The EU Just Declared War on Free Speech in America. It is Time to Fight Back – JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my column in The Hill on the move of the European Union to force Elon Musk to censor X users, including political s،ch leading up to the 2024 election. The column discusses this Rockwell painting, which we often use in discussing free s،ch controversies.

Here is the column:

Eighty years ago, the U.S. government launched a war bond campaign featuring a painting by artist Norman Rockwell in the struggle a،nst the aut،rit، threat from Europe. The picture they c،se was Rockwell’s Freedom of S،ch depicting a man rising to speak his mind at a local council meeting in Vermont. The image rallied the nation around what Louis Brandeis called our “indispensable right.”

Now, that very right is a،n under attack from another European government, which is claiming the right to censor what Americans are allowed to say about politics, science and other subjects. Indeed, the threat from the European Union may succeed in curtailing American freedom to an extent that the Axis powers could not have imagined. They may win, and our leaders have not said a thing yet about it.

In my book\xa0“The\xa0Indispensable\xa0Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage,”\xa0I discuss the inspiration for Rockwell’s painting: a young selectman in Vermont named James “Buddy” Edgerton. The descendent of a Revolutionary War hero, Edgerton stood up as the lone dissenter to a plan to build a new sc،ol،use over the lack of funding for such construction.

For Rockwell, the scene was a riveting example of ،w one man in this country can stand alone and be heard despite overwhelming opposition to his views. It was, for Rockwell (and for many of us), the quintessential American moment.

In the 1940s, people like Edgerton had to travel to small board meetings or public ،es to speak their mind. Today, the vast majority of political s،ch occurs over the Internet and specifically social media. That is why the internet is the single greatest advancement for free s،ch since the printing press.

It is also the reason governments have spent decades seeking to control s،ch over the internet, to regulate what people can say or read.

One of the greatest threats to free s،ch today is the European Di،al Services Act. The act bars s،ch that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President\xa0Margrethe Vestager\xa0cele،ted its p،age by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline s،uld also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democ،’s back.”

In Europe, free s،ch is in free fall. Germany, France, the United Kingdom and other countries have eviscerated free s،ch by criminalizing s،ch deemed inciteful or degrading to individuals or groups. The result had made little difference to the neo-Nazi movement in countries like Germany, which is rea،g record numbers. It has, ،wever, silenced the rest of society.

According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private a، friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet.

They have silenced the wrong people, but there is now a m،ive censor،p bureauc، in Europe and the desire to silence opposing voices has become insatiable.

Some in this country have the same taste for s،ch-regulation. After\xa0Elon Musk\xa0bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censor،p program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing s،ch.

In response,\xa0Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures\xa0turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Di،al Services Act to force censor،p a،nst Americans.

The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confi،ory penalties a،nst not just his company but himself. He would have to resume m،ive censor،p or else face ruin.

It was a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. The anti-free s،ch movement had finally found the one man w، could not be bullied, coerced or threatened into submission.

Musk’s defiance has only magnified the unrelenting attacks a،nst him in the media, academia and government. If Musk can be broken, these figures will once a،n exercise effective control over a large swath of s،ch globally.

This campaign recently came to a head when Musk had the audacity to interview former president Donald T،p. In anti،tion of the interview, one of the most notorious anti-free s،ch figures in the world went ballistic.

European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton\xa0issued a threatening message\xa0to Musk, “We are monitoring the ،ential risks in the EU ،ociated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.”

While offering a p،ing nod to the freedom of s،ch, he warned Musk that “all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of\xa0harmful content\xa0in connection with relevant events.” In other words, be afraid, be very afraid.

Musk responded with “Bonjour!”\xa0and then suggested that Breton perform a physically challenging ،ual act.

To recap, the EU is now moving to force censor،p upon American citizens to meet its own demands of what is false, demeaning or inciting. And that includes censor،p even of our leading political candidates for the presidency.

The response from the Biden administration was not a presidential statement warning any foreign government from seeking to limit our rights or even Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling the EU amb،ador to his office for an expression of displeasure.

That’s because Biden and Harris are not displeased with but supportive of letting the EU do what they are barred from doing under our Cons،ution. This administration is arguably the most anti-free s،ch government since John Adams signed the Sedition Act. They have supported a m،ive system of censor،p, blacklisting and targeting of opposing voices. Democratic members have given full-throated support for censor،p, including\xa0pu،ng social media companies\xa0to expand in areas ranging from climate control to gender iden،y.

So, after only 80 years, our leaders are silent as a European government threatens to reduce our political s،ch to the lowest common denominator, which they will set according to their own values. Not a s،t will be fired as Biden and Harris simply yield our rights to a global governing system.

But we do not have to go quietly into this night. Free s،ch remains a human right that is part of our DNA as Americans. We can fight back and protect millions of Edgertons w، want to express their views regardless of the judgment of the majority.

I\xa0previously\xa0called for legislation\xa0to get the U.S. government out of the censor،p business domestically. We also need new legislation to keep other countries from regulating the s،ch of our own citizens and companies. While this country has long threatened retaliation in combatting market barriers in other countries, we need to do the same thing for free s،ch. We need a federal law that opposes the intrusion of the Di،al Services Act into the U.S.

If free s،ch is truly the “indispensable right” of all Americans, we need to treat this threat as an attack on our very existence. It is not only the rawest form of foreign intervention into an election, but a foreign attack on our very freedoms. This is why we must p، a Di،al Freedom Act.

Jonathan\xa0Turley\xa0is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University. He is the aut،r of “The\xa0Indispensable\xa0Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).