Imagine facing your nation’s Supreme Court for the “crime” of sharing a Bible verse. On October 30, that’s the reality for Päivi Räsänen, a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/top-finnish-court-to-hear-case-on-politician-charged-over-sharing-bible-verse?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Top+Finnish+Court+To+Hear+Case+On+Politician+Charged+Over+Sharing+Bible+Verse">Finnish grandmother</a>, medical doctor, and parliamentarian. Her soon-to-be seven-year ordeal began in 2019, when she questioned her church’s support for Helsinki Pride and posted a Bible verse on X. That single tweet triggered 13 hours of police interrogation, two full trials, and now a third prosecution under Finland’s “hate speech” law.
Räsänen’s case might sound like an exclusively European story — but it also serves as a warning about the growing threat of censorship coming from the EU. While someone living outside of Europe might assume they are exempt from the troubling wave of censorship spreading across the continent, that assumption is dangerously mistaken.
The EU has implemented an online censorship law that could turn stories like Päivi’s into a legalized norm. The law, known as <a href="https://adfinternational.org/es/article/digital-services-act-unpacked">The Digital Services Act</a> (DSA), poses one of the greatest threats to free speech online, not just in Europe, but worldwide.
Presented as a way to create a “safe online environment,” the DSA is in fact a sweeping censorship regime. It compels major online platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, X, and Google to take down “illegal content” or face crippling fines of up to 6% of their global revenue. For companies like Apple or Meta, that could mean billions. With penalties this steep, platforms have every incentive to preemptively over-censor content, not just in Europe, but everywhere.
And what counts as “illegal” content? That depends on the varying laws of 27 EU member states. One country’s vague definition of “hate speech” or “misinformation” can ripple outward, forcing platforms to delete content across the entire internet. What Brussels bureaucrats decide could silence speech in Boston or Boise — posts fully protected by the First Amendment, gone in an instant.
The enforcement system makes this worse. The DSA empowers “trusted flaggers,” which can include activist groups, regulators, or even private entities, to demand removals. The European Commission itself sits at the top, monitoring and punishing companies that don’t comply. In practice, this means platforms will act first and ask questions later, scrubbing lawful speech before it can cause “problems” in Europe.
<div id="attachment_652929" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-652929" class="size-large wp-image-652929" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-1024x573.png" alt="Päivi Räsänen" width="1024" height="573" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-1024x573.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-300x168.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-768x430.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-1536x859.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM.png 1573w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Credit: Alliance Defending Freedom International</div>
Päivi Räsänen’s case shows what happens when governments weaponize vague speech laws: peaceful expression treated as criminal conduct. The DSA threatens to make this dynamic global. By institutionalizing vague categories like “hate speech” and “disinformation,” it builds the <a href="https://constitutionaldiscourse.com/the-eu-digital-services-act-and-freedom-of-expression-friends-or-foes/">architecture for censorship</a> that knows no borders.
Americans should not be lulled into thinking this is someone else’s problem. The internet is global, and so are the platforms that host our speech. Already, U.S. lawmakers — from the House Judiciary Committee to Vice President JD Vance — have warned that the DSA could chill <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/jim-jordan-presses-european-commission-for-answers-over-eu-social-media-law-henna-virkkunen-digital-services-act/">constitutionally protected expression</a> here at home. The danger isn’t hypothetical: EU officials have already floated the possibility of censoring American <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4824438-eu-sends-warning-letter-to-musk-ahead-of-trump-interview/">political figures under the law.</a>
The stakes are enormous. If the EU succeeds in exporting its censorship regime, authoritarian governments worldwide are likely to use it as a blueprint. They will point to Brussels as justification for their own crackdowns. Already, we’ve seen Europe attempt to export the DSA model abroad. For example, at the EU-Canada Summit, Canada and the EU agreed to advance a Digital Trade Agreement that <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/price-testimony.pdf">expands the reach of DSA principles.</a>
Free speech does not stop at national borders. If America cares about freedom of expression, it must push back against the DSA and its creeping global reach. Päivi Räsänen’s trial is a human face on what’s at stake. Her courage reminds us that when governments claim the power to police speech, no voice is safe.
* * *
Lorcan Price is an Irish barrister and legal counsel for ADF International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-BELGIUM-TECHNOLOGY-MEDIA-EU

Europe’s Digital Speech Police Won’t Stop At The Border

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Brussels

Censorship

Europe

European Union

Finland

Freedom of Speech

Opinion

Social Media Censorship

Editor’s note: The following commentary is an excerpt from remarks presented before the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission on Sept. 8, 2025, with minor edits made for readability.
* * *
I never expected that pursuing my dream to help hurting children would lead to a legal battle for our most basic freedoms.
I graduated from Southern Illinois University Edwardsville with a master’s degree in Art Therapy and Counseling in May 2022. I chose this path because God gave me a passion to fight for and preserve the innocence of children, especially those who’ve experienced deep complex trauma. Through art therapy, I’ve witnessed how expressive means can calm both body and mind and provide a mode of communication when words feel painful and impossible.
But while I was studying how to help others heal, I found myself betrayed by the very institution that was supposed to equip me for that mission.
My program was small — just 10 students—and we became very close. We would talk about being in each other’s weddings and supported each other like family.
But about a year in, something shifted. I came to Southern Illinois University thinking I was there to become a counselor. But I soon realized the university expected me to adopt and promote a specific ideology — one rooted in Marxism and critical race theory, even when it conflicted with my religious and professional beliefs.
When called on in class, I shared my perspective respectfully, asking whether these ideas served the best interests of our future clients.
Instead of respectful dialogue, my Christian and conservative beliefs were met with hostility — not only from classmates but even professors.
But I didn’t expect what came next.
The university issued three no-contact orders against me. You might wonder what a no-contact order is. I did, too. It’s essentially a restraining order, and it applied on and off campus. It meant I couldn’t talk to, sit near, or even be in the same coffee shop with the three classmates who had filed the complaints.
I was shocked. I asked what I’d done. The university said I hadn’t violated any policy. But without any communication or investigation, I received a threat of “disciplinary consequences” if I violated the no-contact orders. And they even copied a university police officer on each order to drive this threat home.
After this, I stopped speaking in class. I was isolated and scared — like I was in a relationship with abusers — trapped in a system that punished me for having different beliefs.
I thought back through every conversation I’d had with my classmates. I couldn’t think of anything I’d done that could be taken as offensive, let alone aggressive. I became afraid.
And with fear came a sense of powerlessness. I started having trouble sleeping. I lost my appetite. And I began to worry what might happen if my professors — who clearly disapproved of my views — decided to block me from graduating or finding a job.
I reached out to Alliance Defending Freedom, and they sent a demand letter to the university. Five days later, the university rescinded the no-contact orders. Two weeks later, it finally told me what the accusations were.
Three classmates had complained about some social media posts where I’d expressed my Christian and conservative views on current events. They claimed the mere expression of my views were “microaggression[s].”
One student said I was “threatening” because I couldn’t embrace critical race theory, which I had said failed to treat people with dignity regardless of race. She told the school I was threatening even though in the same conversation I had praised her for having a “beautiful heart” with a deep “compassion for children.”
Sadly, even after the no-contact orders were lifted, the attacks continued.
University officials refused to tell students that I hadn’t broken any policies. Instead, they e-mailed faculty, students, and alumni, implying that I had engaged in “oppressive acts” and “misconduct.”
The university held a “community meeting” where students publicly attacked my faith and accused me of being racist, oppressive, and creating a toxic learning environment.
Fellow students maligned my name in a school newspaper.
But one of the most painful moments came when a classmate and former friend created an art display titled The Crushing Weight of Microaggressions. It featured a personal text I’d sent her where I shared that, even if we might disagree on some things, I cared about her and that “[M]y personal beliefs are grounded in objective truth by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
I was heartbroken to see my words so misunderstood. I loved my classmates, including this girl. To this day, I wish we could have shared our diverse beliefs with mutual respect and kindness. But that was sadly not my experience.
I wasn’t punished for harming anyone; I was punished for having a different perspective, being a Christian, and asking honest questions. At a public university, which is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, I was silenced for sharing mine.
I knew I couldn’t just walk away. I live by Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s quote: “Silence in the face of evil is evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak, and not to act is to act.”
I could not be silent knowing that what happened to me could happen to future students. Our freedoms are too precious not to defend.
So I filed a <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/dejong-v-pembrook/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">lawsuit</a>.
After the university tried — and failed — to dismiss my case, it agreed to settle. It changed its policies to ensure all students, regardless of political or religious beliefs, are welcome. And it revised how no-contact orders are used so that they can’t be weaponized to punish simple differences of opinion.
But what weighs on my heart to this day: I should never have had to sue. Public universities have a duty to protect open dialogue, not punish it. They should welcome differences, not erase them. And no student should be shamed or silenced for their faith.
Looking back, I can see how what was meant to break me — God used to shape me.
Through the fear and betrayal, He gave me the courage to speak, even when my voice shook. He taught me to love even those who misunderstood or maligned me.
I’m so grateful to President Donald Trump and the Religious Liberty Commission for their bold work to protect our First Amendment freedoms — freedoms that belong to all of us regardless of faith, race, or creed.
The truth is: Freedom is fragile. Silence is costly. But courage is contagious.
* * *
Maggie DeJong obtained her master’s degree in Art Therapy and Counseling from Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Students Collaborating and Studying in a Cozy Cafe Setting

Taking A Stand Against My University Took Courage — But Courage Is Contagious

American Universities

Christians

College

Education

Students

Woke Culture

British Member of Parliament Nigel Farage fended off attacks from Democrats on Wednesday while he warned lawmakers about threats to free speech Americans may face from his home country. 
Farage, the leader of Reform U.K., gave the warning as he testified before the House Judiciary Committee at a hearing on “Europe’s Threats to American Speech and Innovation.” The British politician pointed to the arrest of Irish comedian Graham Linehan for posts he made critical of transgender ideology as a warning for Americans who may hope to visit England one day. 
“This could happen to any American man or woman [who] goes to Heathrow [who] has said things online that the British government and British police don’t like. It is a potentially big threat to tech bosses, to many, many others,” Farage said. “This legislation we’ve got will damage trade between our countries, threaten free speech across the West because of the knock-on rollout effects of this legislation from us or from the European Union.”
Farage, whose party appears poised for a major victory in the next United Kingdom elections, urged American politicians and business leaders to stand up to the British government. 
“I come from a land of Magna Carta, I come from a land that gave us the mother of parliaments, and it doesn’t give me any great joy to be sitting in America and describing the really awful, authoritarian situation that we have now sunk into,” he said. 
The center of Farage’s ire is a law called the Online Safety Act, which he says was written vaguely to allow for a crackdown on speech the British government doesn’t like. 
Farage was repeatedly pressed by Democrats on the committee, who attacked him as a “fringe politician.” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking member of the committee, said that Farage was a “far-right pro-Putin politician” and a “Trump sycophant and wannabe.” 
&#8220;I&#8217;m delighted to reacquaint with the charming Mr. Raskin,” Farage said. “Delightful testimony you gave me earlier on with your speech. But hey, that&#8217;s fine, you can say what you like, I don&#8217;t care. Because that&#8217;s what free speech is.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Reform U.K. leader <a href="https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Nigel_Farage</a>: &#8220;I&#8217;m delighted to reacquaint with the charming Mr.Raskin. Delightful testimony you gave me earlier on with your speech. But hey, that&#8217;s fine, you can say what you like, I don&#8217;t care. Because that&#8217;s what free speech is.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/kfY7mfmJ4X">pic.twitter.com/kfY7mfmJ4X</a>
— CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1963271950966370363?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 3, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“We will do whatever we can that is practical to protect kids from serious harm online, but we will get back to the idea that I can insult you, you can insult me, Mr. Raskin and I can have our chats,” Farage later said. “But we do it in a spirit that’s not inciteful and in a way that honors those who built our great countries.”
Georgia Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson also attacked Farage, trying to claim that Trump was Farage’s mentor and pointing out that the British politician attended the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last year. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
💥💥💥 <a href="https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Nigel_Farage</a> HUMILIATES <a href="https://twitter.com/RepHankJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RepHankJohnson</a>!
Watch for yourself. 😂 <a href="https://t.co/XrEDCBKoLt">pic.twitter.com/XrEDCBKoLt</a>
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) <a href="https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1963269179206729796?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 3, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Another witness who testified during the hearing was Alliance Defending Freedom International lawyer Lorcán Price, who testified about the dangers of the European Union’s Digital Services Act. 
“Why should this matter for Americans? Why should you be concerned? Because of the worldwide reach of European law,” Price said. “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.”
That act empowers the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies it claims are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation. In some circumstances, American tech companies could be fined up to six percent of their global revenue if they violate certain conditions.

MixCollage-03-Sep-2025-01-28-PM-7984

Nigel Farage Spars With Dems As He Warns About ‘Authoritarian’ Crackdown On Free Speech

Free Speech

Great Britain

House Judiciary Committee

Jamie Raskin

Nigel Farage

Parliament

United Kingdom

Free speech advocates are urging Congress to take action to protect Americans from the European Union’s “censorship regime.” 
The House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on Wednesday about the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which empowers the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies they say are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation. In some circumstances, American tech companies could be fined up to six percent of their global revenue if they violate certain conditions. 
“Europe wants to be the global leader in censorship,” wrote the Alliance Defending Freedom International’s Lorcán Price in written testimony shared with The Daily Wire. “Its obsession with harmonization and regulation is at odds with the values of free speech and a free press. Those are universal human freedoms as well as traditional European values, but increasingly they are treated by some as a social ill that should be purged from enlightened society.”
Price’s written testimony noted that the Digital Services Act empowered private organizations to be used to monitor speech rules and that the steep fines would lead to companies proactively censoring content. 
“When 6% of your global revenue is at stake, complying with speech codes is never voluntary. And now that the DSA is mandatory and additional add-ons are coming, American companies will be, at best, forced to stop innovating and start policing speech,” Price wrote. 
Others who will testify before the House Judiciary Committee include British Member of Parliament Nigel Farage and App Association President Morgan Reed. 
Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Jeremy Tedesco said on a background call on the hearing that Congress should try to create incentives to encourage companies to promote and protect free speech. He also praised the committee for drawing attention to the issue of European censorship. 
“Our speech could be deleted without you knowing it, and certainly, without you understanding the reasons for it. I mean, most of the censorship under the DSA happens behind the veil,” Tedesco told The Daily Wire. 
During COVID, he noted that the European Union was a major force pressuring companies to restrict speech critical of masking and other COVID measures, leading to hundreds of thousands of posts being deleted and accounts suspended. 
Just months before the 2024 presidential election, EU industry chief Thierry Breton threatened Elon Musk before he interviewed President Donald Trump on X. Breton told Musk that he must comply with regulations put in place by the Digital Services Act.

Handcuff on the flag of European Union. Close-up, copy space

Congress Faces Pressure As Europe’s ‘Censorship Regime’ Threatens American Free Speech

Congress Urged To Take Action As Europe's 'Censorship Regime' Threatens American Speech

The Babylon Bee and Rumble are suing California over two laws that censor political satire during election season, including some images like memes that mock political candidates.
A hearing in a Sacramento federal court was <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/political-satire-commentary-sites-continue-challenge-against-californias-censorship-law/">held</a> Tuesday to determine whether the laws will be permanently blocked after a judge issued a temporary injunction. The final decision is expected in the coming weeks.
The Babylon Bee, which posts satirical content, and Rumble, a major video-hosting platform, <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/babylon-bee-files-suit-against-humorless-california-censorship-laws/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed</a> their challenge in September along with California attorney and blogger Kelly Chang Rickert. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom had signed the pair of laws just days earlier.
The two state laws, AB 2839 and AB 2655, <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2839">prohibit</a> pictures and videos &#8220;likely to harm&#8221; a candidate&#8217;s &#8220;electoral prospects&#8221; during election season. California would punish anyone who distributes &#8220;materially deceptive content&#8221; about candidates or elected officials.
One of the laws forces people to include a disclaimer when posting satire, and the other law <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2655">requires</a> large online platforms to label or remove posts with &#8220;materially deceptive content.&#8221;
The penalties include paying significant fines.
The plaintiffs&#8217; legal team at Alliance Defending Freedom argues that the laws are essentially a war on memes and use &#8220;vague standards&#8221; to violate their clients&#8217; constitutionally protected right to post political content online freely.
&#8220;That should be really scary,&#8221; Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Wire.
&#8220;Anytime the government is saying that you can&#8217;t on your own social media account distribute things online or repost what other people put online because the government determines that is false, that should really strike fear and it&#8217;s really a road to censorship in the political sphere,&#8221; Scruggs said.
However, Scruggs said he is optimistic about a favorable outcome for The Babylon Bee and Rumble.
&#8220;We&#8217;re hopeful in light of [the judge&#8217;s] prior ruling, but we&#8217;re also hopeful in light of just basic common sense arguments,&#8221; the attorney said.
Another lawsuit is ongoing against a similar Hawaii law, where The Babylon Bee is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-babylon-bee-challenges-hawaii-law-targeting-political-satire">suing</a> along with Dawn O&#8217;Brien, a Honolulu voter who runs Instagram and Facebook accounts with thousands of followers where she posts political memes criticizing Democrats.
&#8220;It&#8217;s something that tracks what more authoritarian regimes are doing across the world,&#8221; Scruggs, the attorney, said. &#8220;What you see in this arena is the government using the label misinformation or disinformation to regulate what people can say online about politics. And that&#8217;s really an anathema to the First Amendment.&#8221;
&#8220;The best alternative is just counter-speech,&#8221; Scruggs added.

US-POLITICS-VOTE-REPUBLICAN-DEBATE

Babylon Bee, Rumble Push Back Against California’s Censorship of Satire

Babylon Bee, Rumble Challenging California Laws Targeting Political Satire

Babylon Bee

California

Courts

Gavin Newsom

Politics

Among his many promises along the campaign trail, President Trump vowed to take down what he and others have described as the “censorship industrial complex,” a global network of ideologically aligned governmental, nonprofit, media, tech, finance, and academic institutions that are colluding to censor vast swaths of legally protected speech by weaponizing terms like “hate” and “disinformation.”
From early in his presidency, President Trump’s actions have consistently aligned with his campaign promises. From Day One — beginning with executive orders that led to the dismantling of the Global Engagement Center, to Vice President JD Vance’s public condemnation of widespread censorship across the U.K. and Europe — restoring free speech has clearly been a top priority for the administration.
As Trump has landed a massive trade deal with the E.U., he has also taken multiple steps to combat global censorship. That includes zeroing in on the censorship regime in Brazil via a 50% <a href="https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1946349695221043669">tariff</a> and an <a href="https://x.com/secrubio/status/1946349695221043669?s=46">order</a> to revoke visas for Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes and other members of the nation’s high court. In 2024, Moraes <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/open-letter-x-brazil">ordered</a> X to block accounts of journalists and political figures under the pretext of “misinformation.” As Trump highlighted in his letter announcing the tariff, X still faces millions of dollars in fines and a permanent ban from the country.
Brazil’s disregard for free speech is paralleled in the E.U. by the “Digital Services Act.” Threatening what it designates as “Very Large Online Platforms” such as X, Meta, Amazon, and Google with crippling fines for noncompliance, the DSA weaponizes vague terms like “hate speech” and “disinformation” to purge the digital landscape of views they deem offensive, inconvenient, or a threat to their power. The DSA also formalizes the kind of public-private collusion exemplified by the censorship industrial complex, empowering private organizations as “trusted flaggers” whose censorship demands platforms are required to prioritize — or face penalties. 
Like Brazil’s Supreme Court, the DSA’s censorship directly impacts American citizens, whose accounts are subject to cancellation right along with our European cousins. We’ve already seen Americans censored under the DSA, as well as under the vague censorship policies that comprise it. These are the same policies at the heart of discriminatory debanking and financial surveillance that have targeted U.S.-based <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/yourmoney/banking/article-12417653/Debanking-row-breaks-Bank-America-shuts-account-ultra-conservative-Christian-charity-serves-impoverished-Ugandans.html">overseas missions</a> and <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/revealed-fed-govt-flagged-adf-domestic-terrorist-threat-target-surveillance-major/">conservative groups</a> like Alliance Defending Freedom, where I work.
They’re also the same policies that ruled the digital public square during Covid, when — often at the behest of the Biden administration and third party “flaggers” — major platforms censored and canceled users over views on public health, lab leak “theories” (since proven true), immigration, the Hunter Biden laptop <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/07/02/blowing-the-lid-off-the-coverup-of-hunter-bidens-cushy-plea-deal/">story</a>, gender ideology, and more. The DSA simply imposes this censorship regime on a global scale.
To the E.U. commissioners behind the DSA, the more governments work in lockstep to intimidate dissenting citizens into quiet compliance, the better. Just over a year ago, Canadian citizen “Billboard Chris” Elston <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/free-speech-victory-in-australia-for-billboard-chris-as-x-post-censorship-overturned">posted</a> his objections to a controversial WHO appointee on X, linking to a UK Daily Mail article. The Australian government then demanded that X censor the post under its DSA-style “Online Safety Act,” using the law to classify Elston’s speech as “cyber abuse.”
With ADF International’s help, Billboard Chris took on the Australian government at the nation’s high court and won. But even that victory is unlikely to faze a technocratic cabal so committed to global censorship that it would enlist Australia to censor a Canadian speaking on an American platform and citing a British newspaper article.
Again, this multinational crackdown is a feature — not a bug — to those behind the DSA.
And that’s no surprise when you consider the actions and stated positions of DSA architects like Thierry Breton and Henna Virkkunen. It was Breton who, last summer, famously <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/eus-breton-says-musk-must-comply-with-eu-law-ahead-trump-interview-2024-08-12/">demanded</a> that Elon Musk censor then-candidate Donald J. Trump prior to the duo’s X live interview.
That incident apparently left Breton with enough egg on his face to <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/09/16/business/eu-official-thierry-breton-who-clashed-with-elon-musk-resigns/">resign</a> from his post as an E.U. Commissioner, but it wasn’t enough to change Virkkunen’s mind. Virkkunen recently <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-tech-tariffs-us-brussels-trade-commissioner-maros-sefovic/">defended</a> the DSA as “based on our European values” — a claim that evidently refers to the Brussels elites rather than the everyday Europeans who face <a href="https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2025/04/27/why-has-there-been-a-crack-down-on-free-speech-in-the-uk/">steep fines</a>, years-long <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/paivi">court proceedings</a>, and even <a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/europe-crackdown-free-speech-26d021b1">jail time</a> for their online speech.
Fittingly enough, Virkkunen made those comments when she was asked if the DSA was on the negotiating table in ongoing trade talks with the U.S. With the DSA off the table, Virkkunen’s comrades in Brussels may have been negotiating with one hand tied behind their backs.
If that’s the case, it was a high price to pay for censoring peaceable citizens across the world, including in the U.S.
* * *
Jeremy Tedesco (@Jeremy_Tedesco) is senior counsel, senior vice president of corporate engagement at <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=wallstreetjournal&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Supporters Mobilize Following Bolsonaro Case

How Trump’s Tariffs Can Strike A Major Blow To Global Censorship

Brazil

Jair Bolsonaro

Marco Rubio

President Trump

Twitter

President Trump showed European allies the ‘art of the deal’ this week as his own luxury resort in Scotland played host to negotiations for one of the largest trade deals in history.
Accompanied by bagpipes, the President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/europe-laughed-at-trump-now-theyre-going-to-cut-a-big-energy-check">shook hands</a> with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and heralded a major new US-EU trade pact — encompassing a 15% tariff rate on European imports.
But while Scotland was hosting talks on open markets, its own government continues to close off a core tenet of liberal democracy: the freedom to speak — even, in some cases, to silently pray.
In April 2024, Scotland enacted the Hate Crime and Public Order Act, which criminalizes words that amount to subjectively “stirring up hatred” based on a wide range of characteristics, such as someone’s “gender identity.” One may be found guilty of using the wrong words even if offence was only taken, but not intended. The consequences include up to seven years in prison.
Legal scholars, writers, and civil liberties groups have raised serious concerns. The law invites the state to police not just conduct but private expression — even within a family home. What was once a proud tradition of robust, even unpopular debate, is being eroded in favor of subjective standards of offense.
Meanwhile, new legislation in Scotland has imposed “buffer zones” around hospitals, vaguely criminalizing “influence” on the matter of abortion within 200 meters of the building. That radius can encompass private homes. <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/26/praying-at-home-a-crime-depending-on-who-is-passing-window/">According</a> to the law’s own architect, Gillian Mackay MSP, a person praying silently near a window in their home could be guilty of a crime, “depending on who’s passing the window.”
One recent case under a similar “buffer zones” law across the English border drew international attention: Livia Tossici-Bolt, aged 62-years-old, was arrested simply for standing with a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want.” She was not disruptive. She was not loud. She simply offered consensual conversation to other adults.
The U.S. State Department <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/03/31/free-speech-row-threatens-starmers-us-trade-deal/">took notice</a>. A senior official confirmed “concern” about the state of free speech in the UK, adding, “It is important that the UK respect and protect freedom of expression.”
Vice President JD Vance raised similar concerns in his landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, even highlighting Scotland’ notorious prayer problem, noting, “free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” Who can blame him? In the UK, police are <a href="https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police-are-restricting-speech-in-worrying-ways">arresting</a> over 30 people per day for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/meet-the-people-around-the-world-on-trial-for-a-tweet?author=Lois+McLatchie+Miller&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Meet+The+People+Around+The+World+On+Trial+For+A+Tweet%C2%A0">online posts</a> deemed offensive.
Such statements reflect a growing discomfort with what appears to be a widening values gap between the U.K. and its allies. Free societies are built not just on GDP and diplomatic summits, but on the intangible infrastructure of liberty — the right to live and speak freely, according to one’s own conscience. Trade flows best when rooted in mutual trust, shared principles, and the confidence that citizens on both sides of the Atlantic are protected by the same basic freedoms.
The U.K. cannot credibly advocate for open markets while tolerating closed discourse. A nation cannot speak loudly on the world stage while silencing its citizens at home. If Britain wishes to remain a trusted partner in the transatlantic alliance — not just economically but morally — it must reaffirm its commitment to the freedoms that define liberal democracy.
No ally is perfect. But the U.K. must meet the standards it helped to set. Free trade among free nations requires more than signed agreements. It requires trust in mutual political courage to protect liberty where it is most easily lost: quietly, at home.
 * * * 
Lois McLatchie Miller is a Scottish commentator on free speech, and a senior legal communications officer for ADF International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer Visits US President Donald Trump in Scotland

The U.K. Can’t Champion Free Trade While Abandoning Free Speech

Abortion

Prayer

Pro-Life Movement

Scotland

Freedom of speech has won a decisive victory in Australia. On Tuesday, a Melbourne tribunal <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/free-speech-victory-in-australia-for-billboard-chris-as-x-post-censorship-overturned">overturned</a> the Australian government’s censorship order against Canadian street advocate Chris “<a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=support+billboard+chris+adf+international&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8">Billboard Chris</a>” Elston for an X post critical of gender ideology.
Back in 2024, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner had ordered X to remove Chris’ post, claiming it constituted “adult cyber abuse” under the country’s Online Safety Act. The post linked to a Daily Mail <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html">article</a> about a WHO appointee and referred to the individual using biologically accurate pronouns. No threats. No private information. Just public facts and an opinion the government didn’t like. X initially resisted, but eventually geo-blocked the post in the country while filing its own appeal.
Billboard Chris, who travels the world engaging in conversations exposing the truth about gender ideology prompted by his wearable signs, refused to bow down to the order. With legal support from ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, he challenged the eSafety Commissioner, and won in a decisive victory not just for himself, but for everyone who values the right to speak freely.
The Administrative Review Tribunal found what should have been obvious from the beginning — the post wasn’t intended to cause harm, wasn’t likely to be seen by the complainant, and was consistent with Chris’s well-known public message — namely, that children are never born in the wrong body. It ruled clearly that this did not constitute a form of abuse and revoked the takedown order.
The Tribunal recognized what the eSafety Commissioner refused to acknowledge, which is that this isn’t about harassment of any kind. The protection of Chris’ expression is about upholding the basic right to participate in a public conversation, one that touches on some of the most urgent questions of our time. To silence that conversation under the guise of “cyber abuse” is both intellectually dishonest and dangerous.
The absurdity of the government’s case was exposed in the hearing itself. Chris had merely reposted a widely read article that included publicly available information about the transgender activist appointed to a WHO panel of “experts” — information the activist had willingly shared on social media. Instead of defending public transparency, the government claimed those details were irrelevant and demanded censorship.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a></h3>
The Tribunal’s written decision was clear: “The post, although phrased offensively, is consistent with views Mr Elston has expressed elsewhere in circumstances where the expression of the view had no malicious intent. For example, his statement placed on billboards that he is prepared to wear in public ‘children are never born in the wrong body’ expresses the same idea about the immutability of biology that he expresses, albeit much more provocatively, in the post”. Further, it held that, “an ordinary reasonable person would not conclude that that it is likely that the post was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm to Mr Cook”.
This case is about more than just one post or even one country’s speech laws. Not only will this decision likely shape future enforcement decisions, but also Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has just been <a href="https://x.com/k_mahlburg/status/1939872951895302531">named</a> in a U.S. congressional investigation for colluding with foreign governments and corporate cartels to suppress speech worldwide — including in the United States. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2025-06/Exporting%20Censorship%20Final.pdf">released</a> a 100-page report detailing how Grant worked with GARM — a World Economic Forum-linked advertising consortium — to push platforms like X into silencing disfavored views. She demanded global takedowns of lawful content. She participated in pressure campaigns against X after Musk’s takeover. And she allowed so-called “brand safety” coalitions to influence her regulatory decisions.
This is coordinated censorship. The report lays out how GARM and other WEF-affiliated coalitions, working with officials like Grant, sought to blacklist voices they disagreed with under the pretense of maintaining a “safe” internet. In reality, they were constructing a global censorship machine — one that’s ideologically aligned, politically unaccountable, and willing to cross borders to silence dissent. Billboard Chris&#8217; case is living proof of what this looks like.
If the Tribunal had sided with the Commissioner, it would have emboldened this aggressive censorship campaign and reinforced the idea that a government can suppress the speech of any person on any platform, even beyond traditional jurisdictional boundaries. And make no mistake — that’s exactly what the eSafety Commissioner and its allies are trying to do.
Fortunately, Billboard Chris’ free speech victory is a warning to the censors. He stood up to a system designed to silence him, and he won. But the same people trying to censor speech in Australia are working to do the same everywhere else. 
On the same day of Chris’ victory, the European Union took a significant step toward strengthening online censorship, beefing up its censorial Digital Services Act by enforcing the accompanying &#8220;Code of Conduct on Disinformation&#8221;. The DSA enables Brussels bureaucrats to control online speech at scale — both in Europe and globally — under the guise of “safety” and “protecting democracy”. Platforms that fail to remove content ambiguously deemed “illegal” face massive financial penalties and even suspension. Coupled with the framework’s approach to “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech,” the DSA could lead to the sweeping removal of online content.
Threats to free speech online are evidently immense and growing, but Billboard Chris’ successful challenge shows that this tide can be turned. Courageous individuals, armed with principle and the law, can stand up to the censorship industrial complex — and win. And their victories protect not just their own speech, but those too who would come after them. Others must be emboldened by the lead of this Canadian father and vigilantly defend against censorship if we are to see free speech prevail.
* * *
Robert Clarke is a barrister and director of advocacy for ADF International, which coordinated the legal defense of Billboard Chris in Australia. Follow him on X at <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Rob_ADFIntl</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-07-Apr-2025-01-02-PM-8595

A Blow To Global Censorship: ‘Billboard Chris’ Wins In Australia

A Blow To Global Censorship: 'Billboard Chris' Wins In Australia

Australia

Gender

gender ideology

Puberty blockers

transgender surgery

Gender ideology’s war on America’s children has turned its guns on a particularly vulnerable group: children in foster care. Despite a court ruling <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/09/25/paxton-biden-lgbtq-foster-youth/">blocking</a> a Biden-era rule that imposed gender ideology as a condition of serving children who identify as LGBTQ, several states now <a href="https://lambdalegal.org/child-welfare-map/">demand</a> that prospective foster parents affirm the &#8220;gender identity&#8221; of hypothetical children they might foster one day. Vermont has taken this egregious stance even further, telling one Christian family that they presented too much of a risk, that they would raise children sharing their beliefs.
Decenda and Frank Cram were “blindsided” when Vermont state officials denied their application to become foster parents because of their “belief system.” State officials added that “if children in their home are raised with the same beliefs it could perpetuate further discrimination of the LGBTQ community.”
Two other Christian families – the Wuotis and the Gannts – also failed Vermont’s ideological litmus test and so were denied the chance to foster. Represented by <a href="https://adflegal.org/">Alliance Defending Freedom</a>, they are <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/vermont-imposes-gender-ideology-litmus-test-foster-parents/">pushing back</a>. Their case is currently under review by a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit court of appeals. The Crams <a href="https://conscience-project.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CP-Amicus-Brief-06.06-.pdf">shared their experience</a> as friends of the court in support of the families.
Decenda Cram, like many foster parents, was a foster child herself, entering care when she was only six years old. Her first foster parents were devout Christians and eventually adopted her. “I think ever since then,” she says, “I just thought someday I wanted to give back &#8230; I definitely wanted to return the favor in some way.”
Frank credits Christian neighbors for helping him turn around his own life. “If it wasn&#8217;t for a Christian family back when I was out in Arizona, I probably would&#8217;ve been getting in more and more trouble,” he explains.
The Crams, both devout Christians, hoped, in Frank’s words, to offer needy children “a home, unconditional love, understanding – the whole nine yards.” In October 2020 the couple applied to be foster parents. Decenda recalls that “we made it clear that we were Christians, and we asked if that was going to pose a problem with foster parenting. And we were reassured by a higher up in the state’s Department of Children and Family Services (DCF): ‘We don&#8217;t discriminate against anyone for any reason.’”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
Although they had not completed the licensing process, Decenda and Frank were called to take in a pair of sibling girls, ages nine and fourteen, in December 2020. The girls stayed with the Crams for a month and a half before one of the girls’ relatives assumed custody. We “worked out very well as a team in taking care of them,” says Frank. Decenda agrees, adding that “Frank and I worked beautifully as a parenting team.” Their initial DCF worker and the relative that the girls moved in with when they left us “all commended us for doing such a good job with the girls.”
<div id="attachment_931921" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-931921" class="size-large wp-image-931921" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-1024x576.jpg" alt="Nicholas Klein. Getty Images." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-300x168.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-768x431.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-1536x863.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-2048x1150.jpg 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Nicholas Klein. Getty Images.</div>
Given their success caring for the two sisters, the Crams thought they would be licensed as foster parents. They were surprised when the licensing process turned hostile.
Decenda recalls a different official telling her during a phone interview that “Vermont has recently taken a stance.” This “stance” is that no foster families can be considered unless they are willing to fully embrace the LGBTQ community. Despite the clear desire and ability to provide a safe, loving home for children in need, the Crams were denied a license to foster.
According to the denial letter sent to the Crams in June 2021, the Cram’s “fundamental belief&#8221; about &#8220;God&#8217;s plan for all of us,” would “not meet the emotional or developmental needs of children.”
“It felt like I&#8217;d lost a child,” laments Decenda. Frank says that “It really broke my heart. It&#8217;s like, here we are. We&#8217;re willing to give our home and our time and effort to help these children.”
Vermont’s behavior is inexcusable: its exclusion of prospective foster and adoptive parents based on their sincerely held religious beliefs is blatant religious discrimination and adds to the injury already suffered by children in need.
The Crams are hopeful that the Second Circuit will order Vermont to stop its discriminatory policy so they can open up their home to children in need. As Frank says, “all things can work out by God&#8217;s grace.”
* * *
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is Director of <a href="https://conscience-project.org/">The Conscience Project</a> 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Paper foster care family

Christians Need Not Apply To Foster In This State

Children

Foster Care

LGBTQ

Vermont

The Babylon Bee on Wednesday filed a legal challenge against a new Hawaii law that criminalizes political satire, accusing the state of violating citizens&#8217; First Amendment rights.
The satirical outlet filed its challenge along with Dawn O’Brien, a Honolulu voter who runs Instagram and Facebook accounts with thousands of followers where she posts political memes criticizing Democrats. The plaintiffs are accusing Hawaii of using &#8220;vague and overbroad terms&#8221; that allow state officials &#8220;unbridled enforcement&#8221; discretion to crack down on things like political memes online.
Last summer, Hawaii passed a <a href="https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB2687/id/3005181" target="_blank" rel="noopener">law</a> that threatens jail time, fines, lawsuits, damages, and a 10-year disqualification from holding public office for posting certain political satire images online deemed &#8220;materially deceptive.&#8221;
The Babylon Bee and O&#8217;Brien are demanding that the courts block enforcement of the law and declare it unconstitutional.
&#8220;We&#8217;re used to getting pulled over by the joke police, but comedy isn&#8217;t a crime,&#8221; Seth Dillon, owner and CEO of The Babylon Bee, told The Daily Wire. &#8220;The First Amendment protects our right to tell jokes, whether it&#8217;s election season or not. We&#8217;ll never stop fighting to defend that freedom.&#8221;
The law bans &#8220;materially deceptive media in reckless disregard of the risk of harming the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate in an election or changing the voting behavior of voters in an election,&#8221; a vague description, according to the legal challenge.
&#8220;Materially deceptive media&#8221; is defined as anything that &#8220;would cause a reasonable viewer or listener to believe that the depicted individual engaged in the speech or conduct depicted,&#8221; another vague description, the plaintiffs argue.
The law requires satirical content to include a &#8220;disclaimer&#8221; informing people that the content has been &#8220;manipulated&#8221; and depicts things that &#8220;did not occur.&#8221;
The legal challenge argues that adding a disclaimer forces The Babylon Bee and O&#8217;Brien, the Honolulu voter, to &#8220;incorporate Hawaii&#8217;s desired messages&#8221; into their content and robs their content of its &#8220;rhetorical force.&#8221;
&#8220;Because of their effectiveness and appeal, satire and parody have been used throughout American history to express matters of current interest — especially matters of politics and politicians,&#8221; the legal filing reads.
&#8220;That&#8217;s censorship plain and simple,&#8221; Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Mathew Hoffmann, who is representing the plaintiffs, told The Daily Wire.
&#8220;The bottom line is that we as the people exist in a self-governing society and we shouldn&#8217;t trust the government to set the terms for appropriate political debates,&#8221; Hoffmann said.
The law mentions &#8220;deepfakes&#8221; made by artificial intelligence, but Hoffmann cautioned that the law would apply &#8220;much more broadly.&#8221;
&#8220;What the law says is, digital content that basically depicts something that didn&#8217;t happen and that just risks harming someone&#8217;s reputation or electoral prospects, whatever that means,&#8221; he said. &#8220;So it wouldn&#8217;t just be deepfakes as colloquially understood. It&#8217;s really any digital content, any sort of images that may have been altered or Photoshopped, like what the Babylon Bee posts routinely online would be considered under this law to be materially deceptive.&#8221;
Hoffmann noted that political cartoons have long been protected in the United States, and that today&#8217;s memes are the &#8220;modern day&#8221; version of those cartoons. In addition, he said that the law will likely have a chilling effect on Hawaiians who may avoid posting &#8220;even questionable&#8221; satirical content out of fear it will be prosecuted.
&#8220;This law is of immense concern to all people in Hawaii or even entities like the Babylon Bee who post articles and images and funny memes that are viewable in Hawaii because they can be subject to criminal penalties simply for exercising their First Amendment rights,&#8221; Hoffmann said.

eff4a178-9989-481f-88f1-843cb78f6796

EXCLUSIVE: Babylon Bee Challenges Hawaii Law Targeting Political Satire

Babylon Bee Files Legal Challenge Against Hawaii Law Targeting Political Satire

Hawaii

A deadlocked Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a decision blocking an Oklahoma Catholic school from participating in the state&#8217;s charter school program.
The 4-4 decision upholds the Oklahoma Supreme Court&#8217;s decision to ban the Oklahoma City-based St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School from being eligible. It was unclear how the justices voted, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case.
The case pitted the Catholic school against Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who sued the school after the state&#8217;s charter school board voted to approve St. Isidore&#8217;s participation. Drummond argued that allowing religious schools to take part in the program would force taxpayers to fund schools with religious beliefs they did not support.
&#8220;The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of my position that we should not allow taxpayer funding of radical Islamic schools here in Oklahoma. I am proud to have fought against this potential cancer in our state, and I will continue upholding the law, protecting our Christian values and defending religious liberty,&#8221; Drummond <a href="https://x.com/Okla_OAG/status/1925559733697540373">posted</a> on X after the decision from the court was released.
Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the school and charter board argued that Oklahoma discriminated based on religion.
“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer,&#8221; ADF chief legal counsel Jim Campbell <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/divided-us-supreme-court-leaves-oklahoma-families-with-fewer-educational-choices/?sourcecode=11036715_r200">said</a>. &#8220;While the Supreme Court’s order is disappointing for educational freedom, the 4-4 decision does not set precedent, allowing the court to revisit this issue in the future. The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that when the government creates programs and invites groups to participate, it can’t single out religious groups for exclusion, and we will continue our work to protect this vital freedom for parents and students.&#8221;
A win for St. Isidore would have struck down a provision of the Oklahoma Charter School Act that expressly forbids religious charter schools and could open the door for more religious charter schools across the country.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
In previous decisions, such as Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson v. Makin, the Supreme Court sided with religious organizations that had been locked out of state programs based on their religious nature. In Carson, the Supreme Court struck down a ban in Maine on vouchers from going toward religious schools.
During oral arguments, several justices on the court&#8217;s conservative wing appeared to side with St. Isidore while the liberal wing signaled strong opposition.
&#8220;You can’t treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second class in the United States,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-conservatives-signal-support-for-public-religious-charter-schools" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, adding that excluding religious schools “seems like rank discrimination.”

Supreme Court Takes On Religious Charter School Case

Split Supreme Court Blocks Christian School From Participating In Charter Program

Oklahoma

Religious Freedom

Religious Schools

A Christian organization on Wednesday filed a lawsuit alleging OpenAI discriminated against it on religious grounds.
The suit, filed by the group Holy Sexuality, accuses the California-based tech company of denying its application for a nonprofit discount because of its Christian beliefs. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, Holy Sexuality says that OpenAI’s policies violate California law, which prevents businesses from treating customers differently based on their religion. 
“This is a lawsuit that is purely focused on corporate discrimination against a nonprofit because of its religious character,&#8221; Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Vice President of Strategic Initiatives Ryan Bangert told The Daily Wire. &#8220;The idea that corporations would discriminate against their customers solely because of their customers’ religious faith is really troubling, and in this case, it violates a California state law.”
Holy Sexuality is a Christian organization that promotes biblical views on marriage and sexuality. Its founder, Dr. Christopher Yuan, says that he applied for the 20% ChatGPT discount offered by OpenAI to nonprofits, but was told his organization didn&#8217;t qualify because it was religious.
“Our nation was founded on the principle of the free exercise of religion—a cornerstone of our democracy,” Yuan said. “Yet some corporations, emboldened by intersectional ideology and anti-Christian sentiment, choose to unlawfully discriminate based solely on religion. This must stop.&#8221;
Goodstack — a software company that works with OpenAI to verify groups&#8217; nonprofit status — is named alongside OpenAI. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, says that the two tech companies violated California&#8217;s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which says that businesses treat all customers equally regardless of their religious beliefs. 
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
On its website, OpenAI notes that religious organizations do not qualify for its nonprofit discount, though it doesn&#8217;t explain why.
&#8220;Nonprofit discounts are available to eligible nonprofits based anywhere in the world. At this time, academic, medical, religious, or governmental institutions are not eligible for OpenAI for Nonprofits,&#8221; OpenAI <a href="https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9359041-openai-for-nonprofits" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a>.
Bangert says that this policy is a &#8220;brazen&#8221; example of religious discrimination.
“This categorical denial, OpenAI’s published policy, and Goodstack’s enforcement of that policy are invidious religious discrimination,” the suit says. “People of faith aren’t second-class citizens in California, and tech companies cannot provide lesser services to customers simply because they are religious.”
The suit asks a judge to declare that the tech companies violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that OpenAI&#8217;s denial of a religious organization&#8217;s nonprofit status violates California law, and to issue an injunction blocking OpenAI from enforcing its policy toward religious organizations.
Holy Sexuality won a similar victory last month after it challenged software company Asana over a policy it had in place denying discounts to religious organizations. Asana agreed to offer Holy Sexuality the same 50% discount it gives to other nonprofits after a lawsuit from the Alliance Defending Freedom was filed.

TOPSHOT-US-TECHNOLOGY-AI-MICROSOFT-COMPUTERS

EXCLUSIVE: Christian Group Accuses OpenAI Of ‘Brazen’ Religious Discrimination

Big Tech

Christianity

Discrimination

Religious Liberty

Menu