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

SCOTUS I

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

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Children

Gender Identity

LGBTQ

Opinion

Parents rights

Pronouns

Schools

Supreme Court

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

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

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

Colorado

Free Speech

gender ideology

Transgender

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

Kirk Debate

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

American Universities

Conservatives

Leftists

Liberals

TPUSA

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

Charlie Kirk Speaks At The Cambridge Union

A Teacher’s Tribute: What Charlie Kirk Taught Me And My Students

Charlie Kirk

Christianity

Education

Loudoun County

Students

Teachers

Turning Point USA

Virginia

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=" (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

Brussels

Censorship

Europe

European Union

Finland

Freedom of Speech

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

Christians

College

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

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

Puberty blockers

transgender surgery

Menu