Members of the European Parliament, a Christian legal agency, and other experts convened to discuss the dangers of the Digital Services Act (DSA), a European Union law nicknamed by some as the “Digital Surveillance Act.”
Co-hosted by ADF International and European Parliament members Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, the “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression” conference was held May 21 in Brussels, Belgium, after the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor voiced concern about the law’s effect on free speech.
The DSA took effect in February 2024. The law mandates that search engines and large online platforms regulate content and remove “illegal content” such as “disinformation.”
However, the experts who spoke at the conference, which is the first of its kind, warn that the law provides an avenue for the government to censor messages authorities do not subscribe to, such as Christian beliefs founded on the Bible, according to an ADF International press release.
Joron, a French citizen, discussed the act in the context of political control.
“What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act,” Joron said. “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.”
She warned that the DSA “risks becoming a Trojan horse for surveillance and control.”
Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, discussed the story of Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish member of Parliament who was criminally prosecuted for a post on X that expressed her belief in Biblical sexuality. Räsänen’s case, which is currently pending before the Finnish Supreme Court, was discussed as an example of what could happen under the law.
“Now, under the DSA,” Coleman said, “deeply problematic national laws restricting speech—like the ‘hate speech’ legislation used to prosecute Päivi—could be broadly applied across the EU by this simple principle: If it’s considered illegal in one place, it could be in every place.”
Coleman referred to 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 and the jurisprudence of the ECHR, any limitations to free speech must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society,” Coleman said. “And so, serious questions can and should be raised about whether the DSA is compatible with these binding obligations to protect freedom of expression. It is my strong view, as you may have guessed from this speech, that it is not.”
Coleman suggested that the EU member states challenge the law in court in light of the EU Charter, and that concerns and questions on the “censorial impact” of the DSA be addressed during the upcoming DSA review, which must occur by mid-November 2025.
“The same question, of considering whether the DSA is compatible with binding obligations to protect free speech,” Coleman said, “is key for the upcoming DSA review, in which the Commission must evaluate the act in view of other legal commitments.”
Coleman also encouraged European Parliament members to include voices “representatives of civil society, tech companies and digital rights groups” in the process and raise public awareness of the law’s risks.
