Not too long ago, most people agreed that censorship was harmful to society. Everyone has the right to express what they believe, and in the United States, this right is firmly protected by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, we are facing unprecedented efforts by both public and private actors to censor individuals in the U.S. and in other countries. Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that many young Americans are buying into the false idea that free speech is somehow harmful.
According to a 2025 poll from Pew Research Center, 62 percent of Americans described freedom of speech as “very important.” While that is a majority, that’s actually a stark drop from 2019, when 77 percent of Americans described free speech as very important.
Contrary to what is being taught in many college classrooms and in much of the establishment media, allowing everyone to freely express their beliefs is a hallmark of any free society. Censorship threatens freedom at its very core, and we must understand the danger so that we can stand against it.
What is censorship?
Encyclopedia Britannica defines censorship as “the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good.” While censorship is often associated with government officials, private actors can also endanger freedom by engaging in censorship.
People in positions of power can often censor those they hold power over—in government, media, financial institutions, and more. Alliance Defending Freedom is committed to opposing unlawful censorship in its various forms.
Why is censorship bad?
The freedom of speech is an important foundation of any free society. As human beings created by God, all people possess the right to speak freely, and censorship infringes on that right.
While it is correct to say that not all ideas are true and beneficial, the way to respond to bad or false ideas isn’t to prevent them from being shared. Rather, the solution is more speech. In a society governed by free speech, bad ideas can be countered with positive and truthful ones. Robust debate is essential to determining which ideas are true and good, and when more people speak up for the truth, false and worthless statements are recognized for what they are.
By contrast, a society stifled by censorship can endanger true and virtuous ideas. If government officials have the power to censor people, then they are the ones who get to decide which ideas may be expressed.
Government officials are humans, too, and that means they can also have bad or harmful ideas. In a society without free speech, these officials have unchecked power to implement harmful ideas and censor anyone who questions them.
Government censorship
One common form of censorship comes at the hands of the government. Government censorship occurs when agencies or officials silence speech or punish people for speaking their beliefs.
These twin forms of government censorship are unfortunately common, but ADF has been active in combating both.
Government officials can’t silence speech they don’t like
Because the First Amendment explicitly protects the freedom of speech, government officials in America cannot silence speech simply because they disagree with it. But that is exactly what government officials have attempted time and again. One recent example is the Chiles v. Salazar case.
Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor in the state of Colorado, and she works to help her clients achieve the goals they’ve set for themselves. Some clients who come to Kaley for help struggle with discomfort with their sex—the bodies they were born with. But in 2019, Colorado enacted a law banning counselors like Kaley from having certain conversations with her younger clients about this topic.
The law allows counselors to push children and adolescents toward a “gender transition.” But it forbids counselors from saying anything that would encourage clients to “change” their gender identity–even if that is what the client wants. And while the law allows counselors to provide “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding,” it prohibits such speech to help a client regain comfort with their sex.
Kaley always lets her clients determine their own goals and aligns her counseling with the clients’ choices. But under Colorado’s law, even if clients express a desire to become more comfortable with their God-given sex, Kaley is prohibited from talking with them to help them accomplish those goals.
ADF is defending Kaley against this illegal censorship because counselors should not be forced to impose the government’s ideology on their clients. In October 2025, ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell presented oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many other Americans have faced similar types of censorship. ADF has defended—and continues to defend—clients all across society, such as grad student Maggie DeJong, volunteer fire chaplain Dr. Andrew Fox, music teacher John Kluge, Christian satire website The Babylon Bee, and many more, as different government entities have tried to silence or punish them.
The government can’t punish Americans for expressing their beliefs
Sometimes, government officials not only silence Americans before they speak but also punish them after they speak.
This was the case when officials at the University of Louisville targeted a psychiatrist. Dr. Allan Josephson is a beloved and respected psychiatrist who was ultimately demoted, harassed, and fired by the school for speaking out on the harms of “transitioning” children. He was originally hired by the school to head up the then-struggling Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology.
Dr. Josephson swiftly received high praise from the university and the outside psychiatric associations for his work to turn around the program and raise its national reputation. In fact, Dr. Josephson was sought out for advice on how to improve and lead other divisions.
But when Josephson, during a Heritage Foundation panel discussion, spoke in his personal capacity against subjecting children to harmful drugs and surgery in radical, misguided attempts to treat gender dysphoria, university officials—responding to demands from activists at the university’s LGBT Center—demoted him and stripped him of his teaching duties.
University officials then conspired to get him fired. These efforts included keeping an “Allan tracking document,” soliciting complaints from alumni who were coached on what to say, and discussing the need to generate “strong documentation” to avoid his reappointment. In February 2019, the university announced that it would not renew his contract, terminating his employment at the university after nearly 15 years of distinguished service.
Represented by ADF, Dr. Josephson was able to take his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. After a favorable ruling, University of Louisville officials eventually agreed to pay almost $1.6 million in damages and attorneys’ fees to settle the lawsuit, Josephson v. Ganzel.
Private censorship
In addition to censorship by government officials, censorship by private actors is also on the rise. The First Amendment binds the government. But the practical truth is that Americans increasingly rely on privately controlled means, technologies, or spaces to actually exercise their right to speak. It is a grave threat to freedom for banks, employers, or other private actors to engage in censorship. While private censorship rarely violates the First Amendment, it often violates other laws.
De-banking
De-banking happens when a bank cancels the account of a person or an organization for their political or religious beliefs. This practice would have sounded far-fetched just a few years ago, but now it is happening at some of the largest banks in America.
In April 2023, Bank of America canceled the accounts of Memphis-based Christian charity Indigenous Advance and a local church that supports it financially. The bank sent letters stating that the ministry and church were “operating in a business type we have chosen not to service” and that the ministry’s account “no longer aligns with the bank’s risk tolerance.”
In operation since 2015, Indigenous Advance partners with Ugandan ministries to provide basic necessities for orphaned and vulnerable children, raise Christian families, and provide vital vocational-skills training and mentorship to college students and young adults. This is just one of the many recent examples of de-banking.
Thankfully, ADF has already seen positive developments from our advocacy against de-banking. Since we launched the annual Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index in 2022, JPMorgan Chase has changed a policy that posed a serious risk of viewpoint-based de-banking decisions.
By 2025, the Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index had become the premier benchmark for measuring corporate respect for free speech and religious liberty. In 2024 alone, this benchmark helped drive 22 policy and behavioral changes at America’s top corporations.
Leveraging the Index, ADF has worked alongside values-aligned investors to file 74 shareholder proposals at major companies in 2025, far surpassing 2024’s total of 28.
While JPMorgan Chase and other major corporations still have a long way to go to fully respect the First Amendment, these sorts of important policy changes are a step in the right direction. ADF continues to work with shareholders, attorneys general, and state financial officers to ensure that companies respect the free speech and religious freedom of all their customers. We are also working with state legislators to pass legislation that will require the country’s largest banks and payment processors to be transparent and provide equal access to consumers, no matter their political or religious beliefs.
Where is censorship happening?
Censorship can occur nearly anywhere. But there are a few arenas in which censorship has become all too common.
Schools
Censorship in schools is a major concern today.
- At a Massachusetts middle school, administrators told student Liam Morrison that he could not wear a shirt that said, “There are only two genders.”
- At the University of Idaho, three students and a professor were issued no-contact orders because they responded honestly to a question about their faith.
- And during the COVID-19 pandemic, at an elementary school in Mississippi, district officials told a third-grader that she could not wear a “Jesus Loves Me” mask.
In addition to students, teachers and professors are also being targeted.
- In Oregon, the InterMountain Education Service District targeted a licensed clinical social worker, Rod Theis, for decorating his office with books that the board disagreed with, including children’s books like He is He and She is She. ADF has filed a lawsuit to defend Rod’s First Amendment rights.
- In Georgia, Bryan County Schools fired longtime substitute teacher Lindsey Barr because she expressed concern about a book that depicted same-sex couples parenting and expecting children being taught to her daughter. ADF challenged the school district in court and got Lindsey her job back. The district also paid $181,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees.
- Former University of North Texas professor Dr. Nathaniel Hiers also faced censorship from school officials. After Dr. Hiers made a joke about a flyer that warned of the so-called dangers of “microaggressions,” which included examples like “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” the school terminated his employment. ADF represented Dr. Hiers in court, and the university ultimately paid $165,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees for violating the professor’s freedom of speech.
Pro-life pregnancy centers
Sometimes, censorship from government officials doesn’t mean completely silencing someone. Instead, it could mean forcing someone to alter their message or include some sort of disclaimer as a condition of speaking. That is exactly what has happened to pro-life pregnancy centers.
- A California state law required pro-life pregnancy centers to post notices directing women to government offices for free or low-cost abortions and to advertise when they were not medically licensed—even if they only offered free resources like pregnancy tests and counseling. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA ) successfully challenged the mandate. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in their favor in 2018, and California was prevented from enforcing the law.
- A vaguely written Vermont state law restricted pregnancy centers’ advertising and limited their ability to offer services or counseling unless provided by licensed health-care professionals. ADF again sued on behalf of NIFLA and local centers, and Vermont later amended the statute to remove provisions that had targeted pro-life ministries.
International Censorship
While the examples mentioned above have occurred in the U.S., censorship is prevalent worldwide. One of the most egregious cases of censorship that ADF International has supported is occurring in Finland.
Finnish Parliamentarian Dr. Päivi Räsänen was accused of “hate speech” because she questioned her church’s stance on sexuality in a Twitter post. Both a district court and the Helsinki Court of Appeal unanimously acquitted Dr. Räsänen of all charges. Unfortunately, the Finnish prosecutor still refuses to respect free speech. The decision has been appealed to the Finnish Supreme Court, which heard her case in October 2025.
Päivi’s plight is just one of many cases involving European censorship laws, which cross borders into the U.S. through the EU’s “Digital Services Act.” The DSA is an online “content moderation” regime that gives the EU the authority to force online platforms to remove lawful content deemed “hate speech” or “disinformation.” This is a mechanism for silencing views that authorities disfavor. It strongarms internet platforms, including U.S. tech giants like X (formerly Twitter), Meta, and Google to become enforcement mechanisms of a censorship regime that locks in narrative control for EU Commissioners.
But it’s not just individuals in Europe who are being censored. The DSA has paved the path for the EU to target American companies, as well.
X has launched a high-stakes legal challenge against a $140 million fine from the European Commission under the DSA, calling the penalty an overreach that threatens free expression far beyond Europe’s borders. Filed with the General Court of the European Union, the appeal argues that regulators stretched vague transparency rules and concentrated investigative and enforcement powers in a way that denied basic fairness, as U.K. authorities accused X of various, nebulous “violations.” The case represents more than a corporate dispute—it is a test of whether EU authorities can pressure global platforms into adopting expansive speech controls that inevitably affect American users. Backing the fight is ADF, whose legal team is supporting the platform in this free speech challenge.
On the ground in the U.K., authorities have further stifled free speech through the use of “buffer zones,” or designated areas where speech is limited around abortion facilities. But it’s so much worse than just “limiting” speech.
These “buffer zones” have been used to punish thought—not even speech. U.K. Army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was criminally convicted for silently praying for his son, whom he had lost to abortion years ago, outside of a U.K. abortion facility.
Conclusion
Censorship today is rearing its ugly head worldwide. From American classrooms to the Finnish parliament and nearly everywhere in between, people are being silenced or punished for expressing messages that the government disagrees with.
At ADF, we understand the importance of free speech to any free society. Some think censorship is necessary to silence views that are untrue, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Censorship is never the answer. One of the great benefits of free speech is that when a variety of views are allowed to be expressed, those that are true and noble can naturally rise above the rest.
By challenging unlawful censorship, ADF has helped to achieve resounding victories for free speech. We have successfully defended the rights of Americans to share the Gospel message on their own property, dance to Christian songs in school talent shows, chalk pro-life messages on a public sidewalk, and more. And we will continue to oppose unlawful censorship and defend the right to speak freely.
It is not the job of government officials to censor what others can say or hear. For freedom to thrive, we must not let the government silence ideas it disagrees with but must instead work to ensure all people are free to express what they believe without fear of government punishment.
Related Articles
