Free Speech Dispatch covers censorship trends and challenges around the world. If you want to know where free expression is under attack and why it matters, subscribe now to get each edition delivered to your inbox.
With each edition of the Free Speech Dispatch, I usually look outward from the United States to discuss how free speech is faring abroad, and whether those developments overseas mirror any in the United States, or could even limit whether and how Americans can speak. And I’ll cover plenty of those reports today. But in the leadoff story, I’ll ask a different question: How does a policy in the United States ultimately influence what is said and read outside of American borders? It’s an increasingly pressing issue as U.S. policies around visas, the border, and speech rapidly evolve — and this one may ultimately influence what news people abroad and even in the United States see online.
United States to vet foreign journalists’ social media posts
The list of visa applicants who will be required to make their social media accounts public and provide their handles to U.S. officials is set to grow yet again. International students and a number of other classifications of visa applicants have, for months, faced new requirements for social media vetting, and now foreign media representatives — and their dependents — are joining them. A memo on the change reportedly states the U.S. “remains vigilant throughout the visa issuance process to confirm that applicants do not intend to cause harm to Americans or threaten U.S. interests.”
While the U.S. government possesses broad powers to control who is granted entry to the country, it’s no mystery how applicants will likely read this latest change: as a directive to watch what they say on social media if they want a chance to visit or work here. After all, just this month, the Department of State boasted that it revoked a massive number of visas, including some for speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Multiple people who said things that were not particularly nice — but nevertheless legal — about Charlie Kirk’s assassination were among those whose visas were revoked.
Ultimately, this means that foreign journalists hoping to obtain entry to the U.S. may now understandably think it prudent to avoid sharing potentially negative information or reporting about the United States online lest officials deny them entry for harming “U.S. interests.” And that could chill not just what journalists report on and share on social media or elsewhere, but also what their followers in the U.S. and abroad can read about and learn.
France’s under-15 ban stalls
President Emmanuel Macron was proud to push forward with the first teen social media ban in the European Union, but France’s landmark legislation has hit a judicial wall. In a decision last week, France’s Constitutional Council ruled that the bill was overbroad and threatened free expression. “The Council holds that the contested provisions, on the one hand, disproportionately infringe upon the freedom of expression and communication and, on the other, fail to provide the legal safeguards necessary to ensure the right to respect for private life,” the court said. Macron must go back to the drawing board now, but is undeterred and plans to have his government rewrite the legislation and for those revisions to effect before next spring.
The latest in hate speech law
Chris Minns, the New South Wales premier, announced this month that his government will not act on recommendations from a report it commissioned pushing for expanded hate speech laws. The report advocated broadening the Crimes Amendment (Inciting Racial Hatred) Bill 2025, which passed last year, to include characteristics like sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, and religion in the law against inciting hatred based on race. Attorney-General Michael Daley explained that the “government’s view is that expanding the racial hatred offence to cover other attributes raises complex questions about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the consistent application of the criminal law across the community.”
And in Germany, an appeals court acquitted a woman who was initially convicted and fined under the country’s laws against “unconstitutional symbols.” She had posted an Instagram story highlighting what she believed were similarities between actions taken by the Israeli government and the Nazi government, along with a flag that showed half the Israeli flag, half the Nazi swastika. She also shared an image of a Star of David with a swastika inside it and the hashtags #FREEPALESTINE and #GAZAUNDERATTACK.
The court found that her use of those symbols did not violate the law because she did so to “express sharp criticism of the methods of the State of Israel while being accompanied by a clear distancing from, or condemnation of, Nazi wrongdoing.”
UK regulators and media clash
The United Kingdom’s media regulator Ofcom is at odds with two media outlets over comments aired on their shows. Regulators are investigating after thousands of complaints came in over a July segment on GB News, during which conservative activist and guest Caroline Farrow criticized Pride. Farrow said there are “some very bizarre and unhealthy kinks and quirks, you know, like furries and bestiality and even minor-attracted, they call themselves minor-attracted people, you know, paedophiles.” Ofcom is investigating whether the material violated its broadcasting standards on offensive material.
Ofcom also censured the BBC for a satirical radio show, Strong Message Here, that took place last October. In it, comedian Stewart Lee criticized former head of the Oxford Union James Price for comments he made about potentially withdrawn donations to the Union after its president-elect made comments celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death. Price complained to Ofcom, arguing that “the failure to offer any right of reply cannot be justified on the grounds that this was a comedy programme.” Artistic freedom advocate Rosie Kay criticized the decision, saying that “If broadcasters have to worry that anyone they ridicule might demand a response, comedy will inevitably become more cautious.”
There’s even more UK media news: Figures across the political spectrum have criticized the use of surveillance and investigators to spy on a journalist reporting on political funding. Businessman Arron Banks reportedly hired a firm to investigate The Sunday Times editor Gabriel Pogrund after his team looked into convicted fraudster George Cottrell’s contributions to Reform’s Nigel Farage. Pogrund faced a similar incident in 2023 when he investigated the funding of a think tank associated with the Labour Party.
Brazilian influencer sentenced for ‘social racism’
Bianca Barreto, a social media influencer in Brazil, was fined $3,900 and sentenced to two years of court supervision after using male pronouns to discuss Duda Salabert, a trans lawmaker in Brazil. “A man is a man, a woman is a woman,” Barreto said in a video she’d posted discussing Salabert’s dispute with another politician.
In 2019, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court ruled that homophobia and transphobia would fall under the country’s anti-racism law. Judge Eduarda de Lima Vidal, when convicting Barreto, said that her comments about Salabert could not be considered protected free expression. Barreto’s lawyers plan to appeal.
Political censorship across Asia and beyond
Authorities in Singapore banned the members of British band Massive Attack from re-entering the country after they unfurled a Palestinian flag and shouted “Free Palestine” on stage. “The police take a serious view of acts which could potentially harm the racial and religious harmony in Singapore and urge the public, including foreigners, to refrain from importing foreign politics as this can undermine our social cohesion and the rule of law,” authorities said in a statement. Singapore bans the display of foreign flags and exercises strict control over public speech and assembly.
Advocacy group Human Rights in China was sanctioned by the Chinese government this month, part of a series of retaliatory measures over U.S. measures against forced labor. “While we were surprised to find HRIC included alongside organizations we were previously unfamiliar with, we regard this designation as a badge of honor,” HRIC said in a statement. “It demonstrates that our work has had an impact and that the Chinese government recognizes the importance of independent human rights advocacy.” Check out FIRE’s 2024 video with HRIC’s Executive Director Zhou Fengsuo, whose involvement in student protests at Tiananmen Square put him on China’s most wanted list.
The Nepalese government forced the cancellation of an International Association for Tibetan Studies conference. Organizers suspect diplomatic pressure from the Chinese government, which maintains close ties with Nepal — and which has been ramping up its censorship of pro-Tibetan advocacy.
Indonesian police are investigating blasphemy law violations after a viral video showed a person at an alcohol brand’s booth encouraging another musical festival attendee to recite part of the Quran from memory for a free drink.
Journalists, activists, and social media users in India are objecting to large-scale take-downs on Instagram, many of which center on posts about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the burgeoning Cockroach Janta Party.
X says it is complying with, but will challenge, a court order that it block Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu’s presidential campaign account in Turkey on national security grounds. Imamoglu, who was arrested last year, is the primary political rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Iran’s parliament rubber-stamped a bill this week that would, among other things, criminalize interviews with media deemed hostile to Iran. Working with “hostile” outlets could be punished with up to two years in prison. The bill now goes to the Guardian Council for its approval.
Sudanese authorities are using cybercrime legislation to target at least 15 media professionals and two outlets over their investigation of corruption in the government’s interior ministry. As I explained last week, the threat of cybercrime laws is growing fast.
Pope Francis’ memoir censored in Russia
Russia’s “gay propaganda law,” and further restrictions on speech deemed pro-LGBT, have apparently struck again. The Russian publisher of the late Pope Francis’ memoir, Hope: The Autobiography, reportedly blacked out portions of the book that dealt with LGBT members of the Catholic Church. Censored passages include those arguing that homosexuality is not a crime and that LGBT people are welcome in the Church and can be baptized.
Can “meme police” not be funded by my taxes?
I would be surprised if the First Amendment applied to foreigners applying for a visa. So if some European journalist spouted vile prose about Charlie Kirk's assassination, the US government should be entitled to refuse or revoke a US visum to this person.