Not content with speech regulation on their own continent, EU bureaucrats are using the vaguely-written and heavy-handed Digital Services Act (DSA) as a tool to restrain open discourse across the world. The recent letter from European Union (EU) Commissioner Thierry Breton to Elon Musk warning him about allowing Europeans to view his interview on X with former President Donald Trump is the latest example of a growing global backlash on free speech that demands American attention—and resistance.
While out-of-step with Western traditions that respect freedom of speech, the EU’s censorial behavior is becoming more commonplace everywhere. In India, the government repeatedly orders social media sites to remove posts critical of the government. Turkey recently banned Instagram for refusing to host pro-Hamas content and then arrested a woman who criticized the government about the ban. Even in the UK, historically a bastion of free speech, lawmakers threaten media entities for hosting offensive opinions even if they don’t hold them themselves.
Once the tactic of dictators and demagogues, these governments use the pretext of public safety or social harmony to silence dissent and control narratives. The EU’s actions, cloaked in the language of “responsibility,” are also a part of this pattern.
When governments are allowed to dictate the boundaries of acceptable speech, we surrender our intellectual freedom and allow officials often with little accountability to the general public to decide what opinions are “acceptable” and which are considered a threat to public order and safety. Once speech policing is established, it’s almost impossible to remove.
The EU’s attack on free speech online not only threatens the fundamental rights of their citizens, but they also betray the rich Western philosophical tradition of defending free expression.
John Stuart Mill, in his seminal work “On Liberty,” argued that silencing an opinion is “robbing the human race.” Even if an idea seems false or harmful, Mill contended, hearing it challenged strengthens our grasp of the truth. The EU’s approach, by contrast, revokes the right and responsibility to evaluate what ideas are trustworthy and which are incorrect.
And John Milton’s “Areopagitica,” a foundational text in the history of free speech, argued against government licensing of printing presses. Milton’s assertion that truth will ultimately prevail in a “free and open encounter” is as relevant today in our digital age as it was in the 17th century.
The American constitutional tradition was deeply influenced by these European thinkers, and so the founders enshrined free speech protections in the First Amendment. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s concept of the “marketplace of ideas” in his 1919 dissent has become a cornerstone of free speech jurisprudence. The EU’s actions threaten, and maybe even aim, to distort this marketplace globally.
By attempting to rigidly control online discourse, the EU is rejecting centuries of Western philosophy that form the basis of our understanding of human rights around the world. From the Athenian agora to the printing press and the internet, our civilization has thrived on the open exchange of ideas. The DSA and Breton’s letter demonstrate how far some societies have regressed from these hard-won freedoms.
The EU’s defenders might argue this is about combating genuine harms. And to be sure, many examples of so-called “hate speech” that have been used to justify the regulation of free speech represent intolerant and extreme ideas. But as time continues, it’s clear that such codes are increasingly being used to penalize everyday citizens.
In the UK in 2022, a man was arrested for sharing a distasteful meme suggesting the LGBT movement is a fascist movement. Upon his arrest, the man was told by police, “Someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post. This is why you have been arrested.” In the same year in Germany, a man had his home searched by police, and his laptop and tablet confiscated, for sharing a post on social media that incorrectly attributed a quote to a politician that suggested they were weak on immigration policy.
History shows us that the road to censorship is often paved with good intentions. But today’s “harmful content” may be tomorrow’s vital truth.
The EU’s actions represent a clear and present danger to free speech online. It’s imperative that America use our leadership position to push back against this overreach, not just for the sake of Europeans, but for internet users worldwide. Our leaders must champion a vision of the internet as a true channel for communication, connection and creation, where the free exchange of ideas isn’t stifled by the heavy hand of government intervention.
Although the EU is abandoning the very principles that made Europe a beacon of enlightenment and progress, it’s America’s duty to remind Brussels of Europe’s heritage and resist this betrayal of our shared values.