In an era where truth is increasingly subordinated to comfort, my colleague and a close friend, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (an intrepid Austrian counter-jihad activist and human rights and free speech advocate), stands as a beacon of unyielding courage.
Sabaditsch-Wolff has endured personal persecution for daring to voice historical facts that challenge prevailing sensitivities. Her October 2025 speech in Dallas, Texas, delivered amid global tensions over censorship and cultural shifts, serves as a stark warning: Free speech is not merely a right, but the cornerstone of liberty, and its erosion threatens Western democracies. Drawing from her own trial and the broader patterns of suppression across Europe and beyond, her message resonates profoundly in 2025 — a year marked by political upheavals, including the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.
Sabaditsch-Wolff’s journey began in the heart of Europe, a continent once synonymous with Enlightenment ideals. In 2009, during seminars on Islam’s influence in Europe, she referenced Islamic sources detailing Muhammad’s marriage to a six-year-old girl (Aisha), consummated at nine, and posed a rhetorical question about its implications. This was no inflammatory rant, but a factual discourse rooted in historical texts. Yet a journalist secretly recorded her, leading to charges of “denigration of religious doctrines” under Austrian law. Convicted despite appeals reaching the European Court of Human Rights, she faced a chilling verdict: Her speech must be “balanced” against the right of others not to be offended. As she recounts, truth became irrelevant; tone and potential disturbance to “religious peace” took precedence.
This case, as analyzed by author Douglas Murray, established dangerous precedents. First, it nullified truth as a defense in speech-related prosecutions. Second, it empowered courts to police not just content, but delivery, prioritizing politeness over substance. Third, it granted veto power to those claiming offense, echoing what Murray terms the “mobster’s trick”: intimidation veiled as sensitivity. Strikingly, there were no direct complainants; the offense was manufactured. Sabaditsch-Wolff’s conviction has rippled internationally, influencing cases like that of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, prosecuted for quoting the Bible. In Europe, even sacred texts are now being put on trial if they risk causing offense or discomfort.
This personal ordeal illuminates a widening pattern of censorship across the continent. In Germany, laws initially targeting Nazi propaganda have ballooned into broad “hate speech” restrictions, criminalizing vast swaths of political and religious opinion. A 2022 60 Minutes segment even lauded these measures as a model for America, ignoring their chilling effect on discourse. France’s prosecution of Marine Le Pen for sharing ISIS atrocity images exemplifies this: Exposing terrorism was deemed “incitement to hatred,” valuing public comfort over awareness. In the U.K., “Non-Crime Hate Incidents” allow police to log offenses where no law is broken, creating Orwellian records that haunt individuals’ lives — over 12,000 since 2014, with thousands arrested annually for online speech.
Sabaditsch-Wolff ties these trends to a selective erosion of neutrality. Berlin’s recent amendment to the Neutrality Act, permitting Muslim headscarves for teachers while historically banning Christian symbols like small crosses, mirrors the “religious peace” rationale used against her. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party decries this as a “death blow to state neutrality,” arguing that it privileges one faith over others.
Across Europe, institutions have internalized censorship, creating an “autonomous censorship machine” post-pandemic, where silencing dissent justifies bureaucratic existence. As one German analyst notes, free speech cannot be halved into acceptable and unacceptable; once offense equates to crime, freedom vanishes.
At the supranational level, Brussels institutionalizes this threat through the Digital Services Act (DSA), empowering bureaucrats to purge “harmful” content online. Big Tech, acting as state proxies, deplatforms dissenters, extending Europe’s grip to global users. U.S. secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned of potential sanctions against the E.U. for using the DSA to silence Americans, highlighting the transatlantic stakes. Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko critiques this as liberalism’s totalitarian turn, redistributing freedom the way communism once redistributed wealth — protecting some entities while demonizing others. Austrian commentator Bernhard Heinzelmaier describes it as “postmodern totalitarianism”: not tanks, but conformity, enforced by media cartels and digital oversight.
Austria, her homeland, exemplifies the endpoint. Post-2024 elections, the coalition government grapples with economic woes — inflation, unemployment, and bottom-tier E.U. rankings — while the Freedom Party surges despite smears as “far-right.” Elites focus not on root causes like migration policies, but on barring such parties from power. Sharia arbitration rulings upheld in civil courts, sharia-compliant banking, and unchecked Islamist offenses (up 41.5% last year) signal cultural surrender. Vienna’s schools, now over 40% Muslim, reflect a decade of unchecked migration since 2015’s “Mama Merkel” wave, fostering parallel societies where non-conforming girls face harassment. Honest critique risks prosecution, turning open borders into closed mouths.
Patriotism, Sabaditsch-Wolff argues, is the antidote — a “mystical bond of memory” fostering gratitude, not irrationality. Yet in Europe, it’s vilified as extremism. Britain’s labeling of flag-waving protesters as “Nazis” during Tommy Robinson’s rallies illustrates this: patriotism redefined as hate. Austrian-Jewish writer Stefan Zweig’s exile amid Europe’s pre-WWII collapse warns of civilizations losing defensive will, a “mental recession” where feelings trump facts.
The speech poignantly honors Charlie Kirk, assassinated in 2025, as a voice of courage. Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, inspired youth with knowledge spanning history and theology, emphasizing that compliance, not cowardice, opposes bravery. His death — a message to silence dissent — prompts reflection on America’s crossroads. The Trump administration’s response, with Attorney General Pam Bondi blaming “hate speech” and threatening prosecutions, betrays free speech principles. Sabaditsch-Wolff urges rejection of this European import: “Hate speech is free speech,” as Kirk affirmed. America’s First Amendment must remain sacrosanct, lest it hollow out like Europe’s protections.
Trump’s 2024 return inspired European populists — Orbán, Le Pen, Wilders — gathering under “Make Europe Great Again.” Yet elites weaponize “Trumpian” as a slur to stifle debate on migration and speech. Vice President J.D. Vance warned at Munich: Europe’s gravest threat is retreating from core values. If America imports censorship, the free world falters.
In her call to action, Sabaditsch-Wolff echoes Belgian professor Mattias Desmet: Silence offers no safety. Resist hysteria, defend universal speech rights, foster dialogue. German commentator Eugyppius critiques “democracy” as a hollowed civic religion, where dissent is heresy. True democracy demands disagreement without punishment.
Sabaditsch-Wolff’s story is a clarion call: Free speech is a duty, not a gift. Surrender it, and soft totalitarianism — polite, digital, bureaucratic — prevails. Her fine, as Murray noted, was no trifle, but a dam-breaking precedent.
In 2025, amid Kirk’s loss and global shifts, we face a choice: Defend truth or capitulate. Liberty belongs to fighters; may we never give up, never give in.
Image: Pezibear via Pixabay, Pixabay License.