Mere days ago, the Finnish Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case the results of which will be a harbinger for the future of free speech not only in that country but also in Europe. Whether most Americans realize it, what is at stake in Finland will have implications for our own cherished freedom of speech. The case of Päivi Räsänen will be a turning point in the fight to preserve freedom of thought and expression in the West.
A victory would signal the court still respects the fundamental values that have anchored Western civilization. A defeat would indicate the decline towards state censorship, antipathy to traditional Christianity, and even authoritarianism will continue unabated.
In June 2019, the board of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland announced its official partnership with the LGBT event “Pride 2019.” In response, Räsänen, a longstanding Finnish member of parliament, directed a tweet at her church leadership questioning this decision. After a criminal complaint was filed against Päivi for the tweet, the police went digging into her past and interrogated her for 13 hours over several months.
In April of 2021, the Finnish prosecutor general charged Päivi with three counts of “agitation against a minority group” for publicly voicing her opinion on marriage and human sexuality in a 2004 pamphlet, for comments she made on a 2019 radio show, and for the tweet directed at her church leadership in June 2019. Bishop Juhana Pohjola was also charged for publishing Päivi’s 2004 pamphlet. The crime of “agitation against a minority group” falls under the section of “war crimes and crimes against humanity” in the Finnish criminal code and is a type of “hate speech” legislation.
The prosecution demanded high fines and the censorship of the three instances of Päivi’s publications. Päivi and Bishop Pohjola faced two days of trial at the Helsinki District Court in 2022. In March of 2022, the Helsinki District Court unanimously acquitted Päivi and the bishop. The prosecution then appealed the “not guilty” ruling in April 2022. The Helsinki Court of Appeals heard the free speech case in 2023, unanimously affirming the lower court ruling. The prosecution appealed the ruling in January 2024, and the Supreme Court heard the case last week.
As the case now enters its seventh year, the stakes are higher than ever. The decision will set a historic precedent. A conviction would further darken the horizon for free speech in Europe and send a chilling message far beyond Finland’s borders. But if the court confirms Päivi’s acquittal, it would be a beacon of hope for all who believe in the right to speak their convictions freely—especially on matters of faith and conscience.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by every major human rights treaty. Päivi peacefully expressed her convictions, without foul language or the targeting of any individuals. For this, the state has charged her with “hatred” and is weaponizing the full force of the law to silence her. As with many so-called “hate speech” laws, the vague definition of the term gives rise to the working definition – speech the government hates.
The ability to engage with fellow believers and other citizens and debate the application of sacred Scripture to modern circumstances is essential to living according to one’s faith. The state has no place in that debate, yet the prosecutor at the initial trial grilled Päivi on the interpretation of Scriptures related to marriage and sexuality and Christian theology.
Päivi’s plight is not the only one crucial to those who understand that human flourishing excels under the safeguards of individual liberty. Consider the implications for the proper role of religion in a free and civil society. If the prosecution succeeds in obtaining a criminal conviction against a bishop for publishing a parishioner’s thoughts on the church’s teaching, then the state has seized the ultimate authority to silence the church on a matter of faith simply because it contradicts the current cultural and political orthodoxy.
Across Europe, the Digital Services Act, a European Union law that forces online platforms to censor content at the behest of any EU member country’s government, has created one of the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age under the guise of “safety” and “protecting democracy.” Major American social media platforms like Meta, X, and YouTube risk fines up to 6% of global revenue for failure to censor the speech of their users, including Americans.
It should go without saying that civil discourse among citizens and the free exchange of ideas provide far more trustworthy protection for democracy than any Orwellian attempt by the state to impose its favored viewpoint. But sadly, it must be said again and again in the highest courts of Europe and the United States.
History teaches that often what starts in Europe does not stay there. For this reason, among a host of others, Americans should take note of Räsänen. Her courage and perseverance are exemplary. We stand with her today so that neither we nor our children will ever stand in her place in the future.
Lathan Watts is the vice president of public affairs for Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) and its sister organization ADF Action.