European Union shows contempt for free speech
By Matthew Gagnon
On Monday, tech mogul Elon Musk hosted a much-anticipated conversation with former President Donald Trump on his social media platform, X. The rollout of the interview was marred by technical glitches and delays (much like what happened with Gov. Ron DeSantis’ ill-fated campaign announcement), but eventually they were able to right the ship and have the discussion as planned.
Getting reliable information about how many people actually watched the conversation is seemingly impossible. Musk boasted that there were more than 1 billion views for the interview, while more likely accurate metrics show that something like 256 million views on the post that contained the interview, and something like 27 million people actually clicking on space to tune in. How many of those people listened for any length of time, and why those people were listening (Superfans? Interested swing voters? Hate-listening? Opposition research?) is anyone’s guess.
The conversation itself was fairly pedestrian and uninteresting, I thought. Musk actually did a decent enough job of giving direction to the conversation, but it was not terribly innovative in the way of topics or issues discussed. If you have heard Trump speak about virtually anything in the last ten years, what you heard from him would not have been either surprising or new.
That said, the actual type of conversation itself, as a method of campaign communication, was fairly interesting and welcome. As Vice President Kamala Harris continues to run a guarded palace campaign that doesn’t really do any broad, unscripted, inquisitive interview-style interactions, a candidate doing a broadly accessible (after the tech glitches) interview that bypassed the traditional media gatekeepers was refreshing and welcome.
At least welcome to me, and many others. It was apparently not all that welcome in Europe.
In the lead up to the event, the European Union’s Digital Commissioner Thierry Breton sent a strongly-worded letter to Musk, essentially warning him that he had better be careful, or else.
In the letter, he demanded that “all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events,” due to the possibility that there will be “detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.”
What kind of “harmful content” are we talking about? Breton goes on to say that there are many “recent examples of public unrest brought about by the amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation,” and apparently he and the European Union have designated themselves the arbiters of what does or does not qualify as “problematic” speech within those categories which he says will result in “orders against content considered illegal.”
“As you know,” he continues, “formal proceedings are already ongoing against X under the DSA, notably in areas linked to the dissemination of illegal content and the effectiveness of the measures taken to combat disinformation.”
The DSA he speaks of is the Digital Services Act, which is a piece of legislation in Europe that purports to “protect” people and keep them “safe” online by regulating digital services, and in particular online platforms like X. In reality, the DSA is an astonishing assault on the fundamental rights of European citizens, and by extension any Americans who have any kind of digital presence in Europe. It is a chilling testament to the European Union’s contempt for free speech, where bureaucrats now decide what is permissible in the digital public square.
Back to Breton who, with the typical self-importance of a bureaucrat seeming to revel in his own authority, goes on to remind Musk that he has the power of the state to back him up, and is not above threatening significant consequences if X doesn’t do as it’s told. “My services and I will be extremely vigilant to any evidence that points to breaches of the DSA,” he says, “and will not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox, including by adopting interim measures, should it be warranted to protect EU citizens from serious harm.”
The implication is obvious: It sure would be a shame if anything happened to that nice social media platform you have there.
This is what you get when you give power, as Europe has, to unelected officials to dictate content, censor opinions, and stifle dissent under the guise of combating “illegal content.” Europe may not have the same respect for free speech that America does, but there are troubling signs that we, too, are losing our interest in protecting speech.
We do so at our own peril. You may not like either Musk or Trump, but holding a public conversation with a candidate for the presidency of the United States should never be something subjected to threats of censorship from a government bureaucrat.
Gagnon of Yarmouth is the chief executive officer of the Maine Policy Institute, a free market policy think tank based in Portland. A Hampden native, he previously served as a senior strategist for the Republican Governors Association in Washington, D.C.