From State Rep. Melissa Hortman’s murder to Luigi Mangione’s manifesto to Charlie Kirk’s assassination to whatever fresh horror will have meteor-impacted the news cycle between my typing these words and their publication, it has never been clearer that online radicalization is leading to real-world consequences.
My team at <a href="https://usthestory.org/">US the Story</a> last year analyzed just a handful of the most vile posts from 14 of the top full-blown hate accounts on one platform. These 14 posts showed a combined view count of over 50 million. The accounts themselves had a reach of 6,450,000,000 impressions. Engagement — the number of times people actually interacted with the content in total to like, quote, or share — crossed 448 million over the course of roughly 10 months.
These posts, their volume, and their reach create a permission structure for more and more hatred. It’s a quickening descent into violence and chaos; the more it becomes fair game to denigrate and threaten “the other group,” the more blaming and attacking that group becomes normalized.
One way of looking at this is as a network contagion issue. Debates around social-media-facilitated social contagions have raged in the culture wars for years. Young women in particular have been targeted by bots and accounts promoting anorexia, gender dysphoria, and more. Viral events such as the 2023 explosion of bin Laden’s “Letter to America” and widespread <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-20/tiktok-effects-on-mental-health-in-focus-after-teen-suicide">messaging encouraging suicidality</a> caused immediate concern in the broader culture. At this point, we shouldn’t be surprised that algos designed to maximize virality for profit at any cost fuel the most toxic, contagious, and sticky topics.
Studies have consistently shown that violent crime follows a Pareto distribution, with 1% of criminals committing up to 60% of crimes. The same is true of hateful content strategically riding the algos in the service of encouraging real-world violence. Do we really want our social media platforms taken over by psychopaths in a full-blown network contagion? And more importantly, what happens if we do?
Most contagions left unimpeded spread enough to damage and threaten the entire system. That’s why many such cases are fueled by foreign PSYOPs.
<div id="attachment_992051" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-992051" class="size-large wp-image-992051" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-864x576.jpg" alt="cream_ph. Getty Images. Young hacker working in the dark room and using laptops to steal private information" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />cream_ph. Getty Images.</div>
The aim of these contagions is never the stated topic at hand. They aren’t actually about trans rights or Jews or vaccinations or immigration. They’re about, first, setting Americans against one another in radicalized tribal conflicts, and, second, making these topics impossible or even dangerous to discuss productively (eliminating sane discussion, an obvious precondition for solving problems). During the Cold War, for instance, the KGB provided financial and logistical support to the Black Panthers while also sending forged menacing letters from the Ku Klux Klan to black leaders in order to stoke racial tensions.
The point is to poison both sides in order to sow maximum chaos to undermine and destroy Western democracies.
It’s nearly impossible to withstand algorithmically-driven content engineered to maximize rage, fear, and anxiety in the service of keeping people glued to their screens. It is indeed a type of mind control. This level of nervous-system hacking and the deluge of toxic messaging can trigger terrible instincts and behavior, especially in young people whose prefrontal cortexes are literally not yet fully developed.
On top of hostile regime influence and outrage algorithms maximized for profit, there are also bad-faith domestic players urging America along its path of destruction. Most of these behind-the-scenes manipulators exhibit the Dark Tetrad traits of sadism, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. These nefarious individuals are using sophisticated and furtive onboarding techniques to hijack the platforms.
Earlier this year, our team recorded a live conversation on a prominent social media platform between self-avowed neo-Nazis, one of whom has a sizable account with millions of views and reach. The conversation was a strategy session about how to manipulate larger non-ideologically aligned influencer accounts to share Nazi content. The strategy entails using carefully selected words, phrasing, and arguments that may be polarizing but aren’t explicitly antisemitic or racist. They target certain specific influencers and thought leaders’ interests that are political but outside the “Nazi diet.” When another large account interacts with a seemingly benign post by these Nazi accounts, it boosts that account algorithmically so the Nazi account gains followers, views, and increased power to change the culture on the platform and elsewhere. It’s the Nazi equivalent of algorithmic grooming.
The same holds true with radical leftist techniques. An April study by our partner group, <a href="https://networkcontagion.us/">NCRI</a>, found that more than 50% of self-identified people on the left of the political spectrum believed it at least somewhat acceptable to assassinate President Trump. And a whopping 78% of BlueSky users expressed some level of support for Luigi Mangione’s cold-blooded assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The biggest predictor of Mangione support? BlueSky usage.
Heavy social media use is indeed the one constant. Increasingly, when we dissect the social media diet and posts of those onboarded to radicalism, we are finding a toxic blend of ideologies. This is because the aim is not to support liberal or conservative politics. The aim is to get as many (especially young Americans) to arrive where far left and far right meet at the horseshoe of nihilism: the No Lives Matter cohort. Once the conditions are set for, say, a young man’s radicalization, it doesn’t matter to our hostile foreign adversaries whether the next bus he boards is filled with violent trans-Antifa-types or your-body-my-choice groypers.
We have no intention of vilifying the social media platforms (aside from those purposefully running full-blown foreign PSYOPs) or undermining free speech. In our informal engagements with leaders at these platforms, we have found them concerned and receptive to discussing ways to counter this. Vilifying CEOs, big tech, and the workers within these corporations not only forecloses on cooperative progress, but will likely shove them into a defensive posture. There are plenty of good people in tech leadership who have expressed a willingness to address this problem.
<div id="attachment_992053" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-992053" class="size-large wp-image-992053" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-1024x576.jpg" alt="Outflow Designs. Getty Images. Technology icons transfer data through programming codes, artificial intelligence concept." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Outflow Designs. Getty Images.</div>
So how might we approach this?
Here are five concrete recommendations to turn down the temperature on destructive social media trends while protecting freedom of speech and steering clear of government overreach and censorship.
<h3>1. Make algorithms transparent.</h3>
Citizens, parents, and the free market (advertisers and content producers) have a right to know if they or their children are participating in platforms feeding suicidality, hate-mongering, violent pornography, anti-American propaganda, or anything else damaging. This is not about control or censorship but about allowing people to know what they are engaging with so they can make informed choices for themselves, their companies, and their children. We aren’t making a demand that the platforms publish their proprietary trade secrets in terms of the algorithms. Rather, we are suggesting to allow independent researchers access to the data required to assess algo impacts in relation to illegal activity and whether the platforms are enforcing their own rules as defined in their terms of service. That is indeed the contract with the user—and the free market.
There is a valid argument too for the right of Americans to explore fringe and even perilous ideas and viewpoints. The world is a dangerous place and neither the government nor corporations should foreclose on the rights of citizens to explore beyond the bounds of what is considered widely acceptable (excluding, of course, illicit materials). But contact with the terrible and extreme should be done knowingly, not as a result of covert algorithms that are optimized for profit and forced into your feed. Ideally, dipping into dangerous arenas should be inoculating, not poisoning.  

<h3>2. Reward those on social media who identify themselves as verified users and stand behind their words in the public square.</h3>
Social media participants who use their real identities deserve to have their opinions elevated above those who post anonymously and have zero accountability. A free marketplace of ideas should privilege a modicum of courage, transparency, and responsibility.
There are certainly arguments to be made for anonymous accounts, with whistleblowers being oft-cited. That’s fair enough. They can still post their information in a second tier of engagement below verified users. It just won’t be elevated to the top along with every anonymously cited conspiracy theory. 

<h3>3. Differentiate freedom of speech from freedom of reach for profit.</h3>
As a vehement free speech advocate, I believe in the right for people to explore what they want and express themselves how they wish. But algorithms pushing hatred, lies, and violence are waging an asymmetric war on the truth. Freedom of speech is one thing. Distortion of speech and covert manipulation of the free marketplace of ideas is another.
Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant for bad ideas but light of day is insufficient to combat targeted deep-machine-learning computing power designed to elevate lies above all else and compounded by the machinations of psychopathic actors. This level of skew on the playing field makes a competition of ideas nearly impossible. Why hide the truth at the bottom of a cesspool? A hierarchy of values and a hierarchy of information is necessary for any endeavor that hopes to produce anything beyond chaos and ruin. 

<h3>4. Preserve human judgment at social media companies.</h3>
Of course, humans have biases and can fall victim to corruption. But that doesn’t mean that we should eliminate human good from the decision-making process. Shouldn’t we encourage and reward that which moves us toward greater truth and health? Rather than encouraging and rewarding the opposite? Every playing field needs a referee and every company should have stewards of common sense and common decency who assess the automated content moderation systems to ensure they’re not being gamed and to help enforce the agreed-upon rules of the game. Corporations are certainly equipped to encourage free speech, social engagement, and network health while ensuring that the tiny percentage of psychopathic accounts are not rocket-fueled by algos to infect the entire platform.
<h3>5. Identify and combat bot swarms and inauthentic coordinated material.</h3>
Users, advertisers, and the platforms themselves should know whether they are engaging with real accounts and ideas or with manipulative bad actors and swarms of bots from a Saint Petersburg troll farm. Independent research access to the data can bring additional resources to the table when it comes to identifying these threats to users and the platforms themselves. A bigger ecosystem of transparency is to our collective benefit. 
These five concrete recommendations will go a long way toward tamping down chaos, lies, and sadism online and in the real world.
* * *
Gregg Hurwitz is the New York Times #1 internationally bestselling author of 26 thrillers including the Orphan X series. His novels have won numerous literary awards and have been published in 33 languages. Gregg currently serves as the Co-President of International Thriller Writers (ITW). Additionally, he’s written screenplays and television scripts for many of the major studios and networks, and is an award-winning documentary producer. Gregg also wrote comics for AWA (including the critically acclaimed anthology NewThink), DC, and Marvel, and poetry. Currently, Gregg is working against polarization in politics and culture. To that end, he’s penned dozens of Op/Eds and pieces for The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Bulwark, Salon, and others, and pieces of creative content which have won numerous industry awards and achieved several hundred million views on digital TV platforms. He also helped write the opening ceremony of the 2022 World Cup.
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.

Computer hacker coding on keyboard on a background of monitors.

When Algorithms Turn Deadly: Five Fixes For Preserving Free Speech In A System Out Of Control

algorithm

Big Tech

Free Speech

Parents rights

Propaganda

Silicon Valley

Social Media

Social Media Bias

Social Media Censorship

Technology

This week, more than 100 leading free speech experts <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/open-letter-dsa">warned</a> that the Digital Services Act (DSA), a piece of European Union legislation, threatens to impose online censorship across the world. The letter was addressed to the European Commission, the architect of the censorial law.
The DSA gives the EU authority to enforce “content moderation” on platforms and search engines with over 45 million monthly users. It is one of the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age, enabling bureaucrats to control online speech at scale under the guise of online “safety” and “protecting democracy.”
This, however, is far from just a European issue. Restrictive speech rules made in Brussels are increasingly shaping the global internet, including on platforms used by Americans.
The letter follows the recently expressed concerns of the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, <a href="https://x.com/US2EU/status/1973100030249640355">Andrew Puzder</a>, that the DSA threatens to censor American citizens online. As the Ambassador stated, President Trump will not “tolerate a foreign government restricting the First Amendment fundamental free speech, free expression rights of American citizens.”
Ambassador Puzder’s statement came shortly after Google’s startling admission that Europe’s censorship laws target American companies and threaten American speech.
Signatories of this week’s letter to the European Commission, which was coordinated by ADF International, include a former U.S. Senator, a former VP of Yahoo Europe, cross-party members of the European Parliament, award-winning journalist and author Michael Shellenberger, former President of the American Civil Liberties Union Nadine Strossen, and academics, lawyers, and experts from around the globe.
The letter urges the Commission to consult with free speech experts and address their concerns as part of the Commission’s formal review of the DSA, which will occur by November 17.
But how could European legislation affect the First Amendment rights of Americans online?
The DSA and its codes of conduct require online platforms, such as X, YouTube, and Facebook, to address “hate speech” and “disinformation” online. These are vague and subjective terms that lack clear legal definitions and, in practice, are used to justify the censorship of disfavored views.
The definition of “illegal content,” which platforms must remove under the DSA, is any content that breaches EU or any EU member state law. This means the most restrictive anti-free speech laws in any individual EU country — of which there are unfortunately many across Europe — will now be applied across the bloc, introducing a lowest-common-denominator of censorship across the EU.
The shocking case of Finnish parliamentarian <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/paivi">Päivi Räsänen</a> gives an example of what this censorship could look like in practice. For nearly seven years, Päivi has been dragged through the courts in her country for alleged “hate speech”, for a Twitter post, in which she peacefully expressed her faith-based views and included a picture of Bible text.
With legal support from ADF International, on October 30, she faces her third trial at the Finnish Supreme Court, despite being unanimously acquitted in two previous trials. Under the DSA, draconian “hate speech” legislation, like that used to prosecute Päivi, could be applied across the EU.
<div id="attachment_981733" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-981733" class="size-large wp-image-981733" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-864x576.jpg" alt="Chairwoman Päivi Räsänen of the Christian Democrats campaigns in Helsinki, Finland on April 18, 2015 ahead of the parliamentary elections to take place on Sunday, April 19, 2015. Finns go to the polls on Sunday in legislative elections widely expected to oust the country's left-right coalition amid growing discontent over a floundering economy undergoing a painful restructuring. AFP PHOTO / LEHTIKUVA / RONI REKOMAA *** FINLAND OUT *** (Photo credit should read" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Päivi Räsänen/ Credit: Roni Rekomaa,Roni Rekomaa/AFP via Getty Images.</div>
What has emerged from the DSA is a vast censorship infrastructure with coercive enforcement tools and an opaque network of EU-approved NGOs and “trusted flaggers,” which identify content for removal. If platforms fail to quickly remove flagged content, they face enormous fines — up to 6% of global revenue — and even EU-wide suspension. Individuals can also be suspended from platforms if they “persistently” post “illegal content.”
Although nominally restricted to the European Union, the DSA’s restrictive approach to online speech will be exported across the world, including to the United States. Keep in mind that GDPR exported EU data privacy standards worldwide, and the DSA could do just that for European speech controls. Platforms will be incentivized to adopt a single global content moderation policy, which could now be made to comply with the DSA’s restrictive approach.
French Member of the European Parliament Virginie Joron, a signatory of this week’s letter to the Commission, has added to these concerns of global censorship from the DSA, saying: “The French digital regulator ARCOM told me they believe the DSA allows them to censor any post anywhere in the world using the DSA. That means even an American citizen posting in Alabama could potentially have their online post taken down, even if the publication would be legal in the US”.
These threats put European legislation on a direct collision course with the First Amendment, in what is perhaps the greatest threat to American online free speech today.
Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Congress has consistently warned that the DSA is coming for American speech. A July <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/foreign-censorship-threat-how-european-unions-digital-services-act-compels">report</a> detailed how the DSA is a censorship tool that requires the world’s largest social media platforms to engage in the censorship of core political discourse in Europe, the United States, and around the world.
If the DSA is left unchecked, Brussels could well become the world’s speech police. Let all concerned with the protection of free speech be on alert about the DSA. 
The European Commission must urgently engage with the free speech concerns outlined in this week’s letter and act now to ensure that the free speech rights of people across the world are respected on the internet.
* * *
Paul Coleman (@Paul_B_Coleman) is Executive Director of free speech legal advocacy organization ADF International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a>

EU sets Out Its International Digital Strategy

EU’s Digital Services Act Is The Biggest Threat To Free Speech Yet, Experts Warn

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Apple

European Union

First Amendment

Google

Snapchat

Google Bay Bridge

We Just Got Proof Of A Huge Attack On Free Speech, And It Has Nothing To Do With Jimmy Kimmel

Conservatives

Donald Trump

Jake Tapper

Jimmy Kimmel

Matt Walsh

Twitter

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

Censorship

Joe Biden

Politics

Over the past few years, free speech in my country has declined significantly. The nation that gave the world George Orwell and John Stuart Mill now faces an existential crisis over liberty. Figures such as Lucy Connolly — <a href="https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/who-lucy-connolly-what-she-said-that-put-her-behind-bars-revealed-1743361">jailed</a> last year for an offensive tweet about illegal immigration — face the heavy hand of the law, while petty crime goes unchecked. Meanwhile, Britain’s Labour Party looks set to implement religious blasphemy laws, which could criminalise criticism or ridicule of religious beliefs or symbols. The situation has become so dire that Parliament member Nigel Farage felt <a href="https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&amp;&amp;p=ca585c1516192a5c1981875b985b08e6a44732385a7c316a16ca6a619e2c5c3cJmltdHM9MTc1NzQ2MjQwMA&amp;ptn=3&amp;ver=2&amp;hsh=4&amp;fclid=3b299e56-e98e-6003-1500-8c90e8bd6195&amp;psq=nigel+farage+goes+to+DC&amp;u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmJjLmNvLnVrL25ld3MvYXJ0aWNsZXMvY2U5cnpuZ2Q5azJv">compelled</a> to travel to Washington, D.C. to testify before Congress on Britain’s crisis of free expression.
Britain&#8217;s free speech crisis has led to <a href="https://fullfact.org/technology/government-learned-lessons-from-southport-riots/">riots</a> and political violence as ordinary citizens no longer feel they have a voice. The right to free speech is fundamental and not one to be tampered with. In the aftermath of the shootings of President Trump and, more recently, Charlie Kirk at a Utah university event, Americans should ask themselves: do they really want to follow Britain’s path and see what their country might look like without the First Amendment?
Just months after Britain’s Supreme Court ruled that transgender women are not legally considered female under the Equality Act, comedy writer Graham Linehan was arrested upon returning from the U.S. over allegedly transphobic posts on X. The writer of one of Britain’s most beloved sitcoms now says he is considering leaving permanently because there is “<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15071827/Graham-Linehan-never-return-Britain-arrest-anti-trans-tweets.html">no freedom of speech</a>” in Britain.
For any country to drive out its comedians because they fear speaking freely is a tragedy. For the birthplace of liberal democracy, it is nothing short of catastrophic.
Britain’s erosion of speech has been decades in the making. In 1986, the state <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/contents">passed</a> the Public Order Act, criminalising hate speech inciting violence. In 2003, came the Communications Act, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents">banning</a> “grossly offensive” online speech. This year, Britain has <a href="https://www.cityam.com/peter-kyle-defends-uk-free-speech-record-after-us-report-attacks-online-safety-act/">passed</a> the Online Safety Act, handing sweeping powers to a government-approved regulator over “legal but harmful” content. Slowly, my country has chipped away at free speech rights. America cannot afford to follow.
The United States cannot allow itself to politicize free speech in such a divided time. As political discourse is shutting down, especially on college campuses, the government and the American people must be the ones to stand firm to defend liberty. We are all aware of what happens after sensible debate is shut down, and that is actions, replacing words. The assassination of Charlie Kirk now serves as a prime example of the elimination of discord happening in America, and we must all make it our duty to ensure free discussion is indeed kept free. A knee-jerk reaction to being offended is not to hear it; however, to call out for certain speech to be banned only opens the door for the disenfranchised to lash out in the form of political violence.
Today in Britain, the police can investigate you for social media posts that aren’t even as criminal as ‘Non-Crime Hate Incidents’ (NCHIs). Anything that has the potential to offend could come back to harm you and <a href="https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/articles/crime-category/non-crime-hate-incidents-how-they-can-affect-your-dbs-check/">your record</a> in the future. In practice, you either pretend that ‘<a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/banned-coinbase-ad-portrays-a-dystopian-britain-with-only-crypto-as-an-exit-f203ffda">everything is just fine</a>’, or risk state retribution for speaking your mind.
By comparison, America remains far freer, but even the “Land of the Free” has its faults. Consider flag-burning laws: though the Supreme Court rightly struck them down, many Americans still support restrictions when speech provokes or offends. That is precisely how the anti-speech lobby wins. Rolling back First Amendment rights, whoever the target, should be against every American’s interests. The same logic plays out with protests: the Left seeks bans on anti-immigration rallies as “racist,” while the Right campaigns to shut down pro-Palestine marches as “antisemitic.” But when peaceful protest is curtailed, political violence becomes far more likely.
Government regulation of speech carries disastrous consequences. It impacts institutions, which are fearful that hosting political speakers on campus might face retribution from the state. Ordinary citizens self-censor, silencing urgent debates in the name of “offence.” Once parties, not people, get to define ‘harm,’ the boundaries inevitably expand to serve partisan interests.
To avoid Britain’s fate, America must defend First Amendment rights without compromise. The cancellations of comedians like Dave Chappelle or Joe Rogan, for example, by private platforms should serve as a warning against normalizing censorship. The state must never follow suit. Britain’s ‘legal but harmful’ rules on speech should teach Americans that when regulation begins, free speech is never safe again. And once speech regulation is normalized, there is no going back. The only true safeguard is a culture of open debate, which begins in schools and extends across society.
Few today grasp just how precious freedom of speech is to the world. Silencing criticism, comedy, or art halts progress. Authors like Salman Rushdie and Richard Dawkins have been attacked or shouted down for presenting their arguments. Across Europe, cultural and religious hardliners insist that certain critiques should be banned, and too many journalists and academics are now afraid to speak out. To side with the aggressors is to let them win.
Only by championing freedom of speech and resisting every attempt to curtail it can democracy endure. Complacency breeds decline. If America wants to avoid Britain’s mistakes, it must show strength in the face of every demand to scale back the First Amendment.
* * *
Ted Newson is a Political Commentator with Young Voices UK.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

“Unite The Kingdom” Rally And Counter Rally By Stand Up To Racism Takes Place In Central London

Britain’s Free Speech Collapse Offers A Warning For America

Comedy

Freedom of Speech

Great Britain

Hate Speech

Leftists

Prison

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

Opinion

Graham Linehan Appears In Court Charged With Harassment

A Comedian Was Jailed In The UK For Jokes. Is Britain Now North Korea?

Irish comedian Graham Linehan trolled a British court on Thursday when he arrived outside the Westminster courthouse wearing a sandwich board proclaiming, &#8220;There is no such thing as a transgender child.&#8221;
Standing outside the court, Linehan turned the sign around after several moments to reveal another that read, &#8220;Keep men out of women&#8217;s sports.&#8221; The underside of one of the signs was also briefly visible: &#8220;Gender ideology does not belong in schools.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Father Ted co-creator Graham Linehan arrives for trial over alleged harassment of a transgender woman <a href="https://t.co/dOTDtXoDK9">pic.twitter.com/dOTDtXoDK9</a>
— Irish Daily Mirror (@IrishMirror) <a href="https://twitter.com/IrishMirror/status/1963528987658874997?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/irish-comedian-recounts-shocking-arrest-over-anti-trans-social-media-posts">Linehan</a> was approached by armed officers upon his arrival at London&#8217;s Heathrow airport, some of whom apparently were unable to even explain to him what he&#8217;d done to warrant being &#8220;arrested at an airport like a terrorist.&#8221;
&#8220;The moment I stepped off the plane at Heathrow, five armed police officers were waiting. They escorted me to a private area and told me I was under arrest for three posts on X,&#8221; Linehan wrote in an op-ed for <a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/i-posted-on-x-the-british-police-arrested-me-free-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Free Press</a>. “In a country where pedophiles escape prison, where knife crime is out of control, the state had mobilized five armed officers to arrest a comedy writer for these three posts.&#8221;
The posts that prompted the arrest, as The Daily Wire previously reported, include one that says, &#8220;If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.&#8221;
Another has a photo of a trans activist gathering and includes the caption, &#8220;A photo you can smell.&#8221;
The third one says, &#8220;I hate them all. Misogynists and homophobes. F*** em.&#8221;
Former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines commented on the video of Linehan outside the court, cheering him on.
&#8220;This is how Graham Linehan shows up for trial in the UK just days after being arrested in the London airport for posting &#8216;offensive tweets.&#8217; This is how you deal with the trans mob. Double down. We&#8217;re cheering you on, @glinner.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
This is how Graham Linehan shows up for trial in the UK just days after being arrested in the London airport for posting &#8220;offensive tweets&#8221;
This is how you deal with the trans mob. Double down. We&#8217;re cheering you on, <a href="https://twitter.com/Glinner?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Glinner</a> 👏🏼🔥<a href="https://t.co/vWVItcwUGK">pic.twitter.com/vWVItcwUGK</a>
— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) <a href="https://twitter.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1963571669571612847?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Nigel Farage flew across the Atlantic to discuss British censorship. Graham Linehan came the other way to head to court, and was arrested by armed police over a set of posts. Politicians who pretend Britain doesn&#8217;t have a free speech problem are only fooling themselves,&#8221; Sam Ashworth-Hayes of The Telegraph added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Nigel Farage flew across the Atlantic to discuss British censorship. Graham Linehan came the other way to head to court, and was arrested by armed police over a set of posts.
Politicians who pretend Britain doesn&#8217;t have a free speech problem are only fooling themselves: <a href="https://t.co/MlOX5SK50m">pic.twitter.com/MlOX5SK50m</a>
— Sam Ashworth-Hayes (@SAshworthHayes) <a href="https://twitter.com/SAshworthHayes/status/1962950250961740138?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 2, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The more I think about the #GrahamLinehan case, the more disgusted I feel. An Irish citizen, living in the USA, is arrested by 5 ARMED cops when he arrives in the UK, because of some tweets he wrote on a website that&#8217;s owned by an American &amp; based in the USA. Total clownery!&#8221; another posted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The more I think about the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GrahamLinehan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GrahamLinehan</a> case, the more disgusted I feel. An Irish citizen, living in the USA, is arrested by 5 ARMED cops when he arrives in the UK, because of some tweets he wrote on a website that&#8217;s owned by an American &amp; based in the USA. Total clownery!
— Simon Fox (@SimonFoxWriter) <a href="https://twitter.com/SimonFoxWriter/status/1963134862522519914?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 3, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Graham Linehan court case

Comedian Trolls Court, Doubles Down After Arrest For ‘Anti-Trans’ Posts

Irish Comedian Trolls British Court, Doubles Down After Arrest For 'Anti-Trans' Posts

comedian

Courts

Transgender

Thank God we fought a revolution in this country so that we are not ruled by the idiotic rules of the modern United Kingdom.
Graham Linehan is a comedian and comedy writer who was just arrested in the UK — for his tweets.
Unfortunately, this is not uncommon in the UK. In mid-August, the New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/08/19/world-news/uk-free-speech-struggle-30-arrests-a-day-censorship/">titled an article</a>, “UK free speech crackdown sees up to 30 people a day arrested for petty offenses such as retweets and cartoons.” The Post wrote:
<blockquote>Bernadette Spofforth lay in jail on a blue gym mattress in a daze, finding it difficult to move, even breathe. “I just closed down. But the other half of my brain went into Jack Reacher mode,” she said, referring to the fictional action hero. “Every single detail was in this very vivid, bright, sharp focus.”
She remembers noticing that you can’t drown yourself in the toilet, because there’s no standing water in it and the flush button is too far to reach if your head were in the bowl. She’d end up being detained for 36 hours in July 2024. Three girls had just been <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/01/20/world-news/uk-teen-pleads-guilty-to-murder-of-three-girls-at-taylor-swift-themed-dance-party/">murdered in Southport</a>, England, at a Taylor Swift-themed dance party. But Spofforth was not under suspicion for the crime.
Instead, horrified, and in the fog of a developing tragedy, she’d reposted on X another user’s content blaming newly arrived migrants for the ghastly crime — clarifying in her retweet, “If this is true.” Hours later she realized she may have received bad information and deleted the post — but it had already been seen thousands of times. &#8230;
Her story is one repeated almost hourly in the UK, where data suggests <a href="https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages/">over 30 people a day are arrested</a> for speech crimes, about 12,000 a year, under laws written well before the age of social media that make crimes of sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character.”</blockquote>
Four police vehicles arrived at her home days later.
Linehan <a href="https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/i-just-got-arrested-again">wrote on</a> Substack:
<blockquote>The moment I stepped off the plane at Heathrow, five armed police officers were waiting. Not one, not two—five. They escorted me to a private area and told me I was under arrest for three tweets. In a country where paedophiles escape sentencing, where knife crime is out of control, where women are assaulted and harassed every time they gather to speak, the state had mobilised five armed officers to arrest a comedy writer for this tweet (and no, I promise you, I am not making this up.)</blockquote>
The tweet read: “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the ba**s.”
Linehan was arrested for that tweet. He was also arrested for another tweet in which there was a gigantic trans protest in London, of which he tweeted a photo, captioned, “A photo you can smell,” followed by a tweet in which he wrote, “I hate them. Misogynists and homophobes. F*** em.”
“At Heathrow police station, my belt, bag, and devices were confiscated,” he wrote. “Then I was shown into a small green-tiled cell with a bunk, a silver toilet in the corner and a message from Crimestoppers on the ceiling next to a concave mirror that was presumably there to make you reflect on your life choices. &#8230; At one point, I said ‘I bet I know who made this complaint. Lindsay Watson’ (demented ex-copper troon who was fired for his online conduct). Then, lo-and-behold, one of my lawyers sent me this reply to the ‘bollocks’ tweet.”
The reply stated, “That weird ex-copper claims he has reported this to police and is trying to get other troons to do so. Just FYI.”
Welcome to England, the birthplace of the Magna Carta, where they are tearing down the institutions that make a functional society.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2272-the-uk-s-free-speech-crackdown?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
It&#8217;s not just that these folks in the UK are interested in tearing away free speech and saying you’re not allowed to tweet a bad thing, that bad tweets might land you in jail: They are importing people from parts of the planet who hate and despise all of the centralizing Western principles, such as free speech.
I write in “Lions And Scavengers” about the coalition of scavengers, about the idea that you have barbarians — the people from outside who hate our civilization — who join forces with the lechers inside our civilization who believe that they are marginalized by our traditional institutions and values, and then they make common cause together. 
That&#8217;s the UK in a nutshell.
It is no coincidence that on Tuesday, the Home Secretary of the UK, Yvette Cooper, said that the UK is going to take in refugees from Gaza. She stated:
<blockquote>I confirm that the Home Office has put in place systems to issue expedited visas with biometric checks conducted prior to arrival for children and their immediate accompanying family members. We have done the same for all the Chevening scholars and are now in the process of doing so for the next group of students from Gaza who have been awarded fully funded scholarships and places at UK universities so that they can start their studies in autumn this year.
Later this year, we will set out plans to establish a permanent framework for refugee students to come and study in the UK so that we can help more talented young people fleeing war and persecution to find a better future, alongside capped and managed ways for refugees to work here in the UK.</blockquote>
Congrats to the people of Great Britain. They don&#8217;t just have to contend with the insanity inside their borders, but out of some sort of misplaced sympathy, they are going to be importing people who almost certainly do not share their values.
There are plenty of other countries on planet Earth that are more akin ideologically and culturally to the people of Gaza, but according to the wonderful folks in the UK, those countries don’t exist.
There&#8217;s been some opposition within Westminster to taking in refugees from Gaza.
Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick expressed apprehension at the idea of resettling Palestinians in the UK. He wrote in The Telegraph, “The truth is that Gaza&#8217;s Arab neighbors are prepared to offer humanitarian support, but consider the idea of inviting Gazans into the country at any scale a risk only a fool would take.”
Which, of course, is true.
This is a misapplied sense of guilt directed at the Third World by the Labor Party in the UK, a belief that in the oppressor/oppressed matrix, the UK is an oppressor; Israel is an oppressor; the people of Gaza are the oppressed, and therefore the people of the UK must accept people who believe that Western civilization is in and of itself wrong and terrible.
As a side note, we should point out at this point here that Qatar — which is essentially Hamas with nicer suits — owns much of London.
“A cursory look at Property Week shows that the Qatari Investment Authority, Qatari Holding and Qatari Diar own 23,253,699 square feet of London, making Qatar the largest owner of London property. Reports vary about the sum invested, alleged to be £35 billion. Qatar’s square footage is more than HM The Queen’s Crown Estate,” Sunday Guardian Live <a href="https://latest.sundayguardianlive.com/world/10394-qatar-largest-owner-london-property?utm_source=chatgpt.com">reported</a>.
If you ever wonder why Europe is so warm toward importing people who truly hate their civilization, a big part of the reason is this — money.

Demonstrations Held Outside Migrant Accommodations Across The UK

The UK’s Free Speech Crackdown

airport

Ben Shapiro

England

Jail

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

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

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

Menu