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

TOPSHOT-BELGIUM-TECHNOLOGY-MEDIA-EU

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

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Brussels

Censorship

Europe

European Union

Finland

Freedom of Speech

Opinion

Social Media Censorship

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

Free 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

Media Research Center

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

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

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

America First

Banking

Cryptocurrency

finance

Guns

Obama Administration

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

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

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

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

Australia

Gender

gender ideology

Puberty blockers

transgender surgery

A Leftist California bookstore is banning J.K. Rowling&#8217;s &#8220;Harry Potter&#8221; series but remains committed to sending &#8220;queer, affirmative&#8221; titles all over the country through an anti-book banning nonprofit.
Booksmith is located in San Francisco&#8217;s renowned Haight-Ashbury neighborhood — the epicenter of the 1960s hippie counterculture and the Summer of Love. It stopped selling &#8220;Harry Potter&#8221; books after Rowling announced the creation of the J.K. Rowling Women&#8217;s Fund. The fund <a href="https://jkrwf.org/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwKdvNljbGNrAp26GGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAGJyaWQRMVhFYkVUMVlETmNnb3NRM2YBHpCylZCyqT-dSAcjqzcghgBSrl8tIO_sNX3dgcFvY5leoMkcTzlQEUHionpy_aem_HyMGvqrZM5nRn93ZKNrRMg">says</a> it &#8220;offers legal funding support to individuals and organizations fighting to retain women’s sex-based rights in the workplace, in public life, and in protected female spaces.&#8221;
Its website never mentions transgender-identifying individuals, but Booksmith <a href="https://www.booksmith.com/NotHP">claims</a> the fund is &#8220;dedicated to removing transgender rights.&#8221;
&#8220;With this announcement, we&#8217;ve decided to stop carrying her books. We don&#8217;t know exactly what her &#8216;women&#8217;s fund&#8217; will entail, but we know that we aren&#8217;t going to be a part of it,&#8221; a sign in the bookstore reads.
But ironically, Booksmith — a self-described &#8220;group of queer booksellers&#8221; — participates in the Books Not Bans program, which is dedicated to <a href="https://www.booksmith.com/BnB">mailing</a> &#8220;crates of queer, affirmative, necessary books all over the country,&#8221; it says, that are actively being banned.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
&#8220;These are going to people who desperately need them but who live in book deserts and communities where new book bans are rolling out daily,&#8221; the store&#8217;s announcement said. &#8220;We don&#8217;t need to tell you things are serious out there: this is a lifeline for people whose lives and wellbeing are in danger. &#8221;
Books Not Bans, now a separate nonprofit, started at a different San Francisco <a href="https://www.fabulosabooks.com/#/">bookstore</a>, Fabulosa Books, that &#8220;[specializes] in LGBTQ+ books.&#8221;
Fabulosa Books also stopped selling Rowling&#8217;s work, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DLV4dvcyXYY/?hl=en">saying</a> on social media that the author &#8220;is devoting her life to nastiness.&#8221;
Books Not Bans has sent more than &#8220;2200 books to community groups around America,&#8221; according to a social media <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DJvD5hUzNhs/?igsh=aGduY25yYWM4NDl5">post</a>.
One popular shipment is &#8220;All Boys Aren&#8217;t Blue,&#8221; which has been at the center of fights to keep sexually explicit books away from children, The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/inside-the-fight-to-shield-kids-from-graphic-material-in-a-deep-red-state">reported</a>. The book includes <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/its-time-to-unite-against-the-real-enemy">graphic descriptions</a> of anal rape and incest.
&#8220;[&#8216;All Boys Aren&#8217;t Blue&#8217;] was recently named the most banned book in America,&#8221; Books Not Bans said in a social media post. &#8220;We’ve sent &#8216;All Boys Aren’t Blue&#8217; to 20 different organizations all over America.&#8221;
Rowling has drawn criticism for her commitment to protecting women and women&#8217;s spaces, but the bestselling author has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/5-years-ago-j-k-rowling-took-a-stand-against-trans-activists-she-hasnt-backed-down">refused</a> to back down or apologize. In December, she celebrated the social media post that resulted in her becoming a global icon for women&#8217;s rights.
&#8220;Five years ago today and my only regret is that I didn&#8217;t speak out sooner,&#8221; Rowling <a href="https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1869544832370344245?s=43&amp;t=BDz6oekueqrSVJ50bM62xw">said</a> on social media. &#8220;To every girl and woman who&#8217;s paid a heavy price for fighting to retain their rights and boundaries, to every person striving to halt an appalling medical experiment on minors, I salute you. We will win.&#8221;

Assam Book Fair 2023-24

Liberals In California Are Banning Books Again

Books

J.K. Rowling

San Francisco

Social Issues

U.S.

President Donald Trump’s top consumer protection and antitrust official has approved a massive $13.5 billion merger that will reshape the advertising industry, effectively putting the final nail in the coffin of coordination against outlets based on their political viewpoints.
The Federal Trade Commission announced Monday morning that it has decided not to block a merger between Omnicom and IPG, two rival firms which together make up a third of the world’s “Big Six” advertising agencies. But rather than rubber stamp the deal, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson extracted a major concession: the firms have agreed to cease all coordination related to viewpoint discrimination, refrain from any coordination in the future, and submit to strict compliance mandates.
Ferguson on Monday in his <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/omnicom-ipg-ferguson-statement_0.pdf">official statement on the decision</a> said the firms have offered not only to cease coordination in any way that would steer advertising dollars away from publishers based on political viewpoints, but to cooperate with the FTC’s investigation into past collusion and submit to regular compliance reviews.
The FTC appeared poised to block the merger based on evidence of past “anticompetitive” coordination against conservative news organizations, an issue the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/02/technology/ftc-investigation-advertising-boycotts.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">commission is actively investigating</a>. Ferguson on Monday pointed the finger at the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, better known as GARM, which was disbanded in controversy after it was caught directing ad dollars away from right-of-center outlets, including The Daily Wire.
“A Congressional investigation concluded that GARM banded together the most powerful firms in their industry to choke off the vital advertising revenue of those who disagreed with them,” Ferguson said in a Monday statement, adding that GARM aimed “to destroy publishers of content of which they disapproved.”
“GARM was neither the beginning nor the end of harmful and potentially unlawful collusion in this industry,” Ferguson said, a reference to concerns that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-jim-jordan-investigating-ad-industry-attempt-to-create-new-garm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GARM would reconstitute itself</a>.  “Numerous other industry groups and private organizations have publicly sought to use the chokepoint of the advertising industry to effect political or ideological goals.”
The conditions proposed by the companies, however, “mitigate” the FTC’s concerns about politically-motivated collusion in the future.
“Today, Omnicom and IPG have committed themselves to help stop that sort of coordination in their industry,” Ferguson said. “This consent agreement will help mitigate the dangers inherent in a consolidated national advertising market.”
“I hope the conditions imposed on this merger will encourage all advertising firms to adopt similar practices and thereby reduce the temptation to collude to the detriment of their customers, independent journalists, small and independent media companies, consumers, and the American public square,” he concluded.
GARM came under fire in 2024 after a congressional investigation, first reported by The Daily Wire, uncovered overt political bias in the advertising coalition that was being used to keep ad dollars away from websites that weren’t deemed “brand safe.”
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/garm-exposed-house-judiciary-report-says-ad-coalition-broke-law-to-silence-conservatives" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GARM Exposed: House Judiciary Report Says Ad Coalition Likely Broke Law To Silence Conservatives</a>
Internal emails from ad executives involved in the coalition, which included both Omnicom and IPG, showed that The Daily Wire was put on a “High Risk exclusion list” and “categorized as Conspiracy Theories.” Other emails show that the highest ranking official derided people “advocating for freedom of speech online” and complained that the Constitution was written “by white men exclusively.”
Daily Wire Editor Emeritus and co-founder Ben Shapiro testified to Congress that GARM was a “cartel,” and effectively made it impossible for conservatives to run an ad-based business.
“GARM acts as a cartel,” Shapiro said. “Its members account for 90 percent of ad spending in the United States–almost $1 trillion. In other words, if you’re not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it’s nearly impossible to run an ad-based business.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/04Q1cPX9n9c?si=qbfxzrpn9nfP3ZEB" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
The concessions by Omnicom and IPG — which, once merged, will represent the largest ad firm in the world — are a sea change for the ad industry.
While individual companies are certainly still able to decide where they’d like to advertise, it has become standard practice in recent years for the industry to move in concert. Rather than making individual decisions, the industry giants created blacklists using biased third party “misinformation” services such as Newsguard. Entire business sectors would cut off access to disfavored publications based on exclusion lists that became industry standard.
According to the consent decree issued by the FTC on Monday, the firms have agreed to submit annual compliance reports on the matter of coordination for the next five years, as well as spot compliance reports any time the FTC requests one.
The FTC is urging publishers to alert the commission if they believe they are the “object of unlawful collusion.”
The agreement also stipulates that the firms will cooperate with the FTC on all past coordination to boycott publishers based on viewpoint.
“This Agreement requires Omnicom and IPG to cooperate with the Commission in any investigation relating to media-buying services,” Ferguson said, adding that “investigating and policing censorship practices that run afoul of the antitrust laws is a top priority of the Trump-Vance FTC.”
It is unclear whether the other four major ad firms — Publicis, WPP, Dentsu, and Havas — will take action regarding their own practices following the change by Omnicom and IPG. The ad industry has been gathered at the Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity, where the potential merger was certainly a main topic of discussion.
The public will have 30 days to submit comments to the FTC on the merger decision.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson Testifies During House Hearing

EXCLUSIVE: Trump FTC Secures Landmark Agreement to End Political Collusion in Advertising Industry

advertising

Federal Trade Commission

Ferguson

GARM

A big tech company refused to work with any organization denounced by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing group that has been frequently criticized for smearing conservative organizations as &#8220;hate groups.&#8221;
In an email reviewed by The Daily Wire, an employee of Bonterra Tech — which provides customer relationship management software to nonprofits — declined to work with the Ruth Institute, which promotes biblical sexual values, because the SPLC named it a hate group.
“It pains me to say that we cannot move forward with the Ruth Institute. It makes it even harder as I am aligned with the beliefs of your Organization and I think it’s absolutely RIDICULOUS that the SPLC gets to pick and choose who is a hate group,” the email said. “Doesn’t make any sense and they should be shut down. My CEO agrees that you shouldn’t be on there, she took it up to our board and they said that is one rule they will not make an exemption on. If an Organization is on the SPLC list, we cannot work with them.”
This is the latest evidence that Bonterra discriminates against conservatives. In a 2024 report to the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/big-tech-company-that-deplatformed-conservative-group-will-comply-with-cruz-investigation">revealed</a> that Bonterra’s terms of service prohibited it from working with clients that denied “rights to the LGBTQ community,” “a woman’s right to reproductive choice,” “racial justice,” or “climate change.” At the same time EveryAction stipulated that nonprofits it worked with could not be “Not Progressive Aligned,” meaning that they “Can’t be a Republican org,” “Can’t go against LGBT+,” and “Can’t be against pro-choice.”
Bonterra also refused to renew contracts with Wisconsin Right to Life, Idaho Family Policy Center, Deaconess Pregnancy &amp; Adoptions, and Stand for Health Freedom.
Cruz believes that Bonterra weaponized its policies to deny conservatives access to its services.
“My committee’s investigation exposed what we long expected: Big Tech companies like Bonterra have used vague, broadly worded terms of service agreements as a political weapon to deny conservatives access to essential business technology,” Cruz told The Daily Wire. “Conservative companies should not be forced to choose between staying silent or potentially shutting down.”
Cruz on Tuesday is introducing the “TERMS Act,” legislation he told The Daily Wire would challenge “the unchecked power&#8221; of &#8220;Big Tech oligarchs and protect the right of free speech for every American business targeted by Big Tech censorship.”
Cruz’s proposal would mandate that online service providers “disclose their acceptable use policies, provide users with written notice before the termination of a user’s account, and publish an annual report detailing actions taken to enforce their acceptable use policies, and for other purposes,” according to a copy of the bill shared with The Daily Wire. 
The bill would mandate that acceptable use policies are publicly disclosed and easily accessible, that customers would be given advance warning of account restriction or cancellation, and post public reports of enforcement of acceptable use policies.
Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn (TN), Katie Britt (AL), Tom Cotton (AK), Mike Crapo (ID), Cynthia Lummis (WY), Jim Risch (ID), Senator Roger Marshall (KS), and Eric Schmitt (MS) are also backing the legislation.
The Southern Poverty Law Center was founded by a former employee of the notorious segregationist George Wallace, who decided opposing white supremacy was a more profitable path. As The Daily Wire has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/left-wing-smear-factory-splc-doxxes-babylon-bee-linked-writers?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Left-Wing+%E2%80%98Smear+Factory%E2%80%99+SPLC+Doxxes+Babylon+Bee-Linked+Writers">reported</a> last year, the group doxxed employees of Not The Bee, a Babylon Bee affiliate site that publishes true stories so absurd that they seem like parodies.
“They did it because they’re left-wing activists masquerading as journalists,” Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon said at the time, calling the group a &#8220;scandal-ridden smear factory.&#8221;

Senate DCA Crash Hearing

EXCLUSIVE: Big Tech Company Used Southern Poverty Law Center To Deplatform Conservatives

Big Tech

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

Ted Cruz

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

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

EXCLUSIVE: Babylon Bee Challenges Hawaii Law Targeting Political Satire

Babylon Bee Files Legal Challenge Against Hawaii Law Targeting Political Satire

Hawaii

Menu