Alliance Defending Freedom International co-hosted the first cross-party European Parliament conference specifically examining threats to freedom of expression posed by the Digital Services Act on May 21, 2025. The legal advocacy organization brought together MEPs, staffers, think-tankers, and journalists from across the political spectrum to address mounting concerns over Europe’s comprehensive digital regulation.
The conference, entitled “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression,” was co-hosted by Members of the European Parliament Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron alongside Alliance Defending Freedom. The event followed expressions of concern from the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour about the censorial impact of the DSA.
‘Lowest Common Denominator’ Censorship Mechanism Identified
Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International and an international human rights lawyer specializing in free speech, delivered pointed warnings about the DSA’s structural design. “Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago,” Coleman told the conference. “The internet is the frontline of this assault on free speech in Europe, particularly through the Digital Services Act.”
Coleman highlighted a particularly concerning mechanism within the regulation that Alliance Defending Freedom views as fundamentally flawed. The DSA defines “illegal content” as anything non-compliant with either EU law or the national law of any member state, creating what the constitutional law experts describe as a dangerous precedent. “If it’s considered illegal in one place, it could be in every place,” Coleman explained, outlining how this framework could enable the most restrictive speech laws of any single EU member state to be enforced across all 27 nations.
The religious freedom advocates pointed to the ongoing prosecution of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen as a concrete illustration of these concerns. Coleman described her case as a “harrowing example of what censorship under the DSA could look like in practice.” He noted that “Six years ago, Päivi posted a picture of a Bible verse and expressed her Christian views on sexuality on X. She was criminally prosecuted for alleged ‘hate speech’ and has been unanimously acquitted in two trials. But the state prosecutor has appealed the case again. And shockingly, her case—in which she faces trial for posting online—is now pending before Finland’s Supreme Court.”
Legal Framework Challenges International Human Rights Standards
Coleman expressed serious doubts about the DSA’s compatibility with established human rights protections. When addressing whether the DSA aligns with “binding obligations to protect freedom of expression,” he stated from his position of legal expertise that it was his “strong view” that “it is not.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom executive cited multiple international instruments that guarantee freedom of expression: “Article 11 of the EU Charter, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” According to these frameworks and European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, “any limitations to free speech must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.”
MEP Virginie Joron warned that although the DSA was intended to create a “safe online environment,” it has “morphed into a tool that risks undermining our fundamental freedoms.” She characterized the regulation’s evolution in stark terms: “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act. The European Commission, alongside some parliamentarians, has seized upon the DSA as a political tool to control speech, particularly targeting platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram.”
Strategic Opposition and Upcoming Review Process
Coleman outlined concrete legal avenues for challenging the DSA. He explained that “Member states could initiate an action for annulment before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Through this, the whole or parts of the DSA could be declared inapplicable, if they are deemed to infringe on the EU Charter or Treaties.”
The constitutional law expert emphasized the importance of the upcoming mandatory DSA review, which “must occur by mid-November this year.” Coleman called for comprehensive stakeholder involvement: “It is vital to include representatives of civil society, tech companies, and digital rights groups in such conversations, as they can share their invaluable expertise on this important issue.”
Alliance Defending Freedom’s broader digital rights work includes successful challenges against discriminatory policies and ongoing litigation protecting religious expression online. The organization has documented patterns of concern about systematic bias against faith-based content in digital spaces, viewing the DSA as part of a broader trend toward institutionalized censorship.
MEP Stephen Bartulica highlighted the definitional challenges underlying the DSA’s enforcement mechanism. He warned that “hate speech,” which politicians want to use the DSA to “address,” is “impossible to define” as a legal concept, noting that even “quoting Christian Scripture could even be considered ‘hate speech’ by those in power.”
The conference represents growing international pressure on the DSA, with US officials and lawmakers expressing concern about the regulation’s potential extraterritorial impact on American free speech rights. As the November 2025 review approaches, Alliance Defending Freedom and allied organizations continue building momentum for substantial reforms to protect fundamental freedoms in Europe’s digital landscape.
