaks, Päivi just went over to sit with her, ask how she was doing, connect with her on a human level.

“She wasn’t doing it for the cameras,” he says. “No one saw it. But I thought, ‘What a remarkable person this is.’ It’s just such a privilege to be called as a ministry to stand alongside her and say, ‘We’ve got your back.’”

“I have received much more during this legal process than I have lost,” Päivi says. “When I was young, I read from those texts where Jesus says that, when they take you in front of courts and kings, you’ll be His witness, and He will provide what to say. I could never have believed I would ever be in this kind of situation. But I think it’s increased my trust in God.

“What I’ve found is that what God has promised, He is faithful [to do]. He really works as He has said. Jesus is alive, and He stands by His word. And He is good.”

Conclusion: The Assault on Freedom of Expression

At the heart of Päivi’s case is a growing trend across Europe: the weaponization of vague and subjective “hate speech” laws to suppress peaceful expression. The implications of this case extend far beyond Finland. What does this mean for ordinary European citizens if a respected parliamentarian can be prosecuted for a tweet?

International law, and that of Finland, guarantees freedom of speech and religion, yet cases like Päivi’s show how these rights are increasingly being violated or reinterpreted to serve ideological ends. If she were to be convicted, it would mark a dangerous shift towards state control over individual freedoms.

The principle at stake is not whether one agrees with Päivi’s beliefs. It’s whether a European democracy can still allow space for diverse opinions in the public square. Once the state decides which views are acceptable and which are not, the door opens to widespread censorship.

Europe’s commitment to democracy demands better. The Finnish Supreme Court now has a decision to make, and the world is watching. Time will tell, but one thing is certain: Päivi Räsänen will not be silenced.

ADF International is honoured to stand by her side, just as we’ve done for the last six years.

European Politicians Call for Social Media Censorship and Attack X and Meta’s Free Speech Policies as ‘Threat to Democracy’

  • X-owner Elon Musk accused of being in ‘conspiracy’ with ‘populists and the far right’ during debate at the Council of Europe

  • UK Labour MP called out by MEP for criticising Mr Musk and Meta’s free speech policy and for voicing ‘support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots’

  • ADF International executive director Paul Coleman: ‘We are living in a new bipolar order of speech’ between Europe and USA

STRASBOURG (1 February 2025) – European politicians on Thursday called for social media censorship to “protect democracy” and criticised X and Meta’s free speech policies during a debate at the Council of Europe.

Politicians at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called for censorship, in the form of tackling so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech” online, and voted in favour of a report on social media content regulation.

This follows the European Union last week doubling down on online censorship through the Digital Services Act (DSA), with the same justification of “protecting democracy”.

During Thursday night’s debate, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were singled out as threatening democracy with their free speech policies.

Belgian politician Christophe Lacroix said: “Why is Elon Musk in the US government?… There is a conspiracy, in any case a conjunction of interests between populists and the far right and the billionaire owners of social networks to effectively interfere in the electoral process.”

UK Labour MP Cat Eccles said Mr Musk’s “rise of influence” was “something we should all be worried about” and criticised Meta for its new free speech policy, which she characterised as “abandoning fact checking”.

She also indicated support for the notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during Britain’s riots last summer, saying: “While we must value freedom of expression, we must remember that it does not protect individuals from the consequences of their actions. In the UK we saw this play out recently with the horrendous Southport murders last summer and subsequent riots, with people arrested and charged for inciting hatred and violence on all sides.”

French politician Sandra Regol said free speech online posed a threat to “our democracy” and “diversity”.

She said: “We’ve heard a lot about freedom of expression. It’s supposed to be the guarantor of this diversity, it’s supposed to be the guarantor of our democracies and, in a crazy, absolute reversal of values, it’s now the tool that’s destroying this diversity.”

Three amendments were proposed in Thursday’s debate to preserve freedom of expression and they were all rejected.

But an amendment to the report calling for collaborating “with journalists and fact-checking organisations to effectively combat disinformation” was adopted by two-thirds majority.

This puts Europe further at odds with the US regarding free speech, after President Trump last week signed an executive order to end federal government censorship. 

Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser said:

“Free speech is under serious threat in Europe. It was deeply concerning to see politicians at the Council of Europe calling for online censorship in the name of ‘protecting democracy’.

“Democracy is impossible without free speech, but for some reason, too many politicians, including from the UK, can’t seem to grasp this.

“Labour MP Cat Eccles voiced support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots in the country.

“European politicians should consider how their support for censorship and their attacks on the free speech policies of American citizens Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg’s platforms will affect our relationship with our vital ally the United States.

“The US has made its commitment to free speech clear and US Vice President JD Vance already threatened last year to withdraw US support for NATO if the EU censors X.

“For the sake of truly preserving European democracy and also good relations with America, all attempts to impose censorship in Europe, including through the Digital Services Act, must end.”

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

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

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

EU doubled down on social media censorship with DSA last week

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

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

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

On the DSA, Mr Coleman commented:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International

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

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

Hungarian MEP Schaller-Baross Ernő said:

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

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

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

Polish MEP Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Response to DSA

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

In it, he said:

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

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

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

Increasing Censorship Efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Demers: Justice Delayed and Overdue in Canada

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

The authorities have violated Canadian man Jim Demers' rights

Picture of Paul Coleman
Paul Coleman

Executive Director, ADF International

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

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

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

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

Jim Demers' So-Called 'Crime'

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

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

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

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

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Censorship Zones Silence Pro-Life Viewpoints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is the Censorship Industrial Complex and How is it Affecting Our Free Speech Rights?

The Censorship Industrial Complex and what you need to know

A Global "Censorship Industrial Complex" Demands a Global Response

The Censorship Industrial Complex and what you need to know

What was once confined to dystopian fiction has now become an undeniable reality; censorship has become one of the most pressing issues in our digital age. Under the banner of combating “mis-, dis-, and mal-information,” sweeping laws and regulations are being deployed to muzzle voices and suppress free expression on an unprecedented scale.

At its core, censorship is about power—who has it and who gets to decide what is said and what isn’t. This has led to what can be termed the “censorship industrial complex”—a robust and dangerous alliance of governments, international institutions, tech giants, media outlets, academic institutions, and advocacy groups collaborating to control the flow of information, primarily online.

Much like the “military-industrial complex” that US President Dwight Eisenhower warned about in 1961—an influential alliance between government and defence contractors—the “censorship industrial complex” suggests a similar coalition, this time with the intent to control public discourse. Eisenhower warned that when government and industry become too connected, they end up putting corporate or political interests above the public.

As said in the Westminster Declaration: “We understand that words can sometimes cause offence, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship.” If we fail to address this growing web of censorship, the right to free speech will be chipped away, piece by piece.

How Global Censorship Laws Impact Free Speech Across Borders

The “censorship industrial complex” operates on a global scale, from the suppression of religious speech and political dissent in authoritarian countries to the increasing censorship of conservative or religious perspectives on social media in democratic countries.

The global fight for free speech has reached a critical point, complicated by the vast web of censorship laws across countries. Speech allowed in one country is restricted or criminalized in another, preventing people from sharing ideas across borders. 

And in democratic countries in Europe and the Americas, the threats to free speech are mounting and severe.

“Hate Speech” Legislation as a Tool for the Censorship Industrial Complex

This year, the Irish government debated a “hate speech” law that, if adopted, could criminalize the possession of “hateful” material with up to five years in prison. This law raised alarm among free speech advocates, who asserted that vague definitions of “hate” could lead to suppressing legitimate discourse.

In June, ADF International briefed Irish lawmakers on the dangers and gathered free speech advocates in Dublin to oppose the draconian bill. While the Irish government signalled it would not proceed with the bill, similar legislation likely will be attempted again in the future.

Similarly, in April, Scotland passed a law criminalizing “stirring up hatred” against protected categories, including transgender identity, with a possible seven-year prison sentence. This law also includes ambiguous terms that could criminalize speech perceived as “offensive”.

Wherever these laws are put in place, the term “hate” isn’t clearly defined, opening the door for anything deemed offensive to be categorized as a “hate crime.”

The free speech crisis is far from restricted to one bill in one country. As we’ve seen, restrictive legislation spreads and with it, the erosion of our fundamental freedoms.

Digital Censorship as a Cornerstone for the Censorship Industrial Complex

A peaceful online statement can lead to criminal charges or even prison time in many parts of the world, and the threat of financial penalties is used to pressure and intimidate tech giants like X to censor unwanted speech, leaving anyone at risk for sharing their beliefs.

ADF International is supporting the legal defences of several individuals whose free speech rights have been attacked at national and international levels. Their cases transcend national borders, emphasizing the international nature of the “censorship industrial complex”.

Our Legal Work Against Digital Censorship

Former Mexican congressman Gabriel Quadri was convicted of “gender-based political violence” for tweets on transgender ideology and fair play in female sports. Civil society leader Rodrigo Iván Cortés was convicted of the same for his peaceful expression. Both were sentenced to publish court-written apologies daily on social media and placed on an offender’s registry.

Finnish Parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen has faced charges, trials, and hours of police questioning since a 2019 tweet quoting the Bible’s Book of Romans, in which she questioned her church’s support of a Pride parade.

Citizen journalist and Canadian Billboard Chris was censored for tweeting the truth that a trans-activist shouldn’t serve on a World Health Organization panel for children. Australia’s “E-Safety Commission” tried to force X to take the post down and when X refused, they forced the platform to geo-block it.

Egyptian Father of five Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo has spent over two years in prison for being part of a Facebook group created for those interested in converting to Christianity.

In Nigeria, Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu was brutally killed by her classmates after she posted a message in a class WhatsApp group, thanking Jesus for helping her with her exams. Her murder was filmed and widely shared. Rhoda Jatau, who allegedly shared a video of Deborah’s killing, condemning it, was also accused of blasphemy. She spent 19 months in prison before being released on bail. In December 2024, following a two-and-a-half-year legal ordeal, a judge in Bauchi State, Nigeria, acquitted Rhoda Jatau of “blasphemy” charges.

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

“Online Safety” Clampdown in Europe

Two major pieces of online speech legislation were passed in Europe over the last two years: the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA).

The UK’s Online Safety Act aims to “combat harmful content online” by requiring platforms to moderate it or face penalties. However, it has the clear markings of censorship.

A U.S. Congressional Committee has criticized this law, along with the UK’s recent nationwide “buffer zones” legislation, calling it part of a “tsunami of censorship” threatening free speech in America.

The House Judiciary Committee pressed concerns about free speech in the UK and Europe highlighting on Twitter (X):

“Generally speaking, they require platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content…The UK’s laws mirror or go beyond the EU’s laws & include Orwellian practices to investigate speech.”

The Financial Stakes and the Censorship Industrial Complex

“What do platforms risk if they don’t comply? Penalties are as high as six percent of global revenue from the EU’s DSA and 10% of global revenue from the UK’s OSA. Billions of dollars for most major platforms.

“The Digital Services Act and Online Safety Act enable bureaucrats in the EU and the UK to put platforms out of business. So now, social media companies and their employees are incentivized to overregulate speech on their platforms to preserve their business.”

ADF International’s Executive Director, Paul Coleman, stated, “If British politicians do not act to protect free speech, all other considerations aside, the UK will continue to suffer severe reputational harm on the world stage.”

Award-winning author and journalist Michael Shellenberger recently spoke at the European Parliament about the threats posed to free speech by the DSA at an event attended by ADF International. His message to the EU and President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen was simple: “Back off your attacks on freedom of speech.”

Our Georgia Du Plessis participated in a roundtable discussion at the Parliament with Shellenberger, MEP Fernand Kartheiser, and former MEP Rob Roos about the DSA and freedom of expression. ADF International is committed to ending the free speech crisis.

Online Censorship Under the Guise of Cybersecurity

Barbados is debating a cybercrime bill that could imprison people for up to seven years for causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress” online.

Under the proposed law, it would be a criminal offense to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” or share content that might subject someone to “ridicule, contempt, or embarrassment.” Even vague notions like “annoyance” and “inconvenience” could lead to prosecution.

Such laws will be used to stifle dissent, intimidate critics, and force self-censorship. The risk? Peaceful expression could be criminalized under the guise of cybersecurity.

We brought this issue before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC, emphasizing that freedom of speech is under direct threat.

While governments have a duty to combat real online crimes like hacking or incitement to violence, targeting “annoyance” crosses a dangerous line. These regulations, which are supposedly designed to protect the public, are increasingly being weaponized against the public.

The proposed legislation raises a critical question: who defines what is offensive or annoying? Without clear definitions, enforcement becomes arbitrary and ripe for abuse. History shows us how such vague laws can pave the way for authoritarian crackdowns on free speech.

The chilling effect is real: people self-censor to avoid crossing invisible lines and even face the threat of imprisonment.

Ban of ‘X’ in Brazil

Brazil has also been grappling with extreme censorship, making it one of the Americas’ most restrictive countries for free speech.

In August, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes blocked X in the country, citing concerns over “misinformation” and “hate speech” affecting the national elections. He didn’t want Brazilians freely engaging in dialogue online in such a way as to impact the elections, so he abused his office to shut down X.

ADF International filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about the prohibition, representing five Brazilian legislators who were prevented from reaching their audience of millions ahead of a national election.

In September, over 100 global free speech advocates – including UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, journalist Michael Shellenberger, five US Attorneys General, and Senior UK, US, European, and Latin American politicians and professors united in an open letter to call for free speech to be restored in Brazil.

The United States’ Role in Dismantling the Censorship Industrial Complex

The incoming Trump administration is poised to tackle the global censorship issue.

President Trump’s first major policy statement since his victory outlined his plan to restore free speech. He asserts that this fundamental right has been diluted by federal officials who have worked with tech executives to suppress views they don’t like.

Documents uncovered through lawsuits and released by X owner Elon Musk reveal how US agencies collaborated with social media platforms to remove content.

The US’s approach could have wide-ranging effects on censorship laws worldwide, as the US plays a significant role in setting international precedents around free speech and Internet governance.

The US may encourage other countries to protect free speech and, in so doing, work to end the global censorship crisis.

Conclusion: The Censorship Industrial Complex Threatens Our Freedom of Speech

The “censorship industrial complex” is a network of ideologically aligned governmental, nonprofit, media, tech, finance, and academic institutions that are colluding to censor vast swaths of speech they claim threatens democracy, including speech on a wide array of critical social and political issues.

They are weaponizing terms like “hate” and “misinformation/ disinformation” to censor speakers directly, pressure digital platforms to censor, and threaten to shut down platforms that refuse to bend the knee to censorship demands.

Throughout history, those in power have always sought to censor speech with which they disagree.

We must confront the “censorship industrial complex” and safeguard the right to free speech if we are to ensure a future where ideas can flourish without fear of suppression.