Reclaiming Free Speech: Can America’s New Leadership Turn the Tide?

Nearly a decade ago, I wrote in Public Discourse that “Europe has a free speech problem. It should serve as a warning to the United States.” Now, with Europe’s deterioration into a full-blown crisis of censorship, much of the “cautionary tale” I outlined in 2016 has come to pass. But in an exceedingly welcome turn, the U.S. has arrived on the scene with renewed gusto for the role of global free speech champion, bucking the trend toward more censorship. The result: America and Europe are on a free speech collision course, at a magnitude even the boldest of predictions could not have foreseen.

In his landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Vance condemned “the impulse to control speech and regulate thought,” calling it “an Orwellian tendency that threatens the very democracy Europe claims to uphold.” Running through a laundry list of free speech violations, the vice president elevated the stories of human beings whose lives have been upended for nothing more than peaceful expression. The perils of “hate speech” laws and other censorial frameworks have moved from the hypothetical to the very real (more on this in a moment), and Europe’s censorship crisis can no longer be ignored.

The pressing question now is whether America’s renewed commitment to free speech will reach the requisite momentum for Europe to follow suit. The profoundly undesirable alternative is a fundamental fracture between Western countries over the meaning and importance of free speech. 

Recent developments do not offer a positive prognosis for Europe. Take, for example, the United Kingdom, where the criminalization of speech has reached the level of “thought-crime” prosecution. In October, British army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was convicted for silently praying near an abortion facility in the south of England. Vice President Vance held out the case as censorship crisis Exhibit A.

For a three-minute, unspoken prayer on a public street, Adam is a convicted “criminal.” All of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland now have in place abortion facility censorship zone laws similar to the law under which he was prosecuted. His case, on appeal with the backing of ADF International, offers a harrowing glimpse into where censorship, unchecked, can lead. 

Over the past decade, cheered on by the European Union, European governments have gone deeper and wider with regard to restrictions on allowable speech, in particular those policing “hate speech” and “misinformation.” For example, despite existing legislation outlawing a wide array of speech, both Scotland and Ireland sought to push through expansive new “hate speech” laws in the past three years. Scotland’s new law carries a maximum seven-year prison sentence for “stirring up hatred,” while Ireland’s proposed law would have criminalized the mere possession of material “likely” to incite hatred. Faced with growing uproar over their censorial actions, the Irish government dropped the “hate speech” provisions from the bill, but vowed to reintroduce them in the future. Similar expansions of existing “hate speech” laws have taken place across Europe.

Additionally, hastily drafted misinformation and disinformation laws have spread rapidly across the continent, accelerated by Covid-19 and the Ukraine war. For example, in Malta it is now an offence to “maliciously spread false news which is likely to alarm public opinion or disturb public good order or the public peace or to create a commotion among the public or among certain classes of the public.” In support of the law, one publication warned its readers: “Next time you are about to press share or feed the wrong information, read this again.” In France, it is an offence punishable with a fine of up to €45,000 to spread “false news attributed to third parties when made in bad faith, [which] has disturbed the public peace, or has been likely to disturb it.” Many similar provisions have been introduced across Europe in the past decade.

These expansions reflect a dangerous trajectory: vague, ever-broadening definitions of “hate” and “misinformation” place large swaths of speech under potential criminal scrutiny, silencing dissent and eroding fundamental freedoms.

European Speech Restrictionism in the Digital Realm

The digital realm has become ground zero for the crackdowns on free expression. In 2017, Germany enacted the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), mandating that social media platforms with over two million users remove “illegal content” or face fines up to €50 million. The law incentivizes preemptive censorship, and with “insult” and “hate speech” being punishable crimes in Germany, even satire or comedy can be swiftly removed. 

At the European Union level, the European Commission has been working since 2021 to classify “hate speech” as an EU-wide crime, with the goal of “harmonizing” the definition and associated penalties across its member states. This would be a death knell for free expression, positioning the impossible-to-define subjective offense of “hate speech” alongside terrorism, human trafficking, organized crime, and other grave and bona fide criminal offenses.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently synthesized the hypocrisy of Europe’s approach to speech stating, “We have freedom of speech in Europe and Germany, . . . but we don’t accept it if it’s supporting extreme-right positions.” One cannot help but juxtapose this against the support for free speech emanating from the White House. Immediately upon taking office, President Trump signed an executive order rejecting government-led censorship, declaring that “government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

The Trump administration, though still in its early days, has taken decisive steps to cement its free-speech stance. Meanwhile, Europe doubles down on censorship. But the power of American free-speech diplomacy looms large. The fact is that censorship and free speech cannot coexist in the digital sphere. One side must prevail, and there is reason to hope that if America continues to throw its might behind free speech, the next four years will see significant returns.

The Digital Services Act: A Case Study in European Speech-Policing

Among the greatest threats to free expression today is the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). In force since 2024, this sweeping law grants the European Commission unprecedented authority to dictate content moderation on major online platforms and search engines. For failing to censor “illegal content,” platforms face devastating financial penalties—up to 6 percent of their global revenue and potential suspension. Individuals, too, face de-platforming and prosecution, under national laws, for speech that contradicts EU-approved narratives. Egregiously, content could be deemed illegal if it violates the law of any single member state, resulting in the lowest common denominator for censorship across the whole EU. This is extremely problematic given the litany of absurd laws banning peaceful speech that exist throughout Europe.

It is also critical to understand that the DSA is not just a European problem. Because the censorial framework applies to major platforms and search engines with global reach, its impact extends far beyond European borders. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has warned that the DSA “may limit or restrict Americans’ constitutionally protected speech in the United States.” American companies operating in the EU must comply with its censorship dictates—or risk massive fines. And the global nature of digital platforms means that the EU could impose de facto censorship standards across the world if not checked.

If the DSA’s reach sounds theoretical, consider the chilling near-censorship of President Trump. Last summer, ahead of a scheduled interview of Trump on X by Elon Musk, the European Commission issued a warning that the discussion could violate DSA content guidelines leading to its censorship in Europe. Though Musk held his ground, the mere fact that unelected EU bureaucrats attempted to block the interview on the basis of an unfounded expectation of “illegal content” speaks volumes about the power they wield—namely, the power to shut an entire continent out of the conversation simply because they don’t want a particular message to be heard.

For the very survival of free speech online in Europe and beyond, the DSA must be repealed or substantially reformed. Vice President Vance, speaking in Paris, put it plainly: “We want to ensure the Internet is a safe place. But it is one thing to prevent a predator from preying on a child on the Internet, and it is something quite different to prevent a grown man or woman from accessing an opinion that the government thinks is misinformation.” The Trump administration should avail itself of every diplomatic tool at its disposal to end the censorship reign of the DSA.

The next four years will determine whether the U.S. has the requisite pressure points to counteract Europe’s authoritarian speech controls. We Europeans are certainly grateful for any efforts to defend our basic human right to free speech, currently so imperiled. As our elites continue to assure us that censorship is needed to “defend” against our “enemies,” we look to the revival of American free speech diplomacy with great hope.

Image by Jorm Sangsorn and licensed via Adobe Stock.