We are at a critical moment in our shared history. A moment that calls for moral clarity and an unwavering commitment to justice. 
Christians around the globe are facing a genocide. And while President Donald Trump champions religious liberty in Syria after hosting the former al-Qaeda fighter-turned-president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, and declares <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/11/trump-deserves-credit-for-focus-on-nigerian-christians/">Nigeria</a> a “country of particular concern” because of the slaughter of Christians, we cannot be naive.
Christian persecution is already here in America. Our nation is becoming a dangerous place for faithful believers to live.
We must stand up now for the persecuted not only as individuals but as a united front for our brothers and sisters around the world.
Policymakers, churches, and ordinary citizens have a moral responsibility to ensure our nation remains a beacon of hope and freedom for all, especially those persecuted for their faith.
I know something about persecution and the price of freedom. I grew up in Communist Romania, where the freedoms we now experience in America were stolen from its citizens. Speaking the truth meant imprisonment, torture, and even death. The government sought to control every thought, every word, every breath. That’s why I became a political refugee and found a new home in America in 1988.
A <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/new-poll-74-worry-americans-could-lose-our-freedoms-were-not-careful">2024 Cato Institute survey</a> found that nearly 74% of Americans worry that if we’re not careful, Americans could lose their God-given freedoms and liberties. An out-of-control regime can gradually build persecution against Christians, making small, incremental changes that could go unnoticed until it is too late. I know. I lived it.
In Communist Romania, Nicolae Ceaușescu’s regime controlled religious organizations by appointing loyal leaders, restricting activities, and nationalizing properties. Atheism was promoted through education and propaganda, portraying Christianity as outdated. Religious groups faced pressure to align with state policies, with non-compliance leading to imprisonment, job loss, or death.
The legacy of this persecution continues to shape the religious landscape in Romania today.
While the extent and nature of persecution differ significantly between Communist regimes and contemporary American society, there are parallels in the experiences of marginalization, pressure to conform, and struggles for expression. The challenges faced by Christians today often manifest initially in social and cultural pressures rather than outright physical persecution. And we are beginning to see signs of it here.
That’s why I’m joining the “<a href="https://www.washingtonpolicyinstitute.org/events/persecuted-and-prevailing-addressing-christian-persecution-in-the-modern-world/">Persecuted and Prevailing”</a> panel on December 4, 2025, at the Museum of the Bible to promote the truth, amplify our voices, and push for legislative action to support Christians.
As a human rights attorney in Communist Romania, I defended Christians, experiencing firsthand America’s crucial support. Congressmen Frank Wolf and Christopher Smith met with me often to discuss my cases, raising awareness among U.S. policymakers and the public about Romania’s dire situation. Their efforts drew media attention to the plight of Romanian Christians under the thumb of Communism, creating urgency for supporting persecuted believers.
Wolf’s actions shaped U.S. foreign policy to prioritize religious freedom, and the global impact included co-sponsoring the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ281/PLAW-114publ281.pdf">International Religious Freedom Act</a> (IRFA) of 1998, which established a framework to combat religious persecution worldwide and monitor and recommend policies. The Congressman also backed resolutions condemning persecution in Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and China, reinforcing human rights as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
Now it’s our turn to carry the torch forward. Citizens who have the freedom to advocate for change must pressure policymakers to strengthen global religious liberty.
We are the voice for the persecuted who suffer in silence worldwide. If we fail to speak about oppression, like what I and many others endured in communist Romania, it will most certainly take root here. This generation needs to understand the fragile nature of freedom and the courage it takes to preserve it.
Using our voice and Constitutional rights to petition our government is the only way to protect our freedom and stand for truth. If we don’t use our voice today, we risk being silenced tomorrow.
When truth is distorted, freedom fades. Pray for discernment in a world clouded by lies. Live boldly, speak the truth in love, for true freedom flows from God’s presence, which has been with America since its founding. Remember, if God’s presence fades, so will our freedom.
* * *
<a href="https://www.virginiaprodanbooks.com/">Virginia Prodan</a> is an international human rights attorney, best-selling author of the memoir “<a href="https://virginiaprodanbooks.com/get-the-book-2/">Saving My Assassin</a>,” and host of the “<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/courageous-leadership-with-virginia-prodan/id1590554517">Courageous Leadership with Virginia Prodan</a>” podcast. She serves as an ambassador on the President’s Council for National Religious Broadcasters, a member of the Advisory Board of the American Christian Leaders for Israel, and an Allied Attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.

Revolution Flag and Crowd at Polling Place

I Escaped Communist Romania. I Recognize The Early Signs Of Religious Persecution.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Christians

Communism

Congress

Faith

Murder

Nigeria

North Korea

Persecution

Sudan

U.S. House of Representatives

A coalition of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers won a big victory on Monday against New York Attorney General Letitia James over her targeting of organizations that promote a protocol that can help a mother save her child if she regrets taking an abortion pill.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit <a href="https://adflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/nifla-v-james-2025-12-01-appellate-opinion.pdf">affirmed</a> that the coalition has a First Amendment right to speak about the abortion pill reversal protocol, a process that is meant for women who want to counter the effects of taking an abortion-inducing drug. In 2024, James <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2024/attorney-general-james-sues-anti-abortion-group-and-11-new-york-crisis-pregnancy">sued</a> 11 faith-based pregnancy centers for their promotion of the protocol, claiming they were spreading false and misleading information.
“Many women regret their abortions, and some change their minds after taking the first abortion drug and want to try to save their unborn babies’ lives. They should be allowed to hear about this option and make that choice,” said Caroline Lindsay, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom who represented the coalition in court.
The protocol is a method <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/abortion-pill-reversal-a-record-of-safety-and-efficacy/">backed</a> by a coalition of pro-life organizations and involves a woman taking a prescribed dose of bioidentical progesterone to potentially reverse the effects of Mifepristone and save an unborn child if she changes her mind at the last minute about going through with the abortion.
The coalition was composed of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Gianna’s House, and Options Care Center. While James did not sue them over the abortion pill reversal protocol, they argued in court that her actions could infringe on their free speech rights. A district court agreed, granting the coalition an injunction against James. The appeals court on Monday upheld that decision.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
“The district court correctly determined that the speech at issue is noncommercial because, based on the uncontroverted evidence in the current record, the speech is religiously and morally motivated, the [National Institute of Family and Life Advocates] plaintiﬀs receive no remuneration or other financial benefit for engaging in it, and, as the NIFLA plaintiﬀs do not provide [Abortion Pill Reversal] themselves, the speech serves only to provide the public with information about [Abortion Pill Reversal] and access to third-party providers that can oﬀer [Abortion Pill Reversal],” the judges wrote.
In May 2024, James <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-york-crisis-pregnancy-centers-pick-up-legal-victory-against-letitia-james">announced</a> a suit against Heartbeat International and 11 pregnancy center organizations for promoting the abortion pill reversal protocol. James claimed that the organization was “spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising &#8216;abortion reversals&#8217; without any medical and scientific proof.”
Heartbeat International says that the lives of over 7,000 babies have been saved through the abortion pill reversal protocol. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether a Christian pregnancy center can challenge New Jersey over a wide-ranging subpoena it issued related to the protocol.

NYC Early Voting Surges Ahead Of Nov. 4 Mayoral Election

Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Pick Up Big Win Against New York AG Letitia James

Abortion

Courts

First Amendment

Letitia James

New York

pregnancy centers

U.S.

Supreme Court justices ranging from conservative Clarence Thomas to liberal Elena Kagan pressed the state of New Jersey on Tuesday about its expansive investigation targeting a Christian pro-life crisis pregnancy center. 
The justices heard arguments about whether a Christian pregnancy center can challenge a wide-ranging subpoena from the New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin that demanded donor information. The case hinges on whether the subpoena had the impact of chilling supporters of  First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and is entitled to relief in federal court. 
During oral arguments on Tuesday, many of the justices appeared skeptical of the arguments made by Sundeep Iyer, a lawyer for the state of New Jersey. 
In one exchange, Justice Thomas pushed Iyer on why the subpoena was issued to First Choice. 
“Did you have complaints that formed the basis of your concern about the fundraising activities here?” Thomas asked.
Iyer responded by saying that they had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers in general, but not specifically First Choice. Thomas then suggested that New Jersey had “no factual basis” for believing that the pregnancy center was deceiving donors and that the subpoena was a “burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-jerseys-war-on-crisis-pregnancy-centers-heads-to-the-supreme-court?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=5&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=New+Jersey’s+War+On+Crisis+Pregnancy+Centers+Heads+To+The+Supreme+Court">Related: New Jersey’s War On Crisis Pregnancy Centers Heads To The Supreme Court</a>
Another key question in the case is whether the subpoena could be considered “chilling” because it had not yet been approved by a court. Justice Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, pushed Iyer on that question. 
“I think here, too, you would make the same argument is that an ordinary person, one of the funders for this organization or for any similar organization, presented with this subpoena, and then told, ‘But don&#8217;t worry, it has to be stamped by a court is not going to take that as very reassuring,’” Kagan said. “Why isn’t that right?”
Other justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts, were also critical of New Jersey’s interpretation of the subpoena it had issued. 
First Choice has centers in five of New Jersey’s largest cities, including New Brunswick, Newark, Morristown, Montclair, and Jersey City. Services include free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and options counseling. They also offer a parenting program that provides essential needs such as baby clothes and diapers. 
“This court has long safeguarded the right of association by protecting the membership and donor list of nonprofit organizations like First Choice,” said Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Erin Hawley. “Yet the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena, commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers, so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”
Platkin first subpoenaed First Choice in November 2023, asking for ten years of documents related to its promotion of the abortion pill reversal, information they provided to clients and donors, personnel records, and copies of every advertisement the centers had run. 
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
Pregnancy centers across the country that support vulnerable women in blue states like California, New York, and Illinois have all faced legal challenges for promoting the abortion pill reversal protocol.

2025-Netroots-Nation

Supreme Court Justices Clash With New Jersey In Pregnancy Center Battle

Supreme Court Justices Push New Jersey Over Targeting Of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Clarence Thomas

Pro-Life Movement

Supreme Court

The European Commission “ignored” censorship concerns as it moved forward with the implementation of a sweeping digital platform law that free speech advocates say could impact everyone from Christian preachers to TikTokers.
On Monday, the European Commission <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/report-application-article-33-regulation-eu-20222065-dsa-and-interaction-regulation-other-legal" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released</a> its first-ever review of the Digital Services Act (DSA), a law that empowers it to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies that it says are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation or take down “illegal content.” Alliance Defending Freedom International, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/for-thursday-exclusive-free-speech-advocates-challenge-eu-over-pan-european-censorship-regime" target="_blank" rel="noopener">has warned</a> that the Digital Services Act could bring about a “global censorship regime,”  told The Daily Wire that it was disappointed with the commission’s report.
“I think the concerns on free speech are very substantive, and they need a robust response, and we feel that the European Commission has not actually conducted a robust review in the sense of actually inviting all voices and all partners to the table,” Dr. Adina Portaru, a senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom International, told The Daily Wire in a phone interview from London.
“The DSA can impact anyone, can impact content creators and influencers and preachers and political dissidents and any kind of content online can be regulated by the DSA through its architecture,” she added.
The act relies on cooperation from non-governmental organizations that advise lawmakers whether someone’s online writings would be considered illegal. There would also be a high burden for reporting violations on tech companies. In certain circumstances, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions.
The Monday assessment from the European Commission asserts that the act is in accordance with the “fundamental rights” recognized in the commission’s charter and that the act is “content agnostic.”
“It does not define what should be considered illegal or harmful content, it only establishes procedural obligations and safeguards where such content appears online,” the assessment said.
Portaru said that the “content agnostic” claim was a smokescreen and that the definition of illegal content in the act was broad enough to have global implications.
“Illegal content is defined in such a loose way as anything that is not in accordance with EU law or any law of any member state at any time. It can be today or in one week, depending on how the national laws change,” she said.
The Alliance Defending Freedom International led a letter signed by over 100 free speech experts in October urging the European Commission to address their concerns with the act. Another 50 non-governmental organizations signed a letter in September expressing concerns about the act.
Instead of bringing them to the table, the commission claimed to have broad consensus around the act when it was actually interpreted unilaterally, Portaru said.
“The European Commission had the opportunity to step into this space and constructively engage with these concerns coming from the U.S, as well as Europeans,&#8221; she said. &#8220;It failed to do so.&#8221;
<div id="message-list_1763648784.748159" class="c-virtual_list__item" tabindex="0" role="listitem" aria-setsize="-1" data-qa="virtual-list-item" data-item-key="1763648784.748159">
<div class="c-message_kit__background c-message_kit__background--hovered p-message_pane_message__message c-message_kit__message" role="presentation" data-qa="message_container" data-qa-unprocessed="false" data-qa-placeholder="false">
<div class="c-message_kit__hover c-message_kit__hover--hovered" role="document" aria-roledescription="message" data-qa-hover="true">
<div class="c-message_kit__actions c-message_kit__actions--default">
<div class="c-message_kit__gutter">
<div class="c-message_kit__gutter__right" role="presentation" data-qa="message_content">
<div class="c-message_kit__blocks c-message_kit__blocks--rich_text">
<div class="c-message__message_blocks c-message__message_blocks--rich_text" data-qa="message-text">
<div class="p-block_kit_renderer" data-qa="block-kit-renderer">
<div class="p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper--first">
<div class="p-rich_text_block" dir="auto">
<div class="p-rich_text_section">Asked about whether the commission was concerned about free speech, Portaru said &#8220;they just simply ignored it.&#8221;</div>
<div></div>
<div class="p-rich_text_section">The commission did respond to Alliance Defending Freedom International in a November 14 letter viewed by The Daily Wire that claimed it was committed to “upholding the right to freedom of expression and information” and asserting that the act was content neutral.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
“The DSA ensures that lawful content protected by the fundamental right of freedom of expression, is safeguarded by establishing due process and transparency online. The DSA clarifies what online platforms are required to do when they moderate content to prevent the arbitrary removal of lawful content,” the commission wrote.
In a statement to The Daily Wire, a spokesman for the European Commission claimed that concerns about censorship were “completely unfounded.”
“The aim of our digital legislation, including the DSA, is to ensure that the Internet is a safe place. One that protects our fundamental rights. One where illegal content like terrorism or child abuse have no place,” the spokesman said, adding that online platforms have a role to “assess and mitigate risks to the freedom of expression.”
The spokesman added that the act provided a mechanism for people to challenge if their content has been removed.
Despite the European Commission’s claims, American officials have raised concerns about how the Digital Services Act could impact the United States. The State Department told The Daily Wire that it was reviewing the report on the Digital Services Act with &#8220;great interest.&#8221;
&#8220;Current EU laws, like the Digital Services Act, exacerbate concerning member-state speech laws that use vague language such as “harmful content” to target disfavored political and religious speech and can impose onerous financial burdens on U.S. companies seeking to do business in European markets,&#8221; a State Department spokesman told The Daily Wire. &#8220;European regulations such as the DSA can have outsized extraterritorial effects and place a disproportionate burden on major American technology platforms.&#8221;
&#8220;The United States believes that protecting freedom of expression is critical, particularly for any democratic, self-governing nation – this includes protecting voices that challenge the status quo or criticize the government,&#8221; the spokesman added. 
In September, European Union Ambassador Andrew Puzder said that he would be making formal submissions to the commission for changes to the act.
“The Europeans believe that [the rules] are less restrictive and less targeted than the U.S. believes, and I think we’re going to need to sit down and go through these acts with some care,” he <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/b6d9fb9c-901e-42e3-9610-5a449247fd49" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> the Financial Times.
That followed reports in August that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/rubio-orders-us-diplomats-launch-lobbying-blitz-against-europes-tech-law-2025-08-07/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">directed</a> diplomats to lobby against the Digital Services Act.
&#8220;Posts should focus efforts to build host government and other stakeholder support to repeal and/or amend the DSA or related EU or national laws restricting expression online,&#8221; Rubio wrote in a cable obtained by Reuters.
Apart from broader censorship concerns, many European countries have already become notorious for restrictions placed on political and religious speech. For example, Finnish parliamentarian <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-bible-on-trial-christian-politician-goes-back-to-court-over-religious-beliefs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Päivi Räsänen</a> has faced a six-year-long legal battle for conveying her beliefs in Christian views of sexuality online. Pro-life advocates have been punished in Britain for silently praying and German citizens <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/02/21/world-news/germans-cant-insult-politicians-which-is-why-we-need-to-protect-free-speech-in-the-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">can</a> be punished for insulting politicians.

BELGIUM-EU-POLITICS

Europe Union ‘Ignored’ Free Speech Concerns, Plows Ahead With ‘Global Censorship Regime’

Censorship

European Union

Free Speech

Marco Rubio

State Department

Light streaming through arched windows of church

The Fight To Make A Christian College Christian Again

Charlie Kirk

Christianity

Do you agree with the Apostle Paul?
That was the question police asked Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen repeatedly over the course of 13 hours of interrogation over a social media post she made featuring a Bible verse. 
Six years ago, Räsänen found herself in a small room being questioned after she <a href="https://x.com/PaiviRasanen/status/1140693636176384011">shared</a> a Bible verse from the book of Romans detailing the Christian understanding of sexuality. After she shared the verse, she was charged with hate speech and dragged to the police station for numerous rounds of questions about her beliefs. 
“It was a very, very absurd and surreal experience,” Räsänen said on Thursday when asked by The Daily Wire to describe her experience. “I was sitting in a small room in a police station. I had the Bible on the table and the police were asking me very theological questions.”
She said that she was asked about the meaning of Romans and about the concepts of sin and shame in the Bible. Räsänen said she was brought in for questioning three times for a total of 13 hours, leading to a joke that she was “going to have a Bible study” at the police station, she said. 
Räsänen said her experience reminded her of stories she heard about Christians being persecuted by the Soviet Union. 
“Those stories that I had heard from these communist countries,” she said. “So I was so shocked that something like that could happen in Finland, in a country that has long roots in Christianity and rule of law and freedom of speech and faith.”
After each interrogation, she was given two weeks to delete her social media post and apologize. She refused each time. 
“I said that I do not apologize… because it&#8217;s not my opinion, it is what the Word of God says,” Räsänen said. 
She is a member of the Lutheran Church and was previously Finland’s Ministry of the Interior, meaning she once oversaw the police who interrogated her. Her case is now before Finland’s top court and comes after she was unanimously acquitted in 2022 and 2023 by lower courts. She faces two criminal charges for “agitation against a minority group.”
Räsänen’s case was heard on Thursday by the Finnish Supreme Court. She was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom International and criminal defense lawyer Matti Sankamo. 
<div id="attachment_993749" style="width: 1674px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-993749" class="size-full wp-image-993749" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM.png" alt="" width="1664" height="1106" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM.png 1664w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM-300x199.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM-867x576.png 867w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM-768x510.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM-1536x1021.png 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1664px) 100vw, 1664px" />Räsänen outside the Supreme Court/ Alliance Defending Freedom International.</div>
In a press call after Thursday’s hearing, Sankamo said that it appeared that prosecutors had changed the primary focus of their case against Räsänen.
Also on trial is Bishop Juhana Pohjola, a Lutheran church leader who published a pamphlet in 2004 written by Räsänen defending the Christian view of marriage as between one man and one woman. Prosecutors have called for Pohjola to pull the pamphlet from circulation. 
“The Christian message of marriage and sexuality has been taught for two millennia, and it should never be considered a crime to speak what Christians have always believed,” he said ahead of the hearing. 
Both Pohjola and Räsänen face a hefty fine if they lose their case. The charges they face could come with prison time, though prosecutors have not requested that punishment. 
Paul Coleman, the executive director of Alliance Defending Freedom International, said that losing the case could make countless other Christian materials considered criminal. 
“We&#8217;ve not yet seen a case reach the highest court of a land where actual theological concepts like sin are considered hate speech, or where the words of the Bible are being put on trial,” he said Thursday. “And so again, if the prosecutor is successful, then that will set a new low, really, for freedom of expression in Europe and specifically for Christians.”
A verdict in the case is not expected until spring 2026, but Räsänen is hopeful that the result will be a resounding win for freedom of religion and speech. 
“The main question in this whole process is, the heart of this trial, is the question of whether teachings related to the Bible can be presented and whether it is still permissible to agree with the Bible, even when they contradict the main ideology of the society,” she said.

MixCollage-30-Oct-2025-01-20-PM-5744

The Bible On Trial: Christian Politician Goes Back To Court Over Religious Beliefs

Europe

Finland

Marriage

Religious Freedom

This week, more than 100 leading free speech experts <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/open-letter-dsa">warned</a> that the Digital Services Act (DSA), a piece of European Union legislation, threatens to impose online censorship across the world. The letter was addressed to the European Commission, the architect of the censorial law.
The DSA gives the EU authority to enforce “content moderation” on platforms and search engines with over 45 million monthly users. It is one of the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age, enabling bureaucrats to control online speech at scale under the guise of online “safety” and “protecting democracy.”
This, however, is far from just a European issue. Restrictive speech rules made in Brussels are increasingly shaping the global internet, including on platforms used by Americans.
The letter follows the recently expressed concerns of the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, <a href="https://x.com/US2EU/status/1973100030249640355">Andrew Puzder</a>, that the DSA threatens to censor American citizens online. As the Ambassador stated, President Trump will not “tolerate a foreign government restricting the First Amendment fundamental free speech, free expression rights of American citizens.”
Ambassador Puzder’s statement came shortly after Google’s startling admission that Europe’s censorship laws target American companies and threaten American speech.
Signatories of this week’s letter to the European Commission, which was coordinated by ADF International, include a former U.S. Senator, a former VP of Yahoo Europe, cross-party members of the European Parliament, award-winning journalist and author Michael Shellenberger, former President of the American Civil Liberties Union Nadine Strossen, and academics, lawyers, and experts from around the globe.
The letter urges the Commission to consult with free speech experts and address their concerns as part of the Commission’s formal review of the DSA, which will occur by November 17.
But how could European legislation affect the First Amendment rights of Americans online?
The DSA and its codes of conduct require online platforms, such as X, YouTube, and Facebook, to address “hate speech” and “disinformation” online. These are vague and subjective terms that lack clear legal definitions and, in practice, are used to justify the censorship of disfavored views.
The definition of “illegal content,” which platforms must remove under the DSA, is any content that breaches EU or any EU member state law. This means the most restrictive anti-free speech laws in any individual EU country — of which there are unfortunately many across Europe — will now be applied across the bloc, introducing a lowest-common-denominator of censorship across the EU.
The shocking case of Finnish parliamentarian <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/paivi">Päivi Räsänen</a> gives an example of what this censorship could look like in practice. For nearly seven years, Päivi has been dragged through the courts in her country for alleged “hate speech”, for a Twitter post, in which she peacefully expressed her faith-based views and included a picture of Bible text.
With legal support from ADF International, on October 30, she faces her third trial at the Finnish Supreme Court, despite being unanimously acquitted in two previous trials. Under the DSA, draconian “hate speech” legislation, like that used to prosecute Päivi, could be applied across the EU.
<div id="attachment_981733" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-981733" class="size-large wp-image-981733" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-864x576.jpg" alt="Chairwoman Päivi Räsänen of the Christian Democrats campaigns in Helsinki, Finland on April 18, 2015 ahead of the parliamentary elections to take place on Sunday, April 19, 2015. Finns go to the polls on Sunday in legislative elections widely expected to oust the country's left-right coalition amid growing discontent over a floundering economy undergoing a painful restructuring. AFP PHOTO / LEHTIKUVA / RONI REKOMAA *** FINLAND OUT *** (Photo credit should read" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Päivi Räsänen/ Credit: Roni Rekomaa,Roni Rekomaa/AFP via Getty Images.</div>
What has emerged from the DSA is a vast censorship infrastructure with coercive enforcement tools and an opaque network of EU-approved NGOs and “trusted flaggers,” which identify content for removal. If platforms fail to quickly remove flagged content, they face enormous fines — up to 6% of global revenue — and even EU-wide suspension. Individuals can also be suspended from platforms if they “persistently” post “illegal content.”
Although nominally restricted to the European Union, the DSA’s restrictive approach to online speech will be exported across the world, including to the United States. Keep in mind that GDPR exported EU data privacy standards worldwide, and the DSA could do just that for European speech controls. Platforms will be incentivized to adopt a single global content moderation policy, which could now be made to comply with the DSA’s restrictive approach.
French Member of the European Parliament Virginie Joron, a signatory of this week’s letter to the Commission, has added to these concerns of global censorship from the DSA, saying: “The French digital regulator ARCOM told me they believe the DSA allows them to censor any post anywhere in the world using the DSA. That means even an American citizen posting in Alabama could potentially have their online post taken down, even if the publication would be legal in the US”.
These threats put European legislation on a direct collision course with the First Amendment, in what is perhaps the greatest threat to American online free speech today.
Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Congress has consistently warned that the DSA is coming for American speech. A July <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/foreign-censorship-threat-how-european-unions-digital-services-act-compels">report</a> detailed how the DSA is a censorship tool that requires the world’s largest social media platforms to engage in the censorship of core political discourse in Europe, the United States, and around the world.
If the DSA is left unchecked, Brussels could well become the world’s speech police. Let all concerned with the protection of free speech be on alert about the DSA. 
The European Commission must urgently engage with the free speech concerns outlined in this week’s letter and act now to ensure that the free speech rights of people across the world are respected on the internet.
* * *
Paul Coleman (@Paul_B_Coleman) is Executive Director of free speech legal advocacy organization ADF International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a>

EU sets Out Its International Digital Strategy

EU’s Digital Services Act Is The Biggest Threat To Free Speech Yet, Experts Warn

Apple

Google

Silicon Valley

Snapchat

Social Media Censorship

A sweeping law implemented across Europe will severely curtail freedom of expression across the West, a group of over 100 free speech experts told the European Union on Thursday. 
Led by the Alliance Defending Freedom International, a diverse coalition of politicians, academics, and journalists <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/open-letter-dsa">warned</a> European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that the Digital Services Act (DSA) encourages and enables restrictions on political speech. The DSA empowers the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies, which it says are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation. It is set to be reviewed in November. 
“Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democratic societies. It is through the exchange of ideas — including controversial ones — that societies evolve, and public officials remain accountable,” the coalition wrote in a <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/DSA-Free-Speech-Letter-to-EC_ADFI.pdf">letter</a> exclusively obtained by The Daily Wire. “Yet across the European Union and beyond, we are witnessing a shrinking of civic space. Each week brings new reports of individuals facing censorship or punitive measures for speech that challenges prevailing orthodoxy.”
The letter cited the case of Finnish Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen, who has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/finnish-court-dismisses-hate-crime-charges-against-politician-on-trial-over-christian-beliefs">prosecuted</a> for sharing her Christian views of marriage and sexuality on social media. It also pointed to Adam Smith-Connor, a veteran who has been prosecuted for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/british-army-vet-faces-charges-after-thoughtcrime-of-praying-near-u-k-abortion-clinic">silently praying</a> outside of an abortion facility. 
<div id="attachment_981733" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-981733" class="size-full wp-image-981733" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360.jpg" alt="Chairwoman Päivi Räsänen of the Christian Democrats campaigns in Helsinki, Finland on April 18, 2015 ahead of the parliamentary elections to take place on Sunday, April 19, 2015. Finns go to the polls on Sunday in legislative elections widely expected to oust the country's left-right coalition amid growing discontent over a floundering economy undergoing a painful restructuring. AFP PHOTO / LEHTIKUVA / RONI REKOMAA *** FINLAND OUT *** (Photo credit should read " width="1024" height="683" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-768x512.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Päivi Räsänen/ Credit: Roni Rekomaa,Roni Rekomaa/AFP via Getty Images.</div>
“The DSA introduces sweeping mechanisms that empower both institutions and private actors to flag content they believe to be ‘illegal’ — a term broadly defined as any content not compliant with EU or national laws,” the coalition wrote. 
The DSA relies on cooperation from non-governmental organizations that advise lawmakers whether someone’s online writings would be considered illegal. There would also be a high burden for reporting violations on tech companies. In certain circumstances, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions. 
Signers of the letter included prominent thinkers like Hoover Institution research fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Kansas governor and ambassador for religious freedom Sam Brownback, Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner, Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon, journalist Michael Shellenberger, politicians from Brazil and Chile, and several members of the European Parliament. In total, 113 free speech advocates signed on. 
The signatories warned that the DSA not only helps governments crack down on child exploitation and terrorism incitement, but also allows one country to spread its strident restrictions on speech across the entire European Union. 
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-19184">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a> 
The law imposes “a pan-European censorship infrastructure with loosely defined boundaries and the potential to suppress legitimate democratic discourse,” the authors wrote. 
“The wide definition of illegal content allows the most speech-restrictive provisions of one single EU country to be imposed as a standard across the entire Union, and potentially worldwide, effectively importing the lowest common denominator of expression,” they added. 
They demanded that the European Union initiate a formal review of the DSA, examining its impact on free speech, disclosing the involvement of non-governmental organizations in reviewing speech and how they were selected, and ensuring that the law complies with the current European Union charter. 
In January, the House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/31/document-2025_1_42.pdf">sent</a> a letter to the European Commission stating that the DSA may conflict with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/congress-faces-pressure-as-europes-censorship-regime-threatens-american-free-speech">hearing</a> on censorship last month, the committee heard from free speech advocates warning about the potential dangers of the DSA.
“Why should this matter for Americans? Why should you be concerned? Because of the worldwide reach of European law,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nigel-farage-spars-with-dems-as-he-warns-about-authoritarian-crackdown-on-free-speech">said</a> Alliance Defending Freedom International lawyer Lorcán Price. “The so-called Brussels effect changes regulation in every area that the European Union chooses to regulate, and now they’ve entered the business of regulating speech.”

Italian Tech Week 2025

EXCLUSIVE: Free Speech Advocates Challenge EU Over ‘Pan-European Censorship’ Regime

Today, the Supreme Court will hear <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/chiles-v-salazar/">Chiles v. Salazar</a>, a case about censorship in private counseling conversations regarding gender identity not sanctioned by Colorado state law. The results will have a lasting influence not only counselors, parents, and children in Colorado, but throughout the United States.
I know, because our family learned the hard way when our 11-year-old daughter went to her school counselors in Wisconsin for advice. 
So many times, just being able to talk about things with someone who knows how to listen can make a life-changing difference. What our family learned, however, was that these people did not know how to listen. They were interested in making a life-changing difference, yes, but mostly in changing my daughter’s life to suit their social sensibilities, not to do what was best for her.
COVID hit at just about the same time my daughter entered into a very real personal crisis. She was 11 years old and decided she hated herself. She hated her looks, hated her personality — everything. The isolation of the epidemic left her with too much time to think about all of that and too few people to talk to about what she was feeling.
Sometimes, as a kid, it can help to know that other kids around the same age are struggling with the same issues. But our daughter was mostly alone with all her growing worries, fears, and frustrations. She didn’t know how to talk to me about what she was feeling, and she started reading about kids who were &#8220;changing&#8221; themselves. That sounded like the answer to everything: changing herself.
Looking back, she says, she doesn’t think she was really feeling that much gender dysphoria. She wasn’t especially wanting to be a boy — she just didn’t want to be herself.
That turned out to be very easy to arrange. In fact, a teacher’s aide approached my daughter and said that, if she wanted to give the people in the front office a new name and new pronouns, they’d happily take care of the paperwork.
They might have suggested that she first talk a little more with her parents about what she was feeling and give us a chance to listen and help her work through these things. But no one — not the school officials, not the doctors she eventually talked to — ever suggested anything like that.
To them, what we as her parents thought and felt was irrelevant. Our love for our child and our authority to influence her life choices didn’t matter at all. All of these strangers just assumed they knew best and had the right to keep her parents out of the conversation.
For that matter, they didn’t include our daughter much, either.
At no time did anyone at school or in the medical facilities our daughter visited ever suggest that there might be a healthy alternative to her social transitioning. They never suggested that she might just be struggling with the kinds of things lots of boys and girls have trouble with — dealing with the pains and awkward changes of puberty and the problems of fitting into a sometimes-crazy teenage culture.
That’s why my husband and I <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/tf-and-bf-v-kettle-moraine-school-district/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">sued</a> our Wisconsin school district with the help of our attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom. As parents, we have had to really fight for what should be a given — our basic legal right to be involved in our child’s life. And — with our love and support — she had to find her own way out of the confusing jungle of emotions she was dealing with.
We’re glad she was able to do that, but we still wonder how much easier it might have been if someone with the right skills had just been there to help her find the trail — and if her school officials hadn’t tried so hard to block her from finding it.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="How Tammy&#039;s Bold Stand Saved Her Daughter from &quot;Social Transitioning&quot;" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z5le_6Qwe8o?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That’s also why we’re so interested in another ADF client, Kaley Chiles, and <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/chiles-v-salazar/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">her case</a> being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today. Ms. Chiles is a counselor who wants to offer help to young people like our daughter, who are going through the kinds of things she’s been going through.
We’ve read a lot about her. She does what it seems like a counselor ought to do. She listens. She asks thoughtful questions. She helps young people figure out where they want to go and how to get there. She’s there to walk with them — not push them through a pre-chosen door or force her own ideas on their disturbed minds and hurting hearts.
To me, that’s what every young person going through what my daughter went through needs. But in Ms. Chiles’ home state of Colorado, it’s actually against the law for a counselor to help a minor that way.
My own state has a similar law. And these laws allow counselors to point the way to transitioning and encourage it, but they can’t offer an alternative or do anything to support a young person who leans toward another conclusion.
That reminds me so much of what my daughter has experienced these last few years. People — professionals — with no interest in helping her, just in changing her.
Ms. Chiles’ attorneys will be making good arguments for why that’s a terrible approach … one that can be life-changing for children and teens in all the wrong ways.
I just hope the justices know how to listen.
* * *
Tammy Fournier and her daughter reside in Wisconsin.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a>

SCOTUS I

When My 11-Year-Old Daughter Began Hating Herself, The School Told Her To Change Her Pronouns

Children

Gender Identity

LGBTQ

Opinion

Parents rights

Pronouns

Schools

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in a case centered on a counselor in Colorado who could be punished under state law for helping gender-confused children become comfortable with their own body instead of pursuing irreversible transgender medical procedures.
The case pits the State of Colorado against counselor Kaley Chiles, who is challenging a Colorado law that <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1129_signed.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prohibits</a> counseling that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” Chiles said that the law violates her First Amendment rights and has prevented her from taking several clients.
“When my young clients come to me for counsel, they often want to discuss issues of gender and sexuality. Yet my home state only allows my clients to pursue state-approved goals like gender transition,” she said. “Colorado’s law harms kids and censors speech. I’m hopeful the Supreme Court will do the right thing — for me, other counselors, and most importantly, kids everywhere.”
Chiles is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which argues that Colorado’s law, passed in 2019, is a direct attack on professional speech.
“This case is about censorship. The state of Colorado is censoring counselor speech on the issue of gender ideology,” Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Kate Anderson said on a press call attended by The Daily Wire. “Colorado is saying that if a counselor is going to speak with a minor, have a private, voluntary counseling session with a minor, and that minor is dealing with any kind of gender ideology, confusion, then that counselor has to encourage transition.”
“They can&#8217;t have conversations with that minor to help them become comfortable in their own body and align their feelings with their biology, even if that&#8217;s what that minor wants,” Anderson added.
She pointed to the 2018 Supreme Court ruling where the court sided with the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, which had challenged a California law that mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide information on how to obtain abortions.
Anderson said she expected this past ruling to come up during oral arguments, as well as the science demonstrating the lack of scientific support for transgender procedures.
Colorado’s law was previously upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, while the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down similar laws implemented by cities in Florida. The Supreme Court has been skeptical of transgender ideology in recent years and has allowed states to ban transgender procedures on minors.

MixCollage-06-Oct-2025-02-23-PM-3955

Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge To Colorado Law That Pushes Kids Into Transgender Procedures

Colorado

gender ideology

Transgender

In February 2020, two professors participated in a <a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/experts-debate-the-regulation-of-hateful-speech-on-campus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/experts-debate-the-regulation-of-hateful-speech-on-campus/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1759330618947000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0_Nus6xBc7ezkBvs9uTOra">debate</a> hosted by Harvard on the subject of hate speech and whether it constitutes “violence.”
Lisa Feldman Barrett, a psychology professor at Northeastern University, argued that, yes, hate speech can be violence based on the stress responses in the brain when confronted with speech one finds offensive. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, called Barrett’s argument a “huge disservice to what we are trying to do at universities” and warned that opening up this concept to a room full of students will lead to them equating speech and ideas they don’t like to violence. And when violence is the perception, the only recourse is more violence.
Little did these professors know that they were sitting on a powder keg with a short fuse. Who can forget the chaos that ensued in 2020 and beyond? And since then, with just a few exceptions, numerous violent outbreaks in the public square have been initiated by those rallying around left-wing causes.
Given that the vast majority of college professors <a href="https://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-university-faculty-survey-political-leanings-liberal-conservative-moderate-centrist-harvard-yale-variation-across-school-tenure-status-demographics-20241022" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-university-faculty-survey-political-leanings-liberal-conservative-moderate-centrist-harvard-yale-variation-across-school-tenure-status-demographics-20241022&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1759330618947000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0suXDDFCeetl9-FSmRkqFb">identify</a> as “liberal” or “very liberal,” we now have a sizable petri dish in which young people learn that violence is an available tool at their disposal — a tool used to dispose of speech they want eliminated from the public square.
We saw the culmination of this earlier this month with the cruel assassination of conservative icon Charlie Kirk. According to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5506576-charlie-kirk-suspect-hatred-texts/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5506576-charlie-kirk-suspect-hatred-texts/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1759330618947000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0cG3uMfqu-15s9JBLWWPSQ">text messages</a> sent by the young man in custody for shooting Kirk, he “had enough of his hatred,” saying that “some hate can’t be negotiated out.” And what “hate” deserved silencing in this twisted mind of the killer? Allegedly, he was romantically involved with his roommate, a male who identified as a female, and Kirk was an outspoken critic of gender identity ideology, as are many others around the world.
Equating the widely held, scientific truth of biological sex to “hate” is absurd. But, regardless, “hate” speech should never be the subject of violence or censorship — especially not on college campuses. Once the bastion of the marketplace of ideas, universities are quickly becoming breeding grounds for uncritical thinking where uniformity of thought is encouraged and dissenters are silenced. Alliance Defending Freedom’s Center for Academic Freedom, where I serve as director, has intervened in numerous situations where conservative students and student groups — <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/turning-point-usa-suny-cortland-v-cortland-college-student-association/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://adflegal.org/case/turning-point-usa-suny-cortland-v-cortland-college-student-association/?utm_source%3Ddailywire%26utm_medium%3Doped&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1759330618947000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3OgGQQHlGz-ZmvEMI4Y6gk">including TPUSA chapters</a> — have been attacked simply for espousing ideas that go against the grain.
Young people didn’t learn the idea of violence as a solution to discomfort in a vacuum. As previously mentioned, the left-wing bias that permeates academic faculty is eye-opening. <a href="https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/are-colleges-and-universities-too-liberal-what-the-research-says-about-the-political-composition-of-campuses-and-campus-climate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/are-colleges-and-universities-too-liberal-what-the-research-says-about-the-political-composition-of-campuses-and-campus-climate/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1759330618947000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3eLAotLPKJODCTDdKgtwqX">Studies</a> show that, in 1989, the liberal-to-conservative faculty ratio was 2:1; by 2017, it was 5:1. A 2022 <a href="https://freespeechcenter.universityofcalifornia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NFH-VOICE-GRANT-REPORT-Politics-of-the-Professoriate-2.7.22-1-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://freespeechcenter.universityofcalifornia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NFH-VOICE-GRANT-REPORT-Politics-of-the-Professoriate-2.7.22-1-1.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1759330618947000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0F0adF8_CdxMyEku0U7Vcx">report</a> from the National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement found 69.5% of professors identified as “solidly liberal,” while only 13.2% were “conservative.” A 2023 Harvard <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/5/22/faculty-survey-2023-politics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/5/22/faculty-survey-2023-politics/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1759330618947000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3J3uwPJgWsq3OveEVAmblP">study</a> showed that its own faculty displayed a 26:1 liberal-to-conservative ratio. This lack of viewpoint diversity has played a significant role in fostering hostility toward free speech.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a></h3>
The simple solution is for the adults in the room to acknowledge the consequences of faulty ideas and take steps to foster diversity of thought. This means hiring faculty who share different opinions. This means hosting respectful debates where students can witness civil discourse. This means that, if students disrupt respectful debate, campus leadership will take measures to hold unruly protestors accountable. And this means, most importantly, that we should move past the idea that speech protected by the Constitution is equivalent to “violence.”
There are only two ways to enact change in society: speech or violence. In our current political and cultural environment, we’ve seen where both ends of the spectrum draw their lines. But a democratic society cannot long exist when one party believes that it is acceptable to kill those with whom it disagrees. Virtually every civilization throughout history has chosen violence; our founders, on the other hand, chose a better path.
Now is the time to preserve that path.
* * *
Tyson Langhofer is senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom with <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source%3Ddailywire%26utm_medium%3Doped&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1759330618947000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1sroCl7-wqa7zVSXPqasqY">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/ADFLegal&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1759330618947000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0rr8NLbEmHuac-ozsbbWhA">@ADFLegal</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Kirk Debate

Free Speech Is Essential. Universities Must Do Everything They Can To Preserve It.

American Universities

Conservatives

Leftists

Liberals

TPUSA

I started following Charlie Kirk the moment he stepped on the stage of American politics. I watched him mature in his role as founder of Turning Point USA, and I distinctly remember admiring him for shifting its mission with the realization that the battle for America was not just a political battle, but a spiritual one as well. I was so enamored that I used to imagine being on Charlie’s show — but who was I?
And then it happened. God gave me a chance to be courageous. As a teacher in Loudoun County Public Schools, Virginia, one of the most controversial school districts in the country, I realized God’s truth was more important than my job security, and I took a stand. Alliance Defending Freedom represented me in a <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/cross-v-loudoun-county-school-board/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">lawsuit</a> against LCPS’s transgender policy. We sued to protect free speech and religious freedom, and to advocate for the truth of God’s design.
Charlie Kirk was the first major media personality to invite us to share our story.
Charlie used his platform to take someone considered a “nobody” and elevate her. That is the kind of man he was. He looked to elevate others rather than himself. I have no doubt that, though I was represented by a prestigious legal organization, it was talking with Charlie on his show that made my witness visible and opened other opportunities for me to see God’s goodness in the midst of spiritual battle.
I’m a high school government teacher. I knew, even as I cried over the loss of Charlie and grieved for his wife and children, that I had many students who loved him. I needed the courage to go into school and talk with my classes about this tragic moment for our nation.
Here is what I said to all of my classes:
<blockquote>“One of Charlie Kirk’s repeated themes was how important it is to talk to one another. He often said when people stop talking, that’s when bad things happen. In a marriage, when people stop talking, divorce follows. In society, when people stop talking, that’s when violence happens. One of Charlie’s missions was to train a generation—your generation—how to do politics the right way, how to engage in honest, respectful civil discourse, especially with those whom you disagree.
“One of the things we’ll be learning in studying the Constitution is that there are two ways to govern people: by talking or by force. Democracies govern by talking. That means engaging respectfully with each other, arguing to persuade one another, discussing, negotiating, compromising, and deciding together how to move forward knowing not everyone is going to agree on everything but figuring out how to live together well even in our differences.
“Over the last few days we’ve learned about healthy and unhealthy civil society. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is the epitome of unhealthy civil society. Charlie believed in faith, family, and freedom. Because he was so confident in what he believed and spoke boldly about it, he was silenced…. Again, there are only two ways of governing people: by talking or by force. If we stop talking, there is only one other option.”</blockquote>
In 30 years, I’ve taught four generations of youth. In many ways, the kids of each generation have been the same — trying to grow up, find their identity, and navigate teenage angst. But over the last two years, I’ve noticed a shift.
For almost a decade, when it was time to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, almost no students recited it. Some even refused to stand. Now everyone stands and recites the pledge. I’ve noticed a hunger for truth and a desire for more than slogans.
Now, more students courageously express their faith in school. It’s not every kid, but it is enough to inspire hope, and I believe that Charlie Kirk’s mission is part of the reason for it. His movement has had a ripple effect, even on the kids who have not necessarily followed him. His footprint is that big.
Charlie Kirk was hated because he was confident in what he believed, gifted at persuading others, and a man of integrity. Proverbs 29:10 says, “The bloodthirsty hate a person of integrity and seek to kill the upright.” Jesus told his followers that “the world hates me, and they will hate you because of me.” Goodness evokes one of two reactions from people: hostility or attraction. Those who are attracted want to embrace and merge with that goodness. Those who are hostile to goodness see it as a threat. Simply living right and being a person of integrity will invite hostility.
To our youth: You have a choice. Now is the moment for courage, the time to decide to do what is right, even knowing that it may cost you greatly. My prayer is that this generation, inspired by Charlie Kirk, will stiffen their spines and stand to fight for the same virtues that he stood for so that we may win back the soul of America.
* * *
Monica Gill is a government teacher at Loudoun County High School.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu