A human rights tribunal in British Columbia recently <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/barry-neufeld-former-chilliwack-bc-trustee-pay-hate-speech-tribunal-2slgbtq-9.7098536">fined</a> a man $750,000 for public statements he made opposing a school board’s promotion of gender ideology. The tribunal found his comments, speeches, and social media posts brought &#8220;injury to their dignity, feelings, and self-respect.&#8221; The same tribunal <a href="https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/canadian-womans-former-landlady-fined-10000-for-saying-transphobic-things-to-her/">fined</a> a woman $10,000 for privately disagreeing with a friend’s gender transition.
In Canada, enforcing gender ideology comes at a steep cost: the suppression of free speech, the erosion of medical integrity, and harm to the wellbeing — perhaps even the future fertility — of young Canadians. And it is all justified as a necessary sacrifice for the “greater good” of a tolerant society, an ideal now woven into Canada’s national identity.
The scientific evidence against so-called gender transition, however, is mounting. Most countries around the world are beginning to realize it — except Canada.
In 2024, the United Kingdom moved to <a href="https://londondaily.com/the-indefinite-ban-on-puberty-blockers-for-minors">ban</a> puberty blockers outright. Australia’s state of Queensland <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/28/queenslands-controversial-puberty-blocker-ban-overturned-by-supreme-court">prohibited</a> puberty blockers in January, while New Zealand <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/regulation-legislation/puberty-blockers">imposed</a> strict controls in November. In February, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons <a href="https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/health-policy/positions/2026-gender-surgery-children-adolescents.pdf">released</a> a position statement on gender surgery, warning against its potential harms.
Yet every Canadian health agency claims affirmation is the default solution for gender dysphoria. The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends accepting one’s gender identity as valid — even <a href="https://nationalpost.com/health/canadas-pediatricians-advised-to-support-affirming-gender-questioning-six-year-olds">six-year-olds</a>. The same organization explicitly <a href="https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadian-paediatric-society-vows-to-continue-prescribing-puberty-blockers">dismissed</a> the findings of the Cass Review, a landmark <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/im-bloody-angry-j-k-rowling-scorches-critics-in-the-wake-of-cass-review-on-child-gender-transitions">study</a> that discovered the weak evidentiary basis for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
Such stark defiance of evidence-based care is nothing short of negligence — not surprising for a country that now includes <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/movement-barrels-forward-to-euthanize-12-year-old-children-in-canada">death</a> in its definition of health care. But negligence alone is an insufficient explanation. Canada is not catching up with the rest of the world to dismiss medical transition because their commitment to it is rooted in ideology, not science. And it is propagated by elites through a centralized system of top-down planning.
First, legislation enforces affirmation of gender identity. Canada <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/8434497/conversion-therapy-ban-canada-royal-assent/">passed a ban</a> on so-called conversion therapy in 2021, defined as a practice designed to “change a person’s gender identity to cisgender.” But the “conversion therapy” of changing a person’s body to match their gender identity — which is defined in a circular way — is allowed. In fact, it’s effectively mandated. Those convicted under this law can receive up to five years in prison. There are no carve-outs for adults seeking sex-affirming therapy to help them with gender dysphoria.
Where there is no law directly prohibiting speech, Canadian courts create one. The latest examples both come from British Columbia: the man fined $750,000 for public statements and the woman fined $10,000 for a private conversation.
Such outrageous penalties have a chilling effect on speech. Absent any serious dissent, the monolithic worldview promoted in Canadian schools, hospitals, and traditional media will continue unchallenged. And the children don’t stand a chance.
Consider Julia Malbogat, a Toronto mom who <a href="https://www.todaysparent.com/blogs/opinion/stop-asking-me-if-my-eight-year-old-trans-kid-is-just-going-through-a-phase/">wrote</a> in 2021 about her daughter “coming out” as transgender. During a family trip to their cottage, her daughter said that she’s a boy, to which Julia replied with a simple “ok.” When asked how she knew, the child pointed to the school’s Rainbow Alliance, a grade 4-6 club teaching “sexual and gender diversity.” Julia dismissed the possibility her child was mistaken and noted that surgery wouldn’t be an option until 16. By then, she assumed the dysphoria would be “insistent, persistent, and consistent” enough to justify medical intervention.
But how could someone’s gender dysphoria be anything except persistent if they are affirmed from the moment it is expressed? Gender-confused children rarely hear a serious alternative from schools or clinicians — though some later wish they had. Ask the detransitioners.
The largest <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2025.2538744">study</a> of detransitioners in Canada and the United States suggests that many who reversed a gender transition wish doctors “took a more neutral approach to care.” The participants reported feelings of alienation, emphasizing the high social cost of detransition. One woman <a href="https://www.bing.com/search?q=detransitioners%20ghosted%20&amp;qs=n&amp;form=QBRE&amp;sp=-1&amp;ghc=1&amp;lq=0&amp;pq=detransitioners%20ghost&amp;sc=6-21&amp;sk=&amp;cvid=4BE657D5CF8D46BFA48C72A857DF33F8">said</a> she was “ghosted” by the doctor who did her mastectomy. Treating gender identity as immutable and patients as infallible leaves minors, who are already going through emotional and physical changes, at risk of serious harm.
Look no further than their chosen cultural symbols. Publicly funded spaces across the country are decked out in pride flags, including city halls, legislative assemblies, walkways, libraries. This imagery is so pervasive in places of cultural importance that a first-time visitor might mistake it for the national flag.
In the absence of their rich traditions, Canadians have united around a new vision of the good. This new orthodoxy is summed up well in Bill C-4’s preamble, which states that conversion therapy “propagates” the myth that “cisgender identity is to be preferred over other gender identities.” While Canada elevates the dubious idea of an inner, gendered essence, it denounces the view that our bodies are essential to who we are.
That is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. Science can’t disprove it.
Until Canada re-examines its commitment to this new orthodoxy, it will keep ignoring the warnings — until the damage is too widespread to dismiss.
* * *
Liana Graham is a research assistant in domestic policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Close up of LGBT pin in the form of a flag with Canada pin is pinned on blue jeans jacket. LGBT rights in Canada concept.

He Spoke Out Against Gender Ideology. It Cost Him Nearly A Million Dollars.

How Pushing Back On Gender Ideology Cost One Man $750,000

Canada

Children

Free Speech

Gender

Gender Transition

Heritage Foundation

LGBTQ

Social Media Censorship

Teenagers

Transgender

It is easy to forget the dystopian excesses of the Covid era: business closures, shuttered schools, and mask and vaccine mandates. A new development in Missouri v. Biden, a Covid-era lawsuit, serves as an important reminder of how precarious our basic freedoms become in the face of a perceived disaster. For the past four years, a coalition of state attorneys general, courageous scientists, and First Amendment advocates waged a counterattack against the federal government’s efforts to strong-arm social media companies into silencing those espousing views contrary to the government-approved narrative. 
Last week, the plaintiffs and the federal defendants submitted a consent decree to the court for approval. The <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.477.1.pdf">proposed consent decree</a> is both a real win for free speech and a blueprint for further protections necessary to safeguard our First Amendment rights.
That need is underscored by another recent free speech victory by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-dept-reaches-censorship-settlement-with-daily-wire?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=7&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Daily+Wire+Wins+Landmark+Free+Speech+Victory+In+Censorship+Lawsuit+Against+State+Department">The Daily Wire</a>, in which the State Department agreed to stop supporting efforts that targeted protected speech by American media outlets. That settlement also imposed ongoing compliance oversight, helping ensure the government cannot quietly return to the same tactics.
The core allegation in Missouri v. Biden was that senior officials across multiple federal agencies had engaged in an unprecedented campaign to coerce and pressure major social media platforms into censoring lawful speech. The plaintiffs argued that the Biden administration had effectively outsourced government censorship to private companies, leaning on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to suppress content related to Covid origins and treatments, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and election integrity.
<div id="attachment_869089" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-869089" class="size-large wp-image-869089" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/GettyImages-1915020320-864x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 10: Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, departs a House Oversight Committee meeting at Capitol Hill on January 10, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" />Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images</div>
For example, Rob Flaherty, the director of digital media in the Biden Administration, tried to coerce Meta into suppressing posts critical of the Covid vaccine on Facebook, accusing Meta of driving “vaccine hesitancy.” Flaherty even demanded that Meta explain what it would do to suppress anti-vaccine content on WhatsApp, a private messaging application. Flaherty made clear he was not speaking just for himself, but rather for, “the highest — and I mean the highest — levels of the White House.&#8221;
The case bounced between trial and appellate courts, including a stop at the Supreme Court, as judges evaluated the nuances of the thorny, at times novel, claims at issue in the case. With the change in presidential administrations, however, the federal government no longer was the adversary, though it was still the nominal defendant. 
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” which condemned the types of censorship the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden had filed suit regarding. With a sympathetic administration in office, the plaintiffs were able to negotiate a consent decree rather than spend many more years embroiled in litigation.
The consent decree is focused on preventing the type of coercion, known as jawboning, that the federal government had used to do indirectly during Covid what it could not do directly: prevent Americans from speaking out in public about the major issues of the day. The parties agreed that the government would no longer take actions designed to bully social media companies into removing or suppressing content containing free speech. The consent decree further prohibits the government from directing or vetoing social media companies’ content moderation policies.
A critical limit in the consent decree, however, exposes the clear need for the government to take protective measures outside the confines of the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit. For technical legal reasons related to standing and jurisdiction, the consent decree is focused on the parties to the case. Rather than enjoin the federal government as a whole, the consent decree binds the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which engaged in some of the most blatant jawboning efforts during the Covid period. The consent decree further protects only the plaintiffs in the case, that is, the states and individuals who sued the government. (In a bit of poetic justice, two of the plaintiffs, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, withdrew from the case after accepting senior posts in the Trump administration.)
The Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs are not the only litigants who have prevailed in challenges to Biden-era free speech violations. As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-dept-reaches-censorship-settlement-with-daily-wire">reported</a>, this week, a federal judge issued a consent decree in a challenge to the Biden-era State Department’s practice of partnering with outside organizations to label various outlets — including this one and the Federalist — as disinformation. The State Department agreed that it would no longer engage in efforts to suppress, censor, demonetize, or downgrade the constitutionally protected speech of Americans and domestic news outlets. 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-dept-reaches-censorship-settlement-with-daily-wire?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=7&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Daily+Wire+Wins+Landmark+Free+Speech+Victory+In+Censorship+Lawsuit+Against+State+Department"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-1070109 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/dw_vs._state_dept_16x9_720.png" alt="" width="720" height="405" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/dw_vs._state_dept_16x9_720.png 720w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/dw_vs._state_dept_16x9_720-300x169.png 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 720px) 100vw, 720px" /></a>
While these consent decrees are real victories for the plaintiffs who had the courage to take on the federal government in court, they will not stop a future administration from engaging in similar tactics that we saw during Covid, in the wake of the 2020 election, and throughout the Biden Administration. Americans as a whole deserve the robust protections the Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs earned in that litigation. 
Congressional action of any sort is admittedly a difficult feat. But there are few bedrock principles more important than those embodied in the First Amendment. If Congress wants to protect Americans’ free speech rights, the proposed consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a useful roadmap. All federal agencies and officials, not just the select handful named in the proposed consent decree, should be prohibited from trying to control speech by telling social media companies what content is and is not allowed. And all Americans should be able to speak on social media with the assurance that the government cannot tell social media platforms to silence them.
The plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden and their attorneys should be praised for bringing a landmark lawsuit in the face of tremendous government overreach and achieving a real victory in the process. Congress should follow suit by extending those protections to everyone else.
* * *
Jesse Franklin-Murdock is the Miles Visiting Fellow at the Center for American Liberty, and he is a partner at Sweigart Murdock, LLP in San Francisco, where he specializes in First Amendment and defamation law, political law, and civil rights.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-BIDEN-ARRIVAL

After Daily Wire Legal Win, Americans Shouldn’t Wonder Who’s Silencing Them Online

Biden Administration

Censorship

COVID

Daily Wire

Donald Trump

Hunter Biden

Joe Biden

Opinion

The Federalist

In a major legal victory for free speech, the State Department has settled a lawsuit brought by The Daily Wire and others in 2023, ensuring an end to its support for censorship of American media outlets and putting the burden on the government to prove compliance to outlets harmed by its actions.
A federal judge on Wednesday entered a consent decree placing The Daily Wire and The Federalist, a co-plaintiff, in charge of ensuring that future State Departments do not fund efforts to deem news outlets &#8220;disinformation,&#8221; concluding the years-long First Amendment battle. The settlement will prohibit the State Department from supporting any further censorship of Americans, and appoint the plaintiffs as compliance monitors until 2036.
&#8220;Today marks an important day for preserving free speech in the digital era,&#8221; said Daily Wire CEO Caleb Robinson. &#8220;The U.S. government has acknowledged its censorship structures under the Biden administration, and will now be subject to limitations on similar behavior in the future.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/">The Daily Wire will not be silenced, and will always fight for freedom. Join us today to support the fight. </a>
In 2023, The Daily Wire and The Federalist <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-texas-ag-ask-court-to-block-state-departments-domestic-misinformation-efforts">sued</a> the State Department after President Joe Biden&#8217;s administration used its Global Engagement Center to fund and promote companies that worked to bankrupt conservative news outlets by deeming them &#8220;disinformation.&#8221; The Daily Wire, represented by the <a href="http://nclalegal.org/press_release/in-historic-settlement-ncla-strikes-fatal-blow-to-state-departments-censorship-industrial-complex/">New Civil Liberties Alliance</a> (NCLA), demonstrated in the case how the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) was used during the Biden administration to deliberately target disfavored news outlets.
Many of the more than 30 products showcased by GEC would assign reputability scores to news outlets, often due to their coverage of issues like COVID and election integrity. At the same time, advertisers were pressured not to do business with flagged outlets, based on the idea that it would be toxic to their brand.
One such company was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/congress-to-probe-media-rating-firm-newsguard-for-possible-taxpayer-funded-censorship?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Congress+To+Probe+Media+Rating+Firm+NewsGuard+For+Possible+Taxpayer-Funded+Censorship" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NewsGuard</a>, which sells its ranking list to advertisers and whose co-CEO said it was &#8220;empowering governments… to support quality journalism and systemically defund sources of harmful misinformation.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/11Pgvwj3RVE?si=r0AQ3j5MjQLszXI6" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Another is the Global Disinformation Index, which claimed that liberal sites like ProPublica are among the “least risky,” while outlets like the New York Post, Reason Magazine, The Federalist, and The Daily Wire are among the “riskiest.” The group received a cash award from the State Department’s GEC and said it would “support market-wide deployment so that the ad-tech space can offer advertisers the chance to choose which sites their ads support.”
Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro said that GDI &#8220;fed basically a blacklist of sites to advertisers so that advertisers would want to pull their money&#8221; and that the effort &#8220;deprived groups and organizations like the Daily Wire of legitimately millions of dollars in advertising.”
Outlets were down-rated for their coverage of vaccines, the efficacy of masking, election integrity, abortion, transgenderism, and other topics.
Since it would be unconstitutional for the government to work to bankrupt news outlets that criticized the government&#8217;s official line, the Biden administration backed third parties who were doing it, the lawsuit argued. GEC seemingly attempted to avoid scrutiny by using a mysterious company called Park Capital Investment Group, helmed by a former State Department employee, as an additional middleman.
In a historic first, the State Department has publicly acknowledged through a binding legal agreement that the types of speech it previously sought to censor like the news and opinions published by The Daily Wire and The Federalist are protected by the First Amendment, and the State Department has agreed to dismantle its censorship apparatus by no longer using “technologies to knowingly or intentionally suppress, censor, demonetize, or downgrade the constitutionally protected speech of Americans or domestic media outlets,&#8221; or recommending that third parties do so.
<div id="attachment_663179" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-663179" class="size-large wp-image-663179" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/GettyImages-1712281320-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/GettyImages-1712281320-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/GettyImages-1712281320-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/GettyImages-1712281320-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/12/GettyImages-1712281320.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />President Joe Biden (Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/ Washington Post via Getty Images)</div>
Congress defunded the Global Engagement Center in 2024 following the lawsuit, but the Biden administration moved its employees to a similar group doing similar work, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in April 2025, announcing that all those employees had been hit with <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-department-shutters-misinformation-censorship-agency-salts-the-earth" target="_blank" rel="noopener">layoff notices</a>.
“Under the previous administration, this office, which cost taxpayers more than $50 million per year, spent millions of dollars to actively silence and censor the voices of Americans they were supposed to be serving,” Rubio said. “This is antithetical to the very principles we should be upholding and inconceivable it was taking place in America.”
The agreement is a binding contract that cannot be dissolved by future administrations, and requires the State Department — including under any future Democratic president — to report annually on its activities so The Daily Wire and The Federalist can monitor for compliance.
If violations are uncovered and the government does not rectify them, a federal judge in Texas would force the State Department to come into compliance with the agreement. The State Department settlement also requires the department to hold employee trainings in 2030 and 2035 on how the First Amendment precludes them from censoring Americans.
&#8220;The prohibitions, reporting, and training required by the Consent Decree will protect Free Speech for well more than the decade that the Decree is in force,&#8221; said Zhonette Brown, a top attorney for NCLA.
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-texas-ag-ask-court-to-block-state-departments-domestic-misinformation-efforts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> said that GEC &#8220;researched, assessed, funded, investigated, evaluated, tested, marketed, and/or promoted over 365 so-called Countering Propaganda and Disinformation or ‘CPD’ tools and technologies, including tools and technologies that target American speech and the American press.&#8221; GEC created a platform called “Disinfo Cloud” to house them, and encouraged U.S. social media and tech companies to use the resources, even creating a Silicon Valley office.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-department-shutters-misinformation-censorship-agency-salts-the-earth" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Elvis Chan</a>, an FBI agent involved in asking Twitter to take down posts including those related to the Hunter Biden laptop, told Congress that he worked regularly with GEC, and that GEC did not seem to be concerned with the First Amendment since it was used to operating in foreign countries.
The State Department has always been forbidden from running propaganda on Americans, yet GEC sponsored a “COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation” tech challenge, and the three winners were all “American companies which offer technologies that target Americans’ speech broadcast to Americans,” the conservative outlets argued.
&#8220;Media literacy&#8221; is a term that has been used by the State Department to import left-wing censorship from countries like Germany and impose it on Americans. The U.S. Embassy in Berlin funded a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-department-paid-germans-to-bring-censorship-and-propaganda-to-u-s-schools" target="_blank" rel="noopener">seminar for United States teachers</a> who heard from an activist at a German group that lamented that on the internet, “it is not just progressive voices which are being spread,” but also “ideologies which are based on hatred.”
For that event, the State Department worked with Media Literacy Now, which calls media literacy a &#8220;tool to create the society we all deserve: one that nurtures racial equity, social justice, and true democracy. Media literacy equals cultural change.&#8221; It is a nonprofit linked to the for-profit Ad Fontes, which sells lists of &#8220;reputable&#8221; news outlets to advertisers.
The Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan called it a “major victory for The Daily Wire, for The Federalist,” and a “major step in preserving the most precious right we have, a right that came very close to being extinguished during the Biden administration.”
The media outlets were represented on a pro bono basis by Margaret Little, Margot Cleveland, Casey Norman, Zhonette Brown, and Margaret Harker of the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
&#8220;We&#8217;re grateful to NCLA for representing us, and I also appreciate our co-plaintiffs&#8217; efforts in this landmark case,&#8221; Robinson said. &#8220;We&#8217;re proud to join them in the fight for freedom.&#8221;
The Daily Wire stands for the American birthright of freedom —  freedom of speech, faith, open debate, and the pursuit of objective truth. These are not just ideals; they are the promise of America, and we refuse to surrender them. 
If you believe in this nation&#8217;s greatness, <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/">stand with us</a> in the fight to preserve it.

dw_vs._state_dept_16x9_720

Daily Wire Wins Landmark Free Speech Victory In Censorship Lawsuit Against State Department

State Department

The Daily Wire

The Supreme Court of Finland held that Päivi Räsänen, a longtime member of the Finnish Parliament, was guilty of the “hate crime” of “insulting” a group based on sexual orientation for publishing a church pamphlet over twenty years ago. A Lutheran bishop, Juhana Pohjola, was similarly convicted for publishing the pamphlet for the church.
Chillingly, Räsänen and Pohjola are now criminals for peacefully expressing their views in the public square.
The details that led up to this outrageous conviction are truly Orwellian.
Räsänen published her pamphlet, “Male and Female He Created Them,” in 2004, when Finland, like much of the world, was debating same-sex marriage. The pamphlet was meant to help others navigate those debates.
Years later, Finland amended its “War Crimes” statute, expanding the scope of criminal “hate speech” laws to include many new protected categories, resulting in this verdict where the court ruled it is illegal to publish “insulting” content.
Räsänen is a member of the Finnish Lutheran Church. In 2019, her church announced it would join the Helsinki Pride Parade. Räsänen gained international attention with a now-famous X post in which she criticized her church’s involvement in the pride parade and shared an image of a Bible verse.
<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>
A progressive prosecutor in Helsinki could not stand such an “affront” and commenced what would become an almost seven-year legal battle. She immediately launched and announced an investigation into Räsänen for criminal “hate speech.” During that investigation, she seemingly reviewed every statement that Räsänen had made on the subject of sexuality and dredged up the 15-year-old 20-page pamphlet, along with a single radio interview. She later charged Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola with hate crimes based on the Bible tweet, the pamphlet, and the interview.
Räsänen defended herself publicly by sharing links to the allegedly “offensive” material so people could see for themselves what, exactly, she was on trial for.
A Finnish lower court unanimously acquitted Räsänen and Pohjola on all counts, finding that posting Bible verses was not a crime. The case should have ended there. In the United States, if the prosecution loses, the case is closed. But in Finland, the prosecutors can keep appealing even a clear loss, which they did. The Court of Appeals again fully and unanimously acquitted Räsänen and Pohjola.
The prosecutors took one more shot, appealing to the Supreme Court. And now, in a split 3-2 decision, the Supreme Court has found Räsänen and Pohjola guilty of “insult” under the “War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity” section of Finland’s criminal code.
The logic of the decision is mind-bending. The Court, thankfully, upheld the acquittal for the Bible tweet, finding it did not meet the threshold for incitement. That’s good. But how the Court found Räsänen guilty for publishing the pamphlet is straight out of George Orwell&#8217;s 1984.
The Court argued that simply because the prosecution started an investigation in 2019 — about a tweet that the Court itself says is allowed — Räsänen should have known that her early-2000s pamphlet might now be seen as “insulting&#8221; under a law enacted years later. The Court concluded that Räsänen should have removed the allegedly insulting statements before reposting a link to them — even before any charges were filed.
So it was the very fact that she was being publicly investigated and sought to defend herself that made her a criminal and her statements ipso facto illegal.
This is not justice. This is Year Zero thinking, where an official accusation can turn someone into a thought-criminal, and any defense is used against them. It is the upside-down world.
The Court, doubling down on Orwellian reasoning, has demanded that Räsänen and Pohjola remove and “destroy” the “offending” statements from the pamphlet. This is simply the mandatory erasure of history and thought.
How many books, articles, and posts available online “might be” considered “insulting” to a group? Must publishers and authors scour their online libraries and remove anything others might find offensive? Does a mere accusation of offense now mandate people pull their beliefs and statements offline? The Court’s twisted logic points toward all these dystopian outcomes.
Päivi Räsänen has shown immense Christlike grace throughout this whole ordeal, and I pray that she receives justice soon, through an appeal or otherwise.
But the decision in her case goes far beyond just one individual. How many people will refuse to speak up if there is even the hint of controversy in their views, religious or otherwise, especially if the powers-that-be clearly disfavor those views?
Is this how Europe will use mechanisms like the Digital Services Act to silence alleged “hate speech” and export censorship online and globally?
The Finnish Supreme Court’s decision against Räsänen is an outrage against her and against the most fundamental principles of free speech. It is more obvious than ever that &#8220;hate speech&#8221; laws are inherently abusive and must be repealed. This decision should be widely condemned by people worldwide who value freedom.
***
Sean Nelson is an international human rights lawyer serving as Senior Counsel for Global Religious Freedom with ADF International.

Germany: nationwide demonstrations against NSA spying and in solidarity with Edward Snowden

The Finnish Supreme Court’s ‘1984’ Playbook

The Finnish Supreme Court's '1984' Playbook

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Bible

Finland

Religious Freedom

Western Civilization

For all the hysterical claims that President Donald Trump is some sort of First Amendment supervillain, the reality is precisely the opposite. Trump has done more to defend constitutionally protected speech and to dismantle the most coordinated censorship regime in modern American history than any president in living memory.
But don’t tell that to the New York Times, NPR, or the ladies at The View. According to them, Trump is basically moments away from burning the Bill of Rights on live TV.
Why the disconnect? The modern Left has confused breaking norms with breaking laws, and those are two very different things.
Norms are unwritten rules, handshake agreements shaped by cultural institutions. Over decades, those institutions shifted left and rewrote the norms to ensure that public policy always bends in their direction. One glaring example is the “norm” that government spending must increase every year at rates higher than inflation, substantially higher.
Laws, by contrast, are enforceable with financial penalties or jail time.
Trump breaks norms. The Left breaks laws and then screams “authoritarian!” when someone tries to enforce those laws. That, in a nutshell, is the dynamic between Trump and the Democrat Party today.
To understand the elitist media’s role in all this, start with the epic collapse of journalism. The press still loves calling itself the “Fourth Estate,” bravely speaking truth to power. That may have been true once, back when reporters described reality instead of trying to socially engineer it. But over time, journalism mutated, first through ideologically uniform J-schools, then through newsroom monocultures, into something far more partisan.
Post-Watergate hero fantasies turned reporters into crusaders. Conservative viewpoints disappeared. Elitists replaced objectivity with “moral clarity” — their euphemism for political activism.
This has led to the death of journalism. The vapors emanating from its stinking corpse have made it nearly impossible for so-called “reporters” to understand basic constitutional law. So let’s clarify.
The First Amendment protects a broad range of speech, but not all speech. Speech in service of a crime? Not protected. Offer a bribe and try claiming “free speech.” See how that goes. Defamation? Also not protected. And when you take a government handout, whether as a defense contractor or a publicly funded media broadcaster, you accept the regulatory conditions that come with it.
NPR and PBS assumed otherwise. They took billions from taxpayers while repeatedly violating the law that required them to “ensure strict adherence to objectivity and balance.” They assumed the norm, that they’d always get our money through Congressional earmarks, even while breaking the law.
Trump did what no other president has ever done: he broke that norm and enforced the law. His Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Brendan Carr, has done something similar with broadcasters. That’s not censorship. That’s accountability.
The same principle applies to universities. For years, the norm was that campuses would tolerate and even encourage criminal behavior under the guise of “social activism.” Blocking highways, occupying buildings, vandalizing property, and assaulting students was perfectly fine, as long as the rioters chanted the right slogans. But the First Amendment doesn’t magically convert crime into protected speech. Trump ended that law-breaking norm, too.
None of this alone makes Trump the “greatest defender of free speech.” His words and his deeds earn him that gold model.
Just before taking the oath of office for the second time, Trump laid down the truth long forgotten by the left: “If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country. … If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple, just like dominoes.” 
Trump’s actions followed suit. He and his administration have eviscerated the sprawling censorship apparatus built by President Joe Biden.
MRC Free Speech America has shown how the Biden administration operated the <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/biden-censorship-initiatives-tracker">most expansive government-driven censorship system in U.S. history</a>. Not metaphorically. Literally.
A few &#8220;lowlights” from the Biden censorship regime include: federal agencies pressuring social media platforms to suppress lawful political speech; agencies partnering with private entities to provide “plausible deniability” while carrying out government censorship goals, and government “switchboards” funneling thousands of takedown demands, creating lists of posts to hide, throttle, or erase.
Biden’s objective wasn’t about fighting “misinformation,” as he has claimed. It was about controlling and shaping narratives before an election. This was speech policing.
This was government censorship.
This was illegal.
Trump tore it apart.
Through executive orders, personnel changes, and directives barring government censorship, Trump dismantled Biden’s censorship machine. Platforms can no longer hide behind federal pressure, and bureaucrats can no longer run secret speech-surveillance pipelines.
That is what defending the First Amendment looks like. Not symbolic gestures. Not pretty rhetoric. Real action. Real results. Restoring the foundational principle that in America, the government does not decide which opinions are allowed.
No other president has done more to defend the First Amendment. Trump truly has made free speech great again.
* * *
Dan Schneider is Vice President for Free Speech at the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
* * *
<h4>Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.</h4>

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP

By Dismantling Biden’s Censorship Machine, Trump Made Free Speech Great Again

First Amendment

Journalism

Media Research Center

President Trump

Social Media Bias

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

Parents rights

Propaganda

Silicon Valley

Social Media

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

Apple

European Union

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

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

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.

Menu