What does European censorship look like, and why should Americans care? I answered that question before the <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/europes-threat-american-speech-and-innovation-part-ii">U.S. House Judiciary Committee</a> this week.
The last time I <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/europes-threat-american-speech-and-innovation">testified</a> before the Committee in September, I highlighted the censorship potential of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which at the time still seemed theoretical. My message then was that this EU law controlling online speech was poised to censor lawful expression beyond Europe, including in the United States.
Many were not convinced.
But now we have moved from theory to practice. There can be no doubt now that the DSA is the tip of a massive censorship industrial complex with global implications.
I testified yesterday before the Committee that the enormous fines recently levied on X by the European Commission prove beyond all doubt that the EU means to strangle free speech by a systematic assault on US companies. This is corroborated by the Committee’s incendiary new <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-exposes-european-commission-decade-long-campaign-censor-american" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a>, which shows that American companies are already having to adopt EU content moderation policies.
The EU has a multi-pronged strategy to open a slew of investigations, to add more and more regulations, to impose crippling fines, and, ultimately, to either break up or ban companies such as X, which are pro-free-speech.
Free speech is such a threat to European elites that they intend to either cripple X with fines and investigations or force them to bend the knee at the altar of censorship. I hope X stands strong because we need free speech in Europe more than ever.
But it goes deeper; this censorship campaign is not just aimed at destroying free speech in Europe, it’s about imposing European Union speech laws globally.
Make no mistake, Europe’s draconian speech laws are being imposed across the world via global content moderation rules.
The EU’s obsession with eliminating free speech means that they are deploying a global campaign to ensure that all speech online bans “illegal content” and “prevents systemic risk” to the “discourse”.
And the costs are borne by real people, like my client Päivi Räsänen, a longtime Finnish parliamentarian, who has spent more than six years criminally prosecuted for peacefully expressing her Christian beliefs in a 2019 Bible verse tweet. Räsänen also testified alongside me before the Committee on her ordeal, as she awaits a verdict from Finland’s Supreme Court for “hate speech” charges under the national law for “war crimes and crimes against humanity”. Of course, “hate speech” has no meaning except speech that European elites hate.
This is what European censorship looks like in practice: the process itself becomes the punishment, designed to chill speech, exhaust dissenters, and warn others to stay silent. And if this is what happens to a sitting parliamentarian in a Western democracy, Americans should have no illusion that either American companies or their citizens will be spared if these censorship regimes are allowed to normalize globally.
* * *
Lorcán 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.

Uncle Sam

How Europe Plans To Strangle American Free Speech

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Elon Musk

Europe

European Union

Opinion

Social Media

Twitter

The Justice Department said Tuesday that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations allowing the abortion pill mifepristone to be shipped through the mail do not infringe on a state’s ability to protect the unborn.
The position was taken in a <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952.51.0_1.pdf">court filing</a> asking a judge not to grant a request from Louisiana to block the current regulations that allow mifepristone to be sent through the mail. The filing said that the FDA was currently reviewing the safety standards for mifepristone, and a ruling blocking the current standard could be “disruptive.” 
“Louisiana suffers no sovereign injury because it remains free to make and enforce its pro-life policies after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org,” the Justice Department said. “Nor are Defendants standing in the way of Louisiana enforcing its abortion laws against out-of- state prescribers of mifepristone.”
Louisiana and a woman named Rosalie Markezich sued the FDA last November, seeking to have a judge suspend the FDA’s current Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy standards for mifepristone. Markezich says she was coerced into taking abortion pills illegally ordered and sent into Louisiana by her ex-boyfriend. 
A White House official told The Daily Wire that nothing in the filing should be construed as the White House “defending&#8221; former President Joe Biden&#8217;s administration&#8217;s abortion drug policies.
“We’ve been very clear we have issues with that as well,” the White House official noted, saying that the Trump administration has raised issues with mifepristone, which is why it was conducting a study into mifepristone. 
“Legally speaking, it’s a question of standing,” the official said. “All we are really saying with this filing is, let’s not short-circuit this process, and let the agency, that is doing what a lot of the pro-life groups want, let them do what they’ve been tasked to do, and let that process play out.” 
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-a-leftist-network-of-websites-floods-red-states-with-abortion-pills-with-no-consequences-2">previously reported</a>, leftist activists have been shipping abortion pills into states all across the country, even in red states like Louisiana, where medication abortions are technically illegal. This mailing of abortion pills, which was greenlit by the Biden administration as a COVID measure, has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/despite-dobbs-more-babies-are-still-being-aborted-in-the-united-states">fueled an increase</a> in abortions across the country after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. 
Shield laws passed in states like California and New York have been enacted, preventing Republican attorneys general from being able to prosecute the doctors sending abortion pills into their states. States like Louisiana say the FDA regulations give pro-abortion doctors the cover to ship the pills. 
Both FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have said that they are conducting a study on the abortion pill, but pro-life advocates and lawmakers have demanded quicker action. 
“Given this widespread debate over the safety of mifepristone, FDA has concluded that the best path forward is for the agency to reconsider the restrictions on mifepristone based on all the evidence before the agency,” the Justice Department said on Tuesday. “As noted above, that evidence will include FDA’s own study.”
The department also said that a ruling by a judge to block the current mifepristone regulations would “threaten to short circuit the agency’s orderly review and study of the safety risks of mifepristone by asking this Court for an immediate stay of the 2023 REMS Modification approved three years ago.”
When reached for comment, the Justice Department said that it was committed to President Donald Trump&#8217;s pro-life agenda.
“This Department of Justice remains committed to advancing President Trump’s pro-life agenda, including through dismissing criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits against peaceful pro-life advocates targeted by the previous administration, and using the FACE Act to protect pro-life pregnancy centers,&#8221; a spokesman told The Daily Wire. &#8220;In this filing, the Department of Justice simply requested more time from the court for the FDA to complete its review of mifepristone REMS. As the Supreme Court recognized in a unanimous ruling less than two years ago, it is the role of the FDA – not the federal courts – to evaluate drug safety data and impose appropriate precautions.”
The department asserted that neither Louisiana nor Markezich was facing any immediate harm from the current regulations. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Markezich, disagreed. 
“Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, the Biden-era abortion-by-mail scheme has allowed thousands of abortion drugs to flow into Louisiana each year. We&#8217;re calling on the FDA to put a stop to it,” ADF wrote on X. “Yesterday, they submitted their reply brief in our lawsuit, Louisiana v. FDA. With [Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill] we’re asking the Court to end illegal mail-order abortions now. They agree that Biden’s scheme is unlawful, but they want to spend another year or more conducting a study. Justice delayed is justice denied. Stand with Rosalie and the State of Louisiana.”
Murrill <a href="https://x.com/AGLizMurrill/status/2016566792412365188">said</a> that the filing shows that the FDA admits the current regulations are “flawed but claims that Louisiana can’t sue to stop the 1,000 dangerous abortions a month in Louisiana that the REMS allows. That is an affront to our sovereignty and the dignity of women and the unborn. FDA should stand with us for life, not with [Gavin Newsom] and [Kathy Hochul].”
The filing was also criticized by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which has called for Makary’s ousting over his handling of the abortion pill study. 
“Today’s denial of justice by the DOJ is completely unacceptable. It slams the door on women like Rosalie Markezich and their babies, who are suffering very real harm as the Trump-Vance administration refuses to reimplement basic guardrails on deadly mail-order abortion drugs,” said SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Abortion drugs accessible by mail are killing more Americans than fentanyl, cocaine or heroin combined.”
The FDA told The Daily Wire that it does not comment on pending litigation as a matter of policy.

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. Holds Press Conference On Protecting Children From Harmful Medical Interventions

FDA Claims Mail-Order Abortion Policies Are Not Preventing States From Protecting The Unborn

FDA Says Mail-Order Abortion Policies Not Preventing States From Protecting The Unborn

Abortion

Abortion Drug

Department of Justice

Louisiana

Late Tuesday night, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pledged that authorities would soon arrest those who stormed Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Sunday to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement&#8217;s presence in the Twin Cities.
“There will be arrests tied to that, and people will be brought to justice for how they violated the law in that situation,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kristi-noem-promises-arrests-in-the-next-several-hours-over-church-stormed-by-anti-ice-activists?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Tim+Pearce&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Kristi+Noem+Promises+Arrests+%E2%80%98In+The+Next+Several+Hours%E2%80%99+Over+Church+Stormed+By+Anti-ICE+Activists">Noem said</a>.
To do so, the Trump administration could use a law long weaponized against pro-life protesters to prosecute those who disrupted the church service, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, made it a federal crime for pro-life protesters to block the entrances of abortion facilities. Though the law was also meant to protect crisis pregnancy centers and churches, data obtained by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) <a href="https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-reintroduces-legislation-repeal-face-act">shows</a> that 97% of FACE Act prosecutions through 2024 targeted pro-life individuals. 
While conservatives have long warned that the law has been weaponized against pro-lifers, the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-ice-activists-storm-minnesota-church-with-don-lemon-doj-launches-probe?author=Tim+Pearce&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Anti-ICE+Activists+Storm+Minnesota+Church+With+Don+Lemon%3B+DOJ+Launches+Probe">stunt</a> by leftist agitators at the Cities Church in St. Paul creates an opportunity for President Donald Trump’s Justice Department to flip the historical application of FACE on its head. 
The FACE Act penalizes those who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.”
That would appear to apply to the storming of Cities Church by a group of activists organized by the Racial Justice Network and Black Lives Matter Twin Cities. The protesters yelled and chanted slogans at worshipers, causing the service to end early. Lemon filmed the demonstration under the guise of an independent journalist and badgered the pastor of the church with questions while the disruption was taking place. 
Ryan Tucker, the director of the Center for Christian Ministries at Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Wire that the religious component of the FACE Act has rarely been used. He noted that historically, local and state law enforcement have stepped in to address FACE Act violations, but no such help appears to be forthcoming in Minnesota. 
“Here in Minnesota, at least the state attorney general has come out and said that he&#8217;s not going to do anything to assist or to pursue any violations of state law,” Tucker said. “What&#8217;s really disheartening here is that you&#8217;ve got the lead lawyer of the state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, saying that he&#8217;s not going to do anything to prosecute these individuals under those local laws, and in fact, has attempted to validate their actions, completely forgetting that the FACE Act even exists.”
Tucker added that it was very rare for activists to disrupt church services.
“The idea that one could go into a church, disrupt it, threaten the parishioners, and somehow get away with it, which is just absolutely unheard of,” he said. “Churches certainly have the right to worship freely without fear that protesters are going to invade their space and traumatize the families that are present, but that&#8217;s exactly what happened this past weekend.”
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/don-lemon-could-face-criminal-conspiracy-charges-over-involvement-in-minnesota-church-protest?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Don+Lemon+Could+Face+‘Criminal+Conspiracy’+Charges+Over+Involvement+In+Minnesota+Church+Protest">suggested</a> on Monday that the Justice Department would bring FACE Act-related charges against the protesters. 
“I see various crimes that have occurred,” she told podcaster Benny Johnson. “Exactly what they are I’m not going to flag, but the FACE Act has been mentioned as one of the predicates there. In other cases, the Biden DOJ used the Klan Act conspiracy charges tacked onto the FACE Act in the case of protests outside abortion clinics to bring much longer sentences.”
Dhillon was referring to how President Joe Biden’s Justice Department ramped up FACE Act prosecutions, pairing it with the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act to garner lengthy prison sentences for peaceful pro-life advocates who demonstrated at abortion facilities. 
Biden’s Justice Department successfully prosecuted these cases across the country — from Michigan to Tennessee and Washington, D.C. — and got lengthy prison sentences for multiple defendants. 
 Lauren Handy <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-life-activist-sentenced-to-over-four-years-in-prison-over-protest-at-d-c-abortion-facility">was sentenced</a> to 57 months in prison for her role in an October 20 sit-in at the notorious D.C.-based Washington Surgi-Clinic late-term abortion facility.
In another case, 64-year-old <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pardoned-pro-life-activist-says-hes-running-on-adrenaline-and-the-holy-ghost-after-trump-pardon">Calvin Zastrow</a> and 75-year-old Chet Gallagher were sentenced to prison after they participated in a protest at an abortion facility in Mount Juliet, Tennessee, that involved them praying, singing, and speaking to women arriving at the facility. They were convicted under the FACE Act and the KKK Act for conspiracy against rights, a charge that could come with over 10 years of prison time. 
Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/they-should-not-have-been-prosecuted-trump-pardons-23-pro-lifers-targeted-by-biden-doj?author=Mary+Margaret+Olohan+and+Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=%E2%80%98They+Should+Not+Have+Been+Prosecuted%E2%80%99%3A+Trump+Pardons+23+Pro-Lifers+Targeted+By+Biden+DOJ">pardoned</a> the two dozen peaceful pro-life protesters during his first week in office. 
Dhillon suggested that Lemon might be subject to the KKK Act conspiracy against rights application if it could be proved that he had knowledge of the protest before it took place. 
“Don Lemon himself has come out and said he knew exactly what was going to happen inside that facility,&#8221; she said. &#8220;He went into the facility, and then he began ‘committing journalism,’ as if that’s sort of a shield from being a part, an embedded part of a criminal conspiracy, it isn’t.&#8221;
As Lemon questioned a pastor during the disruption on Sunday, he asserted that the activists had a First Amendment right to stage a protest in the church. Tucker was unconvinced with this claim, noting that you can’t make a First Amendment claim while infringing on “someone&#8217;s ability to freely worship.”
Trump on Tuesday <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-minnesota-church-protesters-should-be-jailed-or-thrown-out-of-the-country?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Trump%3A+Minnesota+Church+Protesters+Should+Be+Jailed+Or+%E2%80%98Thrown+Out+Of+The+Country%E2%80%99">called</a> for the agitators who stormed the church to be imprisoned or “thrown out of the country.” His Justice Department appears to be ready to take that action. 
“The FACE Act is just the start. Like I said, you have material support for disruptive activities, you have conspiracy to violate civil rights, you have potentially the use of other instrumentalities to commit crimes,” Dhillon said on Monday. 
The Trump administration has already used the FACE Act to go after left-wing activists who target religious services. In September, the Justice Department <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-under-face-act-against-violent-protestors-synagogue-west">filed charges</a> under FACE against a group of protesters who targeted a Jewish synagogue in New Jersey.
Soon after taking office, Trump’s Justice Department <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-doj-rolls-back-bidens-aggressive-prosecution-of-pro-lifers?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+DOJ+Rolls+Back+Biden%E2%80%99s+Aggressive+Prosecution+Of+Pro-Lifers">issued a memo</a> stipulating that FACE Act cases would only be prosecuted in cases of violence or extreme property damage, a reversal of Biden’s policy.

Don Lemon, Nekima Levy-Armstrong

How The Law Weaponized Against Pro-Lifers Could Be Used To Prosecute Anti-ICE Agitators

Bill Clinton

Don Lemon

Donald Trump

FACE Act

Harmeet Dhillon

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Keith Ellison

Minnesota

Pro-Life Movement

Religious Freedom

WASHINGTON—Lainey Armistead’s first-ever trip to the Supreme Court will be to watch her own case, a high-stakes legal fight that will determine whether states have the right to keep gender-confused men from dominating women’s sports.
Armistead, a former women’s collegiate soccer player, is fighting for West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports” law, which barred transgender-identifying males from participating in women&#8217;s sports. The fight over the law will come to a head Tuesday as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on West Virginia’s law and a similar measure out of Idaho.
“I just am baffled that a girl from Kentucky who went to school and at a smaller school in West Virginia would have the opportunity to be heard,” Armistead told The Daily Wire. “By them taking up this case, they&#8217;ve told me and all the other girls that we matter and that we&#8217;re important.”
Armistead was the captain of West Virginia State University women’s soccer team and played from 2019-2022 as transgender sports debate intensified across the nation. During that time, the debate rose to a fevered pitch as University of Pennsylvania transgender-identifying male swimmer Lia Thomas won a national championship title in the 500-yard freestyle in March 2022 over female swimmers.
“I never imagined that this would be something that would be going to the Supreme Court,” Armistead said. “I&#8217;m really excited to have the opportunity to stand up for women&#8217;s safety and fairness. I had the opportunity that I had from Title IX. It&#8217;s never been abstract for me.”
Armistead joined the legal fight to defend West Virginia’s law in September 2021, becoming an intervenor in the case after hearing of female athletes in Connecticut losing to a male athlete competing as a woman.
“I heard about the girls in Connecticut who were robbed and were displaced on their podiums and missed out on opportunities due to men taking their place, and it really riled me up,” she said. “Whenever I heard about what West Virginia was doing, I felt that I had a responsibility to stand up for fairness and safety.”
The justices will hear two different sets of oral arguments on Tuesday, in the cases of West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox. The result of the cases will determine whether 27 states can keep laws in place keeping men out of women’s sports, and could impact laws protecting women’s privacy in bathrooms and other spaces.
The question <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/24-00043qp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">presented</a> in the West Virginia case is whether Title IX, a measure that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education and related activities, prevents a state from keeping males out of women&#8217;s sports. It also asks whether the Constitution&#8217;s Equal Protection Clause limits states’ ability to designate sports teams on the basis of sex.
The Idaho case is <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/24-00038qp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">focused primarily</a> on the Equal Protection question, not the Title IX issue. Idaho became the first state in the country to pass a women’s sports protection bill in 2019 after a series of stories began trickling out of male athletes winning track and field competitions at the high school and collegiate level.
Idaho’s law was blocked at the federal district and appeals court level after a group of gender-confused athletes sued to block the law. West Virginia won its case at the federal district court level, but lost at appeals after a similar lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said that the lower courts ignored the obvious biological differences between men and women.
&#8220;Males on average possess physical advantages and competitive athletics that begin before puberty and only intensify after puberty. And those advantages are not eliminated by testosterone suppression after male development. The Ninth Circuit departed from settled law by redefining sex to include gender identity,&#8221; he said during a press call on Thursday.
While both cases will have separate oral arguments, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a joint opinion that will address both cases.
Both states are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped to craft the women’s sports legislation. Jonathan Scruggs, a lawyer with ADF, said that ultimately the justices will be considering the “what is a woman?” question.
&#8220;Does your identity and the fact that you take certain medical treatments make you a woman, or is it rooted in biology? And that is something that the Supreme Court is just gonna have to face,” he told The Daily Wire.
The ACLU has argued that a person’s so-called “gender-identity” should be included in the definition of sex for purposes of federal discrimination law. They point to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton, which included gender identity in the definition of sex for purposes of employment.
More recently though, the court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Skrmetti that Tennessee and other states had the right to protect kids from transgender procedures. The court rejected arguments that shielding kids from transgender medical interventions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
“What matters more? Identity or biology?  That&#8217;s the key issue of the case. And the ACLU is pushing that identity plus hormone treatment make you a woman effectively,” Scruggs said. “Our argument is no, that biology matters, it matters in sports, it matters in reality.”
The Trump administration is set to argue in favor of West Virginia and Idaho and has taken a strong stance on cracking down on transgender ideology.
While much of the debate before the court will be about abstract legal issues, the invasion of males into female sports has been tangible for hundreds of women across the country. A recent report from the United Nations <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trans-identifying-males-are-cleaning-up-in-female-sports-this-un-report-quantifies-the-damage" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> that transgender-identifying athletes had taken away at least 890 medals from female athletes.
In Connecticut, female track and field athletes Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell lost out on at least 90 opportunities to advance or medal in an event, thanks to the participation of male athletes, Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Matt Sharp said. ADF currently has a <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/soule-v-connecticut-association-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference for allowing males into female sports.
“The moment you say one man can be on a women&#8217;s team, you&#8217;re saying that every single spot on that team can now be held by a man. You could have an all-man, women&#8217;s basketball team,” Sharp said.
Apart from the fair competition issues, Tuesday&#8217;s cases could have wide-reaching implications for women’s privacy in other spaces like bathrooms or shelters.
Adaleia Cross is a former West Virginia track and field athlete who lost out on a spot to compete in a championship because a male athlete known as “BPJ” had joined her team due to his gender-identity. According to Alliance Defending Freedom, BPJ has beaten 423 girls 1100 times and deprived them of 57 medals.
Cross says that BPJ not only took away athletic opportunities, but also made “sexual remarks” to her and other female athletes in the locker room they shared.
“B.P.J. regularly outperformed A.C. and other girls on the field, changed clothes in the girls’ locker room, and made sexual remarks to A.C. and her teammates,” a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-43/322536/20240815105603417_24-43_A.C.%20amicus%20brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">court filing</a> from Cross said.
Adaelia&#8217;s mom, Abby, previously alleged that BPJ made comments in the female locker room like “suck my d**k,” and “I’m going to stick my d**k in your p***y and also in your ass.”
The ACLU has denied the allegations.
&#8220;Our client and her mother deny these allegations and the school district investigated the allegations reported to the school by A.C. and found them to be unsubstantiated. We remain committed to defending the rights of all students under Title IX, including the right to a safe and inclusive learning environment free from harassment and discrimination,&#8221; the organization <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/sports/top-dems-silent-after-trans-athlete-backed-scotus-case-accused-sexual-harassment-intimidation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> Fox News.
Sharp said if states are not allowed to pass laws recognizing biological reality, the foundation of American society could be shaken.
“When you ignore biological reality, it&#8217;s not just the playing field. It&#8217;s in locker rooms, it&#8217;s in restrooms. It&#8217;s in medicine, as we saw in Skrmetti,&#8221; he said. &#8220;There are young women and girls that are tragically harmed when we ignore this.&#8221;
Armistead recognized this fact and said she was very grateful that West Virginia acted to protect women’s spaces. Excited to show up to court on Tuesday, Armistead said the case was about the chance to stand up for the truth.
“It&#8217;s a monumental and exciting day. And I just have been counting down the days to go in and see something that is going to be historical,” she said. “I am so hopeful for the outcome and hopeful that the Supreme Court will protect women and girls.”

MixCollage-09-Jan-2026-12-50-PM-1486

Supreme Court Set To Answer ‘What Is A Woman?’ In High-Stakes Trans Athlete Cases

female sports

Lia Thomas

Supreme Court

Transgender Athletes

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.

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

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

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

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

Finland

Marriage

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

Menu