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.

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

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.

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

“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.

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.