Charlie Kirk was a tireless champion of the First Amendment and the sacred right to free speech it protects. He led the charge for every American to speak freely, believe openly, and challenge authority without fear. In standing up to a ruthless faction that despised those freedoms, Charlie paid the ultimate price. He became a martyr for the first protection in the Bill of Rights.
To honor his courage and his life’s work, the Media Research Center (MRC) is proud to award the annual MRC Free Speech Award exclusively to Charlie Kirk.
In 2024, the MRC recognized 35 individuals and groups for their defense of free expression. There are again many worthy champions this year. But Charlie’s leadership, clarity, and sacrifice deserve singular recognition.
The MRC presents this award during Free Speech Week, a national celebration that reminds Americans what separates us from every other nation on earth. Without the right to speak freely, there can be no democracy, no Republic, no America. Yet we now live in a time when many citizens no longer believe in that right. Some even view the First Amendment as a danger to the nation itself.
Charlie saw that storm coming. He warned that the Left’s growing intolerance would not stop at censorship, but would escalate into the criminalization of “wrongthink.” He said, “Leftists in the Western world want to criminalize wrongthink&#8230; This can only end badly if we don’t stop it first.” Those words were not rhetoric. They were prophecy.
Charlie understood the connection between speech and civilization. He knew that free expression is not a privilege granted by government but a moral necessity that allows truth to prevail over power. He also recognized that the modern threat did not come from a single politician or newsroom, but from a coordinated network of tech companies, bureaucrats, and cultural elites seeking to control the flow of information.
Through MRC’s Free Speech America division, we exposed 57 censorship programs operating across 93 federal agencies during the Biden years. Some of those programs targeted Charlie and Turning Point USA directly. He fought back not with anger, but with reason and courage. He saw that Big Tech platforms such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, and X were no longer neutral conduits but ideological gatekeepers. He demanded that these corporations be treated as the publishers they had become, accountable for their choices and stripped of the immunity that shields their censorship.
Charlie was not motivated by partisanship. He was motivated by principle. As a man of faith, he saw free speech as an extension of free will — the God-given ability to think, speak, and act according to conscience. He knew that once a society loses the right to express truth, it soon loses the capacity to recognize it.
There are many who have continued this fight. President Donald Trump deserves special credit for reversing the Biden administration’s censorship directives and appointing officials who are restoring the First Amendment within government. Members of Congress, judges, and state leaders are carrying that same torch. But this year, one name stands above them all.
Charlie’s example must inspire our next steps. Congress should define the limits of Section 230 and end Big Tech’s abuse of it. The Trump administration should complete the work of dismantling every remaining censorship initiative. And states should act to protect consumers and elections from the tyranny of information control.
Charlie’s voice may be gone, but his conviction endures. The cause he gave his life for remains the cornerstone of the American experiment. It will only end if we fail to defend it.
Let’s not disappoint him.
* * *
David Bozell is president of the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump Addresses Turning Point USA Summit

Why MRC’s Free Speech Award Belongs To Charlie Kirk Alone

Awards

Censorship

Charlie Kirk

First Amendment

Free Speech

Media Research Center

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

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

European Union

Comedian Roseanne Barr is voicing her frustration with Jimmy Kimmel&#8217;s return on Tuesday night after being suspended for less than a week due to controversial comments, claiming that when a similar situation happened to her, it ruined her “whole life.”
&#8220;It just shows how they think. I got my whole life ruined, no forgiveness, all of my work stolen, and called a racist for time and eternity, for racially misgendering someone,&#8221; the sitcom star told NewsNation during an interview on Tuesday. &#8220;It&#8217;s a double standard.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Roseanne Barr calls Jimmy Kimmel&#039;s return to ABC a &#039;double standard&#039; | Elizabeth Vargas Reports" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/as8M5ruHPaA?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>
&nbsp;
Despite strong ratings, Barr was written off &#8220;The Conners&#8221; in 2018 after she tweeted that former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett looked like the offspring of the “Muslim Brotherhood &amp; Planet of the Apes.&#8221;
Barr deleted the post and apologized, but her career and reputation were permanently damaged. 
Barr claimed that at the time, Kimmel &#8220;called me a racist even though I said repeatedly, which they repeatedly censored, that it was a mistake. I thought that the woman was a white woman from Iran.&#8221; 
Jarrett was born in Iran to black parents.
She added that Kimmel &#8220;called me a racist even though he himself appeared in blackface on their network many times.&#8221;
Kimmel just returned to his late-night show following a six-day suspension that came after comments he made about the individual who assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk. 
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said, which prompted his show to be taken off the air temporarily.
The late-night host was back after six days, with Disney reps saying, “We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”
During his first monologue Tuesday night following the suspension, Kimmel referenced his comments about the Kirk assassination but did not apologize for them.
“It was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man,” Kimmel said as he became audibly emotional. “I don’t think there’s anything funny about it … nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for what was the actions … of an obviously deeply disturbed individual.”
Kimmel previously apologized for appearing in blackface, saying in a 2020 statement, &#8220;There is nothing more important to me than your respect, and I apologize to those who were genuinely hurt or offended by the makeup I wore or the words I spoke.&#8221;

Roseanne Barr

Roseanne Argues Kimmel’s Return Exposes ‘Double Standard’: ‘I Got My Whole Life Ruined’

Celebrities

Entertainment

Jimmy Kimmel

Television

U.S.

President Donald Trump unloads on the United Nations, Google admits it caved to the Biden administration&#8217;s censorship demands, and Jimmy Kimmel returns to late-night after a short suspension.
It’s Wednesday, September 24, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.
Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trump Scolds U.N. &amp; Kimmel Returns" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W2Zkk_aBDXo?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>
If you would rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trump-scolds-u-n-kimmel-returns-9-24-25/id1576594336?i=1000728191428" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Trump At United Nations: Leftist Ideas Driving Countries To Ruin</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-976157" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: In a scathing speech Tuesday, President Trump slammed world leaders at the United Nations, warning that their countries are “going to hell.”
What he said: Donald Trump spoke for about an hour and unloaded on the UN, calling it incompetent, inefficient, weak, and warning that mass migration, climate alarmism, and political correctness were laying siege to the organization’s founding principles.
“What is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential,” <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1970495659938652526">said</a> Trump. “For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a strongly worded letter, and then never follow that letter up. It&#8217;s empty words — and empty words do not solve war. The only thing that solves war &#8230; is action.”
On immigration: Trump devoted much of his speech to immigration, warning Western allies that their insistence on allowing unfettered mass migration was destroying their countries from within. 
“When your prisons are filled with so-called asylum seekers who repaid kindness with crime, it&#8217;s time to end the failed experiment of open borders,” <a href="https://x.com/cspan/status/1970501963264483514">said</a> Trump.
On energy: Trump took aim at the UN’s decades-long push to embrace far-left green energy initiatives, which he said have been ineffective, thereby increasing our reliance on China and other bad actors. 
On a Palestinian state: The topic of a Palestinian state arguably received more attention than any other issue at this week’s gathering, as influential member states have joined the call for Palestinian statehood. But President Trump remained adamant that such a move would only reward Hamas terrorists and incentivize more October 7th-style attacks. 
“The rewards would be too great for Hamas terrorists for their atrocities; this would be a reward for these horrible atrocities, including October 7th, even while they refuse to release the hostages or accept the ceasefire,” the president said.
Trump turns hard against Putin: After his address, Trump had a separate meeting with Volodmyr Zelensky and emerged with a much more supportive stance on Ukraine than in the past. Trump initially vowed to end the war on day one of his presidency, and then in recent months said Ukraine would need to accept a deal that resulted in handing over territory to Putin.
But on Tuesday, he said the Ukrainians can retake 20% of their land currently held by Russia. Writing on Truth Social, the president said that after getting to know and fully understand the situation, “I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option.”
Step back: This could be a leverage play to try to bring Putin back to the negotiating table, but regardless, this shift was music to the ears of NATO and many UN allies.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Biden Behind Clampdown On Conservative Speech, Google Says</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-976155" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: Google admitted Tuesday to caving to censorship pressure from the Biden administration – and is committing to allowing all creators who it kicked off YouTube over so-called political speech “violations” the chance to return. 
Morning Wire spoke with House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who has played a meaningful role in driving forward investigations into the “censorship industrial complex” targeting conservatives.
Jordan on Google’s letter: “They (Google and YouTube), in fact, were censoring Americans. They had kicked some people off the YouTube platform altogether – you, your channel, you&#8217;re gone. They&#8217;ve agreed to reinstate those individuals, which I think is good. They&#8217;ve said they will not use the fact-checkers, like other platforms have done – which was a big problem because fact-checkers are typically really biased against conservatives. I thought it was, again, a win for the First Amendment, a win for free expression.”
What’s next? Jordan can’t rest easy on the victory. He is concerned that the next threat to free expression has already begun to creep across the Atlantic in the form of European speech codes. The Google letter specifically mentioned two European speech codes: the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act.
Jordan said: “They talked about the danger that now exists from Europe and what they&#8217;re doing and how that could, in fact, happen to Americans. And I think that&#8217;s a key point as well, because that&#8217;s something we (the Judiciary Committee) are now beginning to look at.”
Jordan mentioned the case of Irish comedian Graham Linehan, who was arrested in Britain over X posts mocking transgender ideology.
“I think it&#8217;s just a matter of time before that happens to an American,” said Jordan. “We&#8217;re particularly concerned about that relative to YouTube. There&#8217;s still this issue, I think, that we&#8217;re trying to make sure we understand fully: how people are monetizing their content or being demonetized.”
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Kimmel Claims Martyrdom While Kirk’s Legacy Grows</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-976153" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel is back on air, but with limited viewership, and Charlie Kirk’s legacy continues.
Kimmel’s short-lived suspension ended on Tuesday as ABC reinstated his show and he returned to the air. Kimmel was suspended for misleading comments on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, claiming that the conservative activist&#8217;s killer belonged to the &#8220;MAGA gang.&#8221; On his return, he played the martyr.
Kimmel: “The president of the United States made it very clear he wants to see me and the hundreds of people who work here fired from our jobs. Our leader celebrates Americans losing their livelihoods because he can&#8217;t take a joke. … We have to speak out against this. He&#8217;s not stopping, and it&#8217;s not just comedy. He&#8217;s gunning for our journalists.”
Step back: While his suspension was lifted by Disney, Kimmel didn’t have the reach he usually has. Some broadcast groups that own ABC affiliates refused to air “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/nexstar-to-preempt-abcs-jimmy-kimmel-live-despite-disney-ending-suspension">Nexstar</a>, which owns 32 ABC affiliates, said it stands by Disney’s original reasons for suspending the host and it will maintain that position until “all parties are committed to fostering an environment of respectful, constructive dialogue.”
Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates <a href="https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2025/09/23/these-abc-stations-in-pennsylvania-wont-air-jimmy-kimmel-tonight-sinclair-stations-in-pa-kimmel-time/86306589007/#:~:text=Where%20does%20Sinclair%20own%20ABC,and%20Exchange%20Commission%20in%20August.">40</a> ABC affiliates, isn’t airing Kimmel, either. The broadcaster said earlier this week that it is in “discussions with ABC” as it evaluates the show’s “potential return.”
For Charlie: Meanwhile, Kirk’s “American Comeback Tour” continues with volunteers from conservative media and the political world filling in to headline events.
Erika – Kirk’s widow, who’s now been elected Turning Point USA’s new CEO – vowed just days after her husband was fatally shot that his legacy would live on, this tour would continue, and that Turning Point is <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/erika-kirk-breaks-silence-after-husband-charlies-assassination-address-turning-point-usa-headquarters">adding</a> “even more tours in the years to come.” The tour has been rebranded in Kirk’s memory and is now called: “This Is the Turning Point Tour.”
&nbsp;

MRN 9.24.25 Thumbnail V2

Morning Brief: Trump Torches UN Elites, Google Admits Censorship & Kimmel Plays The Victim

Donald Trump

Google

Media

Morning Wire

Politics

Russia

Turning Point USA

Ukraine

United Nations

YouTube

Google has committed to allowing all creators who were kicked off YouTube — over so-called political speech &#8220;violations&#8221; — the chance to return to the platform. And according to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, &#8220;THAT&#8217;S NOT ALL.&#8221;
The tech giant sent a letter to Jordan and the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, but the letter also included several statements from YouTube, admitting, among other things, to pressure from the former President Joe Biden&#8217;s administration to censor certain political statements.
Jordan shared screenshots of the letter via X, along with a lengthy thread detailing both the contents of the letter and the Judiciary Committee&#8217;s efforts to expose and put a stop to social media censorship.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
YouTube also:
-Admits the Biden Admin censorship pressure was “unacceptable and wrong”
-Confirms that the Biden Admin wanted Americans censored for speech that did not violate YouTube’s policies
-Details when YouTube began rolling back its censorship policies on political…
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1970474490942337044?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Jordan highlighted the key points addressed in the letter:
<ul>
<li>Admits the Biden Admin censorship pressure was &#8220;unacceptable and wrong&#8221;</li>
<li>Confirms that the Biden Admin wanted Americans censored for speech that did not violate YouTube’s policies</li>
<li>Details when YouTube began rolling back its censorship policies on political speech after @JudiciaryGOP began its investigation</li>
<li>States that public debate should NEVER come at the expense of relying on “authorities”</li>
<li>Promises to NEVER use third-party “fact-checkers”</li>
<li>Warns that Europe’s censorship laws target AMERICAN companies and threaten AMERICAN speech</li>
</ul>
Throughout the thread, Jordan continued to note what Google and YouTube were promising to do to make changes, including stepping away from third-party &#8220;fact checkers&#8221; and adopting a &#8220;Community Notes&#8221; model, similar to the one implemented first by X and later by Meta.
He spent a considerable amount of time warning Americans that European authorities were moving to restrict the speech of Americans — even when they were not in Europe — and that European social media regulations were designed to impose a &#8220;disproportionate regulatory burden on American companies.&#8221;
Stating that the Judiciary Committee would continue in those efforts, he added, &#8220;All the above are MASSIVE wins for the American people, the First Amendment, and freedom. We won’t stop fighting to protect free speech.&#8221;

Former President Joe Biden Speaks At National Bar Association Awards Gala

‘Unacceptable And Wrong’: Google Admits Caving To Censorship Pressure From Biden Admin

'Unacceptable And Wrong': Google Admits Caving To Censorship Pressure From Biden Admin

Joe Biden

Social Media

Social Media Censorship

Technology

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

Europe

Finland

Freedom of Speech

Opinion

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

House Judiciary Committee

The Left’s efforts to preserve their censorship industrial complex just triggered a new low in judicial imperialism — one that imperils free expression everywhere.
The Left-wing activist organization known as Media Matters recently filed a suit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to block it from investigating potential antitrust violations.
Media Matters has been around for decades, attempting (unsuccessfully) to boost the reputation of legacy media by launching spurious attacks against journalists it views as too conservative. Recently, Media Matters was accused of working with major advertising companies to form an economic cartel designed to foreclose market access to conservative media outlets. By targeting online publications like Breitbart, The Daily Wire, and The Federalist, the FTC is concerned that Media Matters is trying to eliminate competition to the benefit of legacy media and to the detriment of American consumers.
If true, such conduct would violate federal antitrust law, which prohibits such anti-competitive schemes. Given the gravity of the allegations, the FTC launched an investigation, as required by Congress. With the kind of lawfare tactics the Left has perfected, Media Matters immediately sued to block the FTC from even inquiring into whether the law had been broken.
It is hard to overstate how ludicrous this suit is. Imagine if drug dealers sued to stop the police from investigating their illicit operations, or if a company running a Ponzi scheme sued the SEC to prevent it from examining its fraudulent contracts.
No rational, law-abiding judge would ever countenance such a claim, especially in light of strong Supreme Court precedent to the contrary.
In Associated Press v. United States and again in Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, the Court ruled that the First Amendment does not constitutionally protect the unlawful actions by news media cartels. Justice Hugo Black famously wrote: “Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not.”
The Media Matters suit is based on a patently absurd argument that the Court has already rejected — twice.
Thus, any judge hearing this case would be obligated to follow Supreme Court precedent, no matter how much she may personally disagree. Unfortunately for the public, Media Matters has managed to land its case before one of the most partisan activists in the federal judiciary.
Despite being just eight months into a lifetime appointment, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has already drawn criticism from across the political spectrum for her unethical conduct. At her Senate confirmation hearing last year, Sooknanan — a former Big Law attorney who spent a stint in the Biden administration — swore under oath that she was “not lead counsel” in a controversial lawsuit she brought on behalf of a vulture hedge fund against the territory of Puerto Rico.
It is a crime to provide knowingly false testimony to Congress. Sooknanan’s testimony was clearly untrue. It may also have been knowingly false. Her own firm, where she had been a partner, contradicted her testimony and provided evidence that she had indeed been the lead counsel on the case.
Judge Sooknanan is once again playing fast and loose with the law. In flagrant defiance of the Supreme Court, she has issued a preliminary injunction demanding that the FTC immediately cease its investigation into Media Matters.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">End of Summer Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
The harm of such an order cannot be overstated. Media Matters is not the only leftist group alleged to have formed a cartel: other legacy media sycophants like Ad Fontes Media and the Center for Countering Digital Hate have been accused of the same misconduct. If the FTC is judicially prohibited from protecting new media from antitrust violations, then the existence of potentially hundreds of journalistic enterprises — especially those with conservative leanings — is instantly imperiled.
Fortunately, under the strong leadership of FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, the agency has already appealed the lawless actions by Judge Sooknanan.
But there are additional avenues to combat Sooknanan and other renegade judges who fancy themselves as judicial dictators. House Republicans could launch an impeachment inquiry. The Department of Justice could also investigate Sooknanan’s behavior to determine whether she committed perjury at her confirmation hearing. Higher courts could also begin their own inquiries into her refusal to apply the law evenly and fairly.
Media Matters and Judge Sooknanan are counting on not being held accountable for their actions. They are betting that they can nullify Supreme Court precedent and kill the FTC investigation in the cradle. For the sake of our republic and the freedom of the press, let us pray they are wrong.
* * *
Dan Schneider is the Vice President for Free Speech at the Media Research Center.
Tim Kilcullen is the Senior Fellow for Free Speech at the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

E. Barrett Pettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington

A Rogue Judge Just Handed Media Matters Its Biggest Weapon Yet

Conservative Media

Judges

Leftists

Legacy Media

Media Matters For America

Washington D.C.

This week Scotland <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/state-department-scotland-rose-docherty#:~:text=GLASGOW%20(18%20August%202025)%20%E2%80%93,Glasgow's%20Queen%20Elizabeth%20II%20Hospital." target="_blank" rel="noopener">dropped</a> a criminal lawsuit against a pro-life grandmother seeking peaceful conversation outside of a hospital.
Glasgow native Rose Docherty, 75, was arrested and issued a warning in February 2025 for standing within 200 metres of the city’s Queen Elizabeth II Hospital with a sign that read “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.”
Docherty was arrested under Scotland’s new <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2024/10/section/4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">buffer zone law</a>, which came into effect last September. The Abortion Services Bill makes it illegal to stand within 200 meters (656 feet) of a hospital for the purpose of “influencing, preventing access, or causing harassment” to women seeking abortions. Offenders can receive fines of up to £10,000.
A State Department spokesman told the Telegraph that it applauds Scotland’s decision to drop the case.
“The United States stands with all those fighting for free speech and religious liberty.”
Docherty <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/prayer-by-window-in-scotland-buffer-zone-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a> she wasn’t violating the buffer zone.
“Everyone has the right to a consensual conversation. I simply made myself available for a chat, should anybody like to approach me and speak about any matter on their mind. I didn’t breach the buffer zone – I didn’t harass, intimidate, or even seek to influence anyone. I simply stood there, available to speak with love and compassion.”
After her arrest, Docherty was issued a formal warning that required her to admit wrongdoing and refrain from similar actions in the future. She refused to sign it.
This week, a prosecutor for Glasgow notified Ms. Docherty by letter that &#8220;on the basis of the current information available to me, I have decided to take no further action… at this time.&#8221;
The warning was withdrawn, and authorities agreed to return Docherty’s sign.
The letter noted there was an &#8220;obligation on the prosecutor to keep cases under review,” meaning that charges could technically be reintroduced at a later date.
Docherty and her legal counsel, ADF International, are celebrating the development as a win for free speech: “This is a victory not just for me, but for everyone in Scotland who believes we should be free to hold a peaceful conversation,” Docherty said.
“I stood with love and compassion, ready to listen to anyone who wanted to talk. Criminalising kindness has no place in a free society.”
ADF International Legal Counsel Lorcán Price said that &#8220;Rose’s case is a stark example of how ‘buffer zone’ laws can be weaponised to silence peaceful expression.”
Scotland’s buffer zone law sparked controversy earlier this year when Vice President JD Vance <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87d9j17pjqo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accused</a> the Scottish government of policing citizens’ thoughts in his address at the Munich Security Conference in February.
&#8220;This last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law.&#8221;
The government denied the accusation, saying the legislation did not target private prayer.
The <a href="https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2025/03-a/foi-202500452910/documents/foi-202500452910---information-released---annex/foi-202500452910---information-released---annex/govscot%3Adocument/FOI%2B202500452910%2B-%2BInformation%2Breleased%2B-%2BAnnex.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letters</a> sent to residents did not mention prayer specifically, but warned them against performing offenses “in a private place…if they can be seen or heard within the Zone.”
These could include putting up pro-life signs in your windows or holding a vigil or protest in your front yard, according to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87d9j17pjqo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BBC</a>.

President Trump Holds National Day of Prayer Event In Rose Garden

State Department Applauds Scotland’s Decision to Drop Case Against Pro-Life Grandmother

JD Vance

Pro-Life Movement

Scotland

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

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

A conservative policy powerhouse is calling for changes to financial rules that allow the government to pressure banks into cutting ties with groups they find ideologically objectionable.
The America First Policy Institute&#8217;s Center For American Prosperity on Wednesday <a href="https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/debanked-when-political-bias-trumps-financial-judgment">released</a> &#8220;Debanked: When Political Bias Trumps Financial Judgment.&#8221; The white paper outlines five proposals that the authors say would stop government regulators from weaponizing their influence over banks to further their political agendas.
Debanking &#8220;creates a de facto blacklist of people and organizations that have lost access to banking services and have significant difficulty regaining access to banking,&#8221; Jill Homan, Deputy Director of Trade and Economic Policy, and David Vasquez, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy &amp; Environment at AFPI, write in the report.
&#8220;Debanking creates uncertainty and hardship. In a nation governed by laws, the practice of legal coercion through regulatory discretion is antithetical to the American system of justice,&#8221; the authors add.
&#8220;Ultimately, debanking is not just an economic problem, but a constitutional one. When federal officials use unofficial “guidance” to achieve what Congress never authorized, they violate both the spirit and letter of the law. The solution is to excise power from the regulators, and that begins with narrowing their discretion.&#8221;
President Donald Trump made a similar point earlier this year.
“The regulators control the banks,&#8221; Trump said in June. &#8220;It’s not the president of the bank. The president of the bank is far less important to a bank than a regulator, and a regulator can put that bank out of business.”
Debanking reached a fever pitch in 2013, when the Obama Justice Department launched “Operation Choke Point.&#8221; Under the operation, the Justice Department targeted “companies believed to be at a high risk for fraud and money laundering.&#8221; In reality, Choke Point involved government officials pressuring banks to cut ties with firearms dealers and other businesses the Obama administration deemed intolerable. The Biden administration continued its debanking efforts with <a href="https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=409457">Operation Choke Point 2.0</a>, an effort to target the cryptocurrency industry.
In addition to the firearms and crypto industries, religious groups and conservative organizations have also been frequent targets of government-run debanking.
The authors suggest a number of policy tweaks that could prevent future debanking efforts. They urge Congress to pass the Financial Integrity and Regulation Management Act, which would “remove the subjective criteria of &#8216;reputational risk&#8217; which bank regulators use to evaluate a financial institution. … Instead, financial regulators would rely entirely on objective criteria to assess financial soundness.”
The law would also restrict the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from judging a financial institution’s trustworthiness on the “competency of bank management,” which is evaluated based on the risk regulators believe the institution is exposed to, based on the businesses it serves.
The authors also call for a uniform “Federal Fair Access” standard that would “end the need for states to develop separate debanking legislation that further complicates banking operations with a patchwork of inconsistent and conflicting state laws.”
A requirement to notify customers and explain the reasoning ahead of a decision by a financial institution to end its relationship with someone would increase transparency. Modernizing old regulations would also mitigate problems brought about by using a 1970s legal framework in the present-day financial environment.
&#8220;Whether the result of politically driven regulators abusing their authority or bad policies, this administration and Congress have an opportunity to dramatically curb the practice of government-driven debanking across the country through federal action,&#8221; the authors conclude. &#8220;Doing so involves reducing subjectivity and instituting these changes into law.&#8221;

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Conservative Group Calls For Lawmakers To Fight Government-Driven ‘Debanking’

Debanking Is A Serious Problem For Conservatives. Here Are Some Expert Suggestions To Fix It

Menu